QOTD: Worry about cops now, corps later

[archerships]

patrissimo writes:

If you’re going to hate and fear big power structures, shouldn’t you hate and fear the biggest and most powerful ones the most? Microsoft and Nike just determine what OS and shoes I wear - the BATF, DEA, cops, etc determine whether I live or die, whether or not I’m in jail, whether or not I’m allowed to keep my property…

I’m willing to start worrying about corps instead of cops as soon as the former are the biggest threat.

Comments

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

It's not that simple. The corps control the cops. Try sharing some music...

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree. Which is why it's nonsensical to give the state even more power and money. If you fear corporations when they must persuade you to buy their goods, how much more fearsome must they be when they can force you to buy them.

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

That doesnt' work. If there are no cops, the corps simply hire Pinkertons. With Gatling guns. And did.

No, I hate to say it, but because there are destructive forces in the world, you need agents of your own, and some way to keep them in check. The former is easy enough, the latter has been the political struggle throughout human history.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

If the rich have to hire Pinkertons, they have to pay for all of the cost out of their own pockets. If you have a government, they can leverage their wealth to control a much vaster military than they would be willing to pay for themselves.

I don't see how you're solving the "rich can buy goons" by making the goon squad bigger and more powerful.

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

If the rich have to hire Pinkertons, they have to pay for all of the cost out of their own pockets.

No, thieves are plenty capable of reinvesting the proceeds of their 'business'. In the end they're hiring the Pinkertons with the money of the very people they're using the Pinkertons to steal from. Most emperors and tyrants throughout history have given their military the right of pillage, which works out to the same thing.

I don't see how you're solving the "rich can buy goons" by making the goon squad bigger and more powerful.

You're not. You're solving it by creating other checks and balances besides who can pay the goons the most. If you don't have those, you're pretty much fucked regardless.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

So what are you arguing here? That we should increase regulations? Increase taxes? Leftists argue that increasing government regulation and taxing businesses will curb the power of the corporations.

But if the "corp. control the cops", why should I believe that those taxes and regulations will not serve their ends as well?

[ernunnos.livejournal.com]

Sure we should increase regulations. Or at least reduce powers granted to corporations by government. We could start by reforming limited liability, copyright, and patent laws, for example. And increasing limits on the cops wouldn't be a bad idea either. At some point citizens have to take responsibility for the oversight of their government. A system of government is only successful to the degree it does that.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Sure, I agree with you, assuming that by "reform", you mean eliminate or dramatically reduce in scope limited liability, copyrights, and patents. I'd also support more restrictions on cops.

And I agree wholeheartedly with your statement:

"At some point citizens have to take responsibility for the oversight of their government. A system of government is only successful to the degree it does that."

Sure

[polyanarch.livejournal.com]

There is a problem with both the cops and the corps. But the Cops don't make things any better and serve no usefull purpose. Surely we can rid ourselves of them. The corps, on the other hand, do serve a useful purpose at times and injecting cops into the situation only pollutes the problem and exacerbates the problem.

I agree that we need to get rid of the Cops. I also agree that the Corps should not have any special rights that individuals don't have. Individuals are the best place to focus power, rights and responsibility on. Corps are just groups of individuals who should be looked at individualy with regards to their rights and responsibilities and the liability for initiations of force commited by each and every individual in them.

I think that is the only way we can fix the problem. Not that it is going to be easy, but that not going to the individual level for power and responsibility will never yield a satisfactory solution.

[bigleeh.livejournal.com]

You know, I check under my bed every night and, with one exception, I haven't found anything put there by corporations to control my brain. I've never quite understood why people worry about corporations. Almost all of the arguments that corporations are incarnations of evil apply equally well to wealthy individuals. What most criticism of corporations usually boils down to is a resentment that real economic power is allowed to exist in the private sector where it is largely beyond political control.

I do tend to agree that various intellectual property rights need a bit of tinkering in light of emerging technologies, but I don't see "limiting the power of corporations" as a motivation (or even a likely result) of desirable changes to copyright and patent law. The laws should be adjusted so that they better meet their original intention of motivating persons (individuals and corporations) to create useful works.

As to limiting the power of the police, how about keeping it intact and limiting the number of laws we, as citizens, ask them to enforce.

[windswept.livejournal.com]

Great quote.

[rosefox]

I think you mean patrissimo, not patri.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

D'oh. Thanks. Fixed.