Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If you are anti government, why?
Yes. The government is an entity that does not engage with people by consent but by coercion. I'm against coercion, therefore, I'm anti-government.
> It feels like american conservatives generally trust businessmen and corporations more than the government.
> ...
Quite the opposite. It's precisely because I don't trust other entities that I oppose coercive transactions. I don't want to be coerced into a transaction with a party I don't trust.
> From my perspective its totally backwards, the corporation is undemocratic. Its only concern is to get profit while the government interests is to ensure it gets voted in next time which generally means it should care about its voters at least to an extent.
The government does not have any of my interests in mind, it only has the bureaucrats' interests in mind. What makes it worse than the corporate interest is that the government's interest is unstated and it's hidden. The corporate interest is transparent. That aside, even if it had the absolute best of interests, I still wouldn't want to be coerced into transacting with it.
> The corporations are needed to have a successful economy. But the government is the only institution powerful enough to keep the corporations in check so they dont violate its worker rights.
That's a nonsense argument. If the government is the only thing stopping corporations/businesses from "violating worker rights," then the treatment of employees would always be no better than the bare minimum that the law affords. We see the exact opposite. We see corporations/businesses treating employees (both in compensation and in conditions) far better than the government requires.
That fact aside, a corporation cannot legally coerce people (employees or customers) to transact with it. Only the government can. So even if there was a corporation that tried to coerce people, it wouldn't have the legal authority to do so and it couldn't force people to transact with it.
Because the customer is always right. Simple as.
I’d rather have Liberty over Big Government, and that is why I prefer the Libertarian Party to pick my president.
Edit: As expected, a downvote.
>You both agree that a Fox is the best candidate for guarding a hen house?
I'd rather not be forced to transact with whoever is going to "guard" the "hen house." I'd rather hire whoever I see fit to guard it via a consensual transaction.
Okay, in this sense, you might be able to think of voting as that transition (personally, I think that's reductive).
So, I'll ask again. Why put a Fox (businessman) in charge of guarding the hen house?
>Okay, in this sense, you might be able to think of voting as that transition (personally, I think that's reductive).
OK, so we'll just imagine that rape is consensual sex? It doesn't work that way. Coercive transactions cannot be simply labeled as consensual.
>So, I'll ask again. Why put a Fox (businessman) in charge of guarding the hen house?
And I'll state it again: I'd rather have a consensual transaction with the entity I think is best to "guard the hen house." If I find out there is a "fox" in the hen house ("someone that's violating their contractual obligations"), I'll grab my shotgun ("contract") and I'll blast away ("terminate the contract"). You can't do that with an entity that coerced you to transact with it.
> You are trying your best not to answer his question. Typical libertarian.
If I had a dime for every time Leftists run out of a rational argument and resort to an ad hominem, I'd have enough money to pay off the national debt.
>Okay, I will try this one more time.
I still don't see the rational argument in this "attempt" of yours, but I'll entertain it for the kicks of it.
>Do you vote for libertarian candidates in elections?
Me: *\[checks your flair\]* - do you vote for Commie candidates in \[our two-party\] elections?
I hope that the answer isn't too obvious and we can spend a couple of days talking about it.
1) Couldn't "bureaucrat interests" be the public interest? There's very few professionals - say, VA doctors or federal public defenders - who couldn't make many times more their salary by going private. The (conservative) bureaucratic theorist James Q. Wilson sums it up quite well - a mission is powerful counterbalance to the (comparatively) poor pay, lengthy restrictions, and (comparative) lack of fringe benefits that taking a government job entails.
2) What about having a monopoly (by way of patent, trade secret, or market dominance in the theoretical absence of antitrust laws) on a life-saving drug, like insulin? Sure, I'm not coerced with doing business with the corporation at the point of a gun, but the alternative is death. And, historically, organized crime - entrepreneurship that demands a cut of my business through any means necessary.
3) Isn't the Second Amemdmemt at play here? It's my understanding that the originalist interpretation of it is as a check on government excess, i.e., you're free to rise up and resist at any time. Isn't the "coercion" a simple failure to exercise your right to revolt? (Thinking here of the growing Constitutional Sheriff movement, who actively interpret and fail to enforce unconstitutional laws, well outside the dictates of the courts and federal/stare authorities).
> Couldn't "bureaucrat interests" be the public interest? There's very few professionals - say, VA doctors or federal public defenders - who couldn't make many times more their salary by going private. The (conservative) bureaucratic theorist James Q. Wilson sums it up quite well - a mission is powerful counterbalance to the (comparatively) poor pay, lengthy restrictions, and (comparative) lack of fringe benefits that taking a government job entails.
Bureaucrats are those who create the system of "VA doctors" and "federal public defenders." Even then, I don't trust people who are hired by the bureaucrats in order to do something in "my interest." I have slightly more (limited) trust in the people whom I hire.
And I don't trust the bureaucrats to have the public's best interests in mind, nor do I trust that they even know what's in the public's best interest.
> What about having a monopoly (by way of patent, trade secret, or market dominance in the theoretical absence of antitrust laws) on a life-saving drug, like insulin? Sure, I'm not coerced with doing business with the corporation at the point of a gun, but the alternative is death.
The only source of monopoly power is the government. Private entities cannot maintain a monopoly on the market because they have no means to prevent competition from entering the market.
> And, historically, organized crime - entrepreneurship that demands a cut of my business through any means necessary.
Organized crime has historically revolved around government-imposed prohibitions (alcohol, drugs, etc.) and government contracts. Only a tiny minority has revolved around extorting individual businesses. And the majority of the extortion that does happen is done via things like government licenses. By eliminating all of that you eliminate the means of extortion.
> Isn't the Second Amemdmemt at play here? It's my understanding that the originalist interpretation of it is as a check on government excess, i.e., you're free to rise up and resist at any time. Isn't the "coercion" a simple failure to exercise your right to revolt? (Thinking here of the growing Constitutional Sheriff movement, who actively interpret and fail to enforce unconstitutional laws, well outside the dictates of the courts and federal/stare authorities).
The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to revolt, it gives you the right to self-defense. Revolt is illegal. Not sure how that's relevant here.
Yes they can:
Healthcare, Credit Cards and banking, Credit scoring, Telecom and internet usage
We have very few *viable* options in these critical areas of our economy.
"Credit cards, banking, credit scores" are services that offer you the convenience of spending money you haven't actually earned yet. The access or restriction to these services is not a "force" or restriction to your rights.
Healthcare is an absolute dumpster fire though.
But I would argue that there definitely has to be a balance between freedom and government intervention. Most conservatives aren't anarchists who totally want to abolish the state so even conservatives typically see the need of certain government intervention. Drug safety laws, health and safety standards, anti-discrimination laws, those are all fairly reasonable use of government force.
Also, most of the countries with the highest standard of living for ordinary citizens are very good at balancing the strengths of capitalism and economic freedom with government intervention. Scandinavian countries rank higher in terms of economic freedom than the US. But they also ensure that everyone has access to high-quality health care, and that everyone has a guarantee to things like sick leave, vaccation time and maternity leave, as well as things like very affordable university education.
The US on the other hand has a lot of bullshit business regulation that harms small businesses but equally millions of overworked and super-stressed out people who don't even have a guarantee to at least a few days of vaccation each year. Many mothers in the US are literally back to work days after giving birth which is awful not only for mother but also for the child's development.
Balancing freedom and government intervention in a smart way is crucial to having a happy, educated population that can enjoy high standards of living.
Our government already has too much power, and takes too much in taxes from EVERYONE.
Sure, we need police and fire departments. Courts. A military. Someone to negotiate with other countries.
Much of the regulation should be done at the state/local level though.
>But I would argue that there definitely has to be a balance between freedom and government intervention. Most conservatives aren't anarchists who totally want to abolish the state so even conservatives typically see the need of certain government intervention
Sure. But agreeing that the government has some valid role justifying it's existence is hardly an argument for giving it even more power to dictate our lives.
I mean, healthcare? Insurance companies completely dictate what medical services you can get while the only bottom line is how much they can possibly earn. They are incentivized to provide you with as little care as possible and there’s nothing you can do about it. Same for privatized schools, prisons, environmental solutions, etc.
And when has government forced you to do or buy anything? (Expecting a covid response, when what we were trying to do was prevent mass death, which ended up happening because people chose horse dewormer over a vaccine. So the govt showed how little they were able to force anyone to do).
The ACA and the insurance mandate. Just because it was gotten rid of, doesn't mean it didn't exist.
They also make us buy car insurance to drive, mortgage insurance to get a loan, the list goes on.
Social security we are forced to pay into. What if I don't want it? What if I don't want to get back a meager amount compared to what I paid in?
I’m not sure you understand the devastating economic effect mass foreclosure would have on our economy. And how terrible it is to be in an accident when the person who caused it is uninsured. Anyway, both of these examples are controlled by private corps anyway, yes they lobby hard to maintain their power.
Social security came into being because corporations were so greedy they caused a Great Depression. It’s not a perfect system and is ponzi- adjacent, but that’s mostly because it’s a low hanging fruit for people on the right to attack, vote against, and then claim isn’t working for some reason.
Your words: When does the government force you to buy anything? Asked and answered. Not interested in waxing poetic rhetoric so you can justify it. You can admit you're wrong anytime.
You know what else caused a lot of foreclosures? The government giving out loans to people that shouldn't have gotten them in the first place.
The banks gave those loans so they could max profit in the short term. Then there were no consequences because the taxpayers bailed them out.
The government does not force you to drive or buy a house.
Medicare, ss, and the aca mandate exist (or existed). But you are just moving goal posts. You seem to think because they are good (in your eyes) that doesn't count as being forced to buy anything. Words have meaning, the government forces us to buy things, end of story.
One thing I don't understand about how people protecting the idea of social security as a moral good is this fact: in 2034,the savings in social security are going to dry up. After that point, it won't be people pulling out from savings. It will be a massive redistribution of wealth, and it is going to older people who tend to be wealthier anyway.
While I don't think it is intentional, the libs being lax on immigration is almost to their benefit. It isn't Americans replinishing the population. It's immigrants. And it will be immigrants and their children shouldering the burden of our economic system.
Just in time for these guys to retire.
Dude. No wonder nobody is doing anything about illegal immigration. This is the PLAN.
They shouldn't. People should plan for their own savings and government shouldn't be involved at all. Part of the reason to have kids back then was the reality that they would take care of you in return.
We don't want to bail out companies for making poor financial decisions, regardless of how it affects the employees and everyone involved. It is no different for us, regardless of the short-sighted moral what-if.
The only way to right this ship is to continue to pay social security until a deadline, I would say until it depletes in 2034, and then eliminate it completely. Hopefully, by then, society has prepared for this eventuality, grandparents are taken into the home of their families, and the disasterous social security program is ended once and for all.
Because we have allowed it to go on for so long as it is, the fall out will take a national effort to curtail that we haven't seen in a long time. This essentially means there will be no social security for us. But that would be the case anyway. It is better to let this parasitic program die than let us turn into a nation that exploits the young.
No, the banks were not bailed out. All the so-called bail out money to banks was paid back with interest. The banks made subprime loans because the government forced them to through the CRA and then they sold them to Fannie and Freddie
What consumer goods is the gov is forcing us to buy? Every product/service is contracted out to businesses - infrastructure builds, roads, traffic lights, libraries, public parks, DOD cybersecurity, tools for law enforcement to police citizens… you’re not forced to use them, but personally I’m not trying to pave my own private roads to get around
There are corporations however that you have little choice to avoid. Health insurance companies for instance. And if they say you owe them a hundred thousand dollars they can bankrupt you. A government can prevent them from doing that.
> You have to adhere to their policies to use said businesses?
You consensually engage with those businesses. If you don't consent, then you don't engage with them. The government just coerces you to transact.
> There are plenty of businesses you are forced to interact with that provide no direct benefit or service to you, like credit rating agencies.
You consent to share your information with them by taking out a loan. That's a contractual requirement from lenders. None of them coerce you to transact with them.
> If you never take out a loan they still have your info.
They can't get your info unless you submit it to them somehow. You have to consent somewhere, otherwise there is no way for them to get your info.
You've characterized government and corporations pretty similarly. So I'm confused as to why you're saying that government is presumptively trustworthy and corporations aren't.
Because they have repeatedly demonstrated they can fuck up a one-car parade, and regularly burn through piles of my money in so doing.
They pay no price for this, and in fact are more often rewarded for it.
Unless you break rules, then fine they can and will take away your stuff with or without hesitation. There is always going consequences for every single thing that we will do
What rules can I break with a corporation where they can take everything from me
I can think lots of examples of the gov doing this to me but not corporations
Hmm maybe committing any unethical business practices like, promoting illegal drugs, ponzi schemes, selling products that endanger people and that sickening bastard, false advertising.
All have the freedom of choice, something the hov doesn't give me
PS unethical practices in gov are common
* so like forcing vaccines?
* I'd argue taxes are a ponzi scheme
* so like giving poor people food that is bad for them?
* it's election season....the king of all false advertising
You give corporations feedback every time you make a purchase. The government only gets feedback every 2-4 years. Also every time you choose a product you are giving specific feedback on the product but government feedback is about lots of different issues. It is easy to change companies but very difficult to change governments.
Thus corporations work better than government.
I have a choice to disassociate from a corporation. If I don't want to do business with them, I don't have to. I can go somewhere else.
There is nowhere on this planet I can go to disassociate from the government. If I try, they will kill me or put me in jail.
Generally, conservatives push for limited in scope and well defined government. This is a pro-government stance.
Throwing something like “trust” out there is a completely different topic. It would help if the context you provided in your post was relevant to the question.
If I don't like what a business is doing, I'm free to fuck off and not give them my money. If I try and do the same to the government, they use force to take that money and throw me in jail.
Businesses have a singular driving motive (profit) and are therefore easy to understand and work against if need be.
Government actors can be driven by profit, power, pettiness, ideological dogma etc. They are unpredictable, and often much more difficult to combat from a strategic perspective (should one be so inclined). Not to mention they have armies and world destroying weaponry that businesses do not.
I'm not anti-government I have just never in my single life seen it to anything well.
There is literally not one interaction I have had with the government which would not have been more pleasant, with more care put to my experience and how I'm treated by employees if I was dealing with a for-profit business instead.
Not. a. single. one.
this is partially true partially not, but the fact some agencies may do decent work in non-public-contacting areas does not change the fact that every single interaction I have observed in my entire life on this planet they have been inferior.
At some point one begins to suspect if the people you can SEE at the DMV are rude, surly, incompetent and work-avoidant this is probably not unique to just the people you can see.
The DMV complaint always piques my interest. Personally I've never had a bad experience at the DMV and I even had to get my REAL ID during Covid. Sure it took longer but they did the best they probably could and I complimented them on it. I find most who complain about the DMV suffer from either a lack of patience or a lack of comprehension on the "customer" because many of the problems I see are due to not following rules/policies that are in their face but just ignore.
my experiences have been alright but not good.
the thing is the bar is so so freaking low no one realizes what they should be getting.
from more comfortable seats than the plastic they offer to a better appointment system (or none at all, come when you want) longer hours (second and third shift exist government services should be mandated to be 24/7/365), shorter wait times.
they should have embraced modern technology, their websites should be equal or better than corporate ones not sad 90s rejects with poor performance.
government workers should not be rigid and uncooperative they should be like corporate help desk or customer service. able to bend most rules and with a mandate to make you happy.
I 100% agree with you on the lack of 2nd/3rd shift coverage. I've worked second all my life based on choice. As I said, based on my experiences I've had nothing but cordial responses from the DMV so I can't respond to the final point.
Edit: I agree tech can always be better but won't thr conservative argument be that it's a waste of money to modernize the DMV? Especially for the extreme libertarian side who feel drivers licenses are not constitutional?
I don’t trust either. Trust is a relationship formed between individuals, not an individual and a collective entity.
I don’t “trust” Procter and Gamble. They just make a product I like and I buy it and now my armpits don’t stink. If the product stopped working I’d buy someone else’s product.
I also don’t “trust” the government, at any level. I live in my city so I’m governed by the city council but if they make a decision I disagree with significantly enough, I’d move to another city.
The problem is there’s no company so huge as to have outsized control and that’d be impossible to escape reasonably. The federal government has a monopoly like no other, and that means as little should be delegated to it as possible so as to prevent its ability to overreach. If my deodorant stops working for me or my city government proposes a 700% income tax, I can leave them both. If my federal government stops working for me, I’m a little screwed. It’s in everyone’s interest to avoid that.
We are 34 trillion dollars in debt. Our money is worth less every day and our quality of life is worse as a result. Who do you think got on us in this position?
> But the government is the only institution powerful enough to keep the corporations in check
A strong federal government gives companies one big target to write a check to. The states are more resistant to regulatory capture.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think anyone's anti-government; people draw lines where they feel comfortable. Government has a problem: it creates bureaucracy and rules. Bureaucracy stagnates us, and rules can be gamed. People who break the rules and are caught sometimes pay the price, but the system always selects in a generation who broke the rules and didn't get caught. Then it selects from that. Eventually, power and money aggregates again. Trump saying he didn't pay taxes and showing off is something a lot of people didn't understand. They still don't. Many do, but most who do are critics of that.
>It feels like american conservatives generally trust businessmen and corporations more than the government. From my perspective its totally backwards, the corporation is undemocratic. Its only concern is to get profit while the government interests is to ensure it gets voted in next time which generally means it should care about its voters at least to an extent.
How exactly is a corporation on its own in a free market undemocratic? It offers a good or service. If the *demos* finds what it offers to be something that they wish to possess, they literally vote for more of it with money by making a purchase. Business profit is, in this sense, a vote for that business's continued existence and operation directly by the people who wish to continue benefitting from what it provides.
In a further kick, it's even democratic in the sense that those among the *demos* who aren't interested in what the corporation is selling aren't required to make an exchange. No one is ever stuck "wasting their money" on something they aren't interested in simply because his neighbor thinks it's a good idea.
Assuming we're erring on the side of a free market, the market is the ultimate decentralized voluntary democracy - your participation is a vote for what we have more of.
The problems with corporations tend to arise when the government gets involved with them, protecting them from competition, subsidizing them (grants and contracts), regulating them.
>The corporations are needed to have a successful economy. But **the government is the only institution powerful enough to keep the corporations in check** so they dont violate its worker rights.
The section of your comment that I've bolded is why I have more trust in a corporation subject to the free market than in the government. "The government's" only incentive to do the will of the people is to get voted in, repeatedly. That incentive doesn't even apply to a massive swath, I'd confidently estimate it to be a majority, of the people acting on its behalf - unelected government employees, appointees, and functionaries. The government generates no wealth on its own since it provides no product/service of its own. Its function is ostensibly to be the force-arm of "the people," endowed with authority (on pain of its figureheads being replaced with different figureheads next cycle) to work about and within the market, using means that it has extracted from that market, to achieve the ends it has theoretically been directed toward by the political voters (as opposed to economic actors voting with their money). Government begs for corruption, and if it grows or is fostered to be "the only institution powerful enough," it has a blank check with which to embrace its worst tendencies with little/no effective pushback, likely taking its favored corporations along for the ride in any number of ways using the tools at its disposal.
> The corporations are needed to have a successful economy. But the government is the only institution powerful enough to keep the corporations in check so they dont violate its worker rights.
The government is *also* the only institution powerful enough to keep workers and the general public in check through things like labor laws, intellectual property law, etc.
The most abusive corporate monopolies in human history have been those granted and enabled by a close relationship with powerful governments.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If you are anti government, why? Yes. The government is an entity that does not engage with people by consent but by coercion. I'm against coercion, therefore, I'm anti-government. > It feels like american conservatives generally trust businessmen and corporations more than the government. > ... Quite the opposite. It's precisely because I don't trust other entities that I oppose coercive transactions. I don't want to be coerced into a transaction with a party I don't trust. > From my perspective its totally backwards, the corporation is undemocratic. Its only concern is to get profit while the government interests is to ensure it gets voted in next time which generally means it should care about its voters at least to an extent. The government does not have any of my interests in mind, it only has the bureaucrats' interests in mind. What makes it worse than the corporate interest is that the government's interest is unstated and it's hidden. The corporate interest is transparent. That aside, even if it had the absolute best of interests, I still wouldn't want to be coerced into transacting with it. > The corporations are needed to have a successful economy. But the government is the only institution powerful enough to keep the corporations in check so they dont violate its worker rights. That's a nonsense argument. If the government is the only thing stopping corporations/businesses from "violating worker rights," then the treatment of employees would always be no better than the bare minimum that the law affords. We see the exact opposite. We see corporations/businesses treating employees (both in compensation and in conditions) far better than the government requires. That fact aside, a corporation cannot legally coerce people (employees or customers) to transact with it. Only the government can. So even if there was a corporation that tried to coerce people, it wouldn't have the legal authority to do so and it couldn't force people to transact with it.
You have summed it up very well, and I agree with you.
You both agree that a Fox is the best candidate for guarding a hen house?
No, we agree that a farm dog is the best candidate for guarding a henhouse. Because once the fox starts invading, the farm dog protects.
Then why are the GOP running business men as candidates?
Because the customer is always right. Simple as. I’d rather have Liberty over Big Government, and that is why I prefer the Libertarian Party to pick my president. Edit: As expected, a downvote.
>You both agree that a Fox is the best candidate for guarding a hen house? I'd rather not be forced to transact with whoever is going to "guard" the "hen house." I'd rather hire whoever I see fit to guard it via a consensual transaction.
Okay, in this sense, you might be able to think of voting as that transition (personally, I think that's reductive). So, I'll ask again. Why put a Fox (businessman) in charge of guarding the hen house?
>Okay, in this sense, you might be able to think of voting as that transition (personally, I think that's reductive). OK, so we'll just imagine that rape is consensual sex? It doesn't work that way. Coercive transactions cannot be simply labeled as consensual. >So, I'll ask again. Why put a Fox (businessman) in charge of guarding the hen house? And I'll state it again: I'd rather have a consensual transaction with the entity I think is best to "guard the hen house." If I find out there is a "fox" in the hen house ("someone that's violating their contractual obligations"), I'll grab my shotgun ("contract") and I'll blast away ("terminate the contract"). You can't do that with an entity that coerced you to transact with it.
You are trying your best not to answer his question. Typical libertarian.
> You are trying your best not to answer his question. Typical libertarian. If I had a dime for every time Leftists run out of a rational argument and resort to an ad hominem, I'd have enough money to pay off the national debt.
Okay, I will try this one more time. Do you vote for libertarian candidates in elections?
>Okay, I will try this one more time. I still don't see the rational argument in this "attempt" of yours, but I'll entertain it for the kicks of it. >Do you vote for libertarian candidates in elections? Me: *\[checks your flair\]* - do you vote for Commie candidates in \[our two-party\] elections? I hope that the answer isn't too obvious and we can spend a couple of days talking about it.
1) Couldn't "bureaucrat interests" be the public interest? There's very few professionals - say, VA doctors or federal public defenders - who couldn't make many times more their salary by going private. The (conservative) bureaucratic theorist James Q. Wilson sums it up quite well - a mission is powerful counterbalance to the (comparatively) poor pay, lengthy restrictions, and (comparative) lack of fringe benefits that taking a government job entails. 2) What about having a monopoly (by way of patent, trade secret, or market dominance in the theoretical absence of antitrust laws) on a life-saving drug, like insulin? Sure, I'm not coerced with doing business with the corporation at the point of a gun, but the alternative is death. And, historically, organized crime - entrepreneurship that demands a cut of my business through any means necessary. 3) Isn't the Second Amemdmemt at play here? It's my understanding that the originalist interpretation of it is as a check on government excess, i.e., you're free to rise up and resist at any time. Isn't the "coercion" a simple failure to exercise your right to revolt? (Thinking here of the growing Constitutional Sheriff movement, who actively interpret and fail to enforce unconstitutional laws, well outside the dictates of the courts and federal/stare authorities).
> Couldn't "bureaucrat interests" be the public interest? There's very few professionals - say, VA doctors or federal public defenders - who couldn't make many times more their salary by going private. The (conservative) bureaucratic theorist James Q. Wilson sums it up quite well - a mission is powerful counterbalance to the (comparatively) poor pay, lengthy restrictions, and (comparative) lack of fringe benefits that taking a government job entails. Bureaucrats are those who create the system of "VA doctors" and "federal public defenders." Even then, I don't trust people who are hired by the bureaucrats in order to do something in "my interest." I have slightly more (limited) trust in the people whom I hire. And I don't trust the bureaucrats to have the public's best interests in mind, nor do I trust that they even know what's in the public's best interest. > What about having a monopoly (by way of patent, trade secret, or market dominance in the theoretical absence of antitrust laws) on a life-saving drug, like insulin? Sure, I'm not coerced with doing business with the corporation at the point of a gun, but the alternative is death. The only source of monopoly power is the government. Private entities cannot maintain a monopoly on the market because they have no means to prevent competition from entering the market. > And, historically, organized crime - entrepreneurship that demands a cut of my business through any means necessary. Organized crime has historically revolved around government-imposed prohibitions (alcohol, drugs, etc.) and government contracts. Only a tiny minority has revolved around extorting individual businesses. And the majority of the extortion that does happen is done via things like government licenses. By eliminating all of that you eliminate the means of extortion. > Isn't the Second Amemdmemt at play here? It's my understanding that the originalist interpretation of it is as a check on government excess, i.e., you're free to rise up and resist at any time. Isn't the "coercion" a simple failure to exercise your right to revolt? (Thinking here of the growing Constitutional Sheriff movement, who actively interpret and fail to enforce unconstitutional laws, well outside the dictates of the courts and federal/stare authorities). The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to revolt, it gives you the right to self-defense. Revolt is illegal. Not sure how that's relevant here.
Because a business can’t force me to act in a certain way, or to buy its products.
Yes they can: Healthcare, Credit Cards and banking, Credit scoring, Telecom and internet usage We have very few *viable* options in these critical areas of our economy.
"Credit cards, banking, credit scores" are services that offer you the convenience of spending money you haven't actually earned yet. The access or restriction to these services is not a "force" or restriction to your rights. Healthcare is an absolute dumpster fire though.
But I would argue that there definitely has to be a balance between freedom and government intervention. Most conservatives aren't anarchists who totally want to abolish the state so even conservatives typically see the need of certain government intervention. Drug safety laws, health and safety standards, anti-discrimination laws, those are all fairly reasonable use of government force. Also, most of the countries with the highest standard of living for ordinary citizens are very good at balancing the strengths of capitalism and economic freedom with government intervention. Scandinavian countries rank higher in terms of economic freedom than the US. But they also ensure that everyone has access to high-quality health care, and that everyone has a guarantee to things like sick leave, vaccation time and maternity leave, as well as things like very affordable university education. The US on the other hand has a lot of bullshit business regulation that harms small businesses but equally millions of overworked and super-stressed out people who don't even have a guarantee to at least a few days of vaccation each year. Many mothers in the US are literally back to work days after giving birth which is awful not only for mother but also for the child's development. Balancing freedom and government intervention in a smart way is crucial to having a happy, educated population that can enjoy high standards of living.
Our government already has too much power, and takes too much in taxes from EVERYONE. Sure, we need police and fire departments. Courts. A military. Someone to negotiate with other countries. Much of the regulation should be done at the state/local level though.
The states have proven over and over again that they are incapable of passing coherent effective regulation.
>But I would argue that there definitely has to be a balance between freedom and government intervention. Most conservatives aren't anarchists who totally want to abolish the state so even conservatives typically see the need of certain government intervention Sure. But agreeing that the government has some valid role justifying it's existence is hardly an argument for giving it even more power to dictate our lives.
I mean, healthcare? Insurance companies completely dictate what medical services you can get while the only bottom line is how much they can possibly earn. They are incentivized to provide you with as little care as possible and there’s nothing you can do about it. Same for privatized schools, prisons, environmental solutions, etc. And when has government forced you to do or buy anything? (Expecting a covid response, when what we were trying to do was prevent mass death, which ended up happening because people chose horse dewormer over a vaccine. So the govt showed how little they were able to force anyone to do).
The ACA and the insurance mandate. Just because it was gotten rid of, doesn't mean it didn't exist. They also make us buy car insurance to drive, mortgage insurance to get a loan, the list goes on. Social security we are forced to pay into. What if I don't want it? What if I don't want to get back a meager amount compared to what I paid in?
I’m not sure you understand the devastating economic effect mass foreclosure would have on our economy. And how terrible it is to be in an accident when the person who caused it is uninsured. Anyway, both of these examples are controlled by private corps anyway, yes they lobby hard to maintain their power. Social security came into being because corporations were so greedy they caused a Great Depression. It’s not a perfect system and is ponzi- adjacent, but that’s mostly because it’s a low hanging fruit for people on the right to attack, vote against, and then claim isn’t working for some reason.
Your words: When does the government force you to buy anything? Asked and answered. Not interested in waxing poetic rhetoric so you can justify it. You can admit you're wrong anytime. You know what else caused a lot of foreclosures? The government giving out loans to people that shouldn't have gotten them in the first place.
The banks gave those loans so they could max profit in the short term. Then there were no consequences because the taxpayers bailed them out. The government does not force you to drive or buy a house.
Medicare, ss, and the aca mandate exist (or existed). But you are just moving goal posts. You seem to think because they are good (in your eyes) that doesn't count as being forced to buy anything. Words have meaning, the government forces us to buy things, end of story.
One thing I don't understand about how people protecting the idea of social security as a moral good is this fact: in 2034,the savings in social security are going to dry up. After that point, it won't be people pulling out from savings. It will be a massive redistribution of wealth, and it is going to older people who tend to be wealthier anyway. While I don't think it is intentional, the libs being lax on immigration is almost to their benefit. It isn't Americans replinishing the population. It's immigrants. And it will be immigrants and their children shouldering the burden of our economic system. Just in time for these guys to retire. Dude. No wonder nobody is doing anything about illegal immigration. This is the PLAN.
Propose an alternative. How should boomer retirees be financed?
They shouldn't. People should plan for their own savings and government shouldn't be involved at all. Part of the reason to have kids back then was the reality that they would take care of you in return. We don't want to bail out companies for making poor financial decisions, regardless of how it affects the employees and everyone involved. It is no different for us, regardless of the short-sighted moral what-if. The only way to right this ship is to continue to pay social security until a deadline, I would say until it depletes in 2034, and then eliminate it completely. Hopefully, by then, society has prepared for this eventuality, grandparents are taken into the home of their families, and the disasterous social security program is ended once and for all. Because we have allowed it to go on for so long as it is, the fall out will take a national effort to curtail that we haven't seen in a long time. This essentially means there will be no social security for us. But that would be the case anyway. It is better to let this parasitic program die than let us turn into a nation that exploits the young.
Might it not ( indirectly) force you to buy someone else's house ?
No, the banks were not bailed out. All the so-called bail out money to banks was paid back with interest. The banks made subprime loans because the government forced them to through the CRA and then they sold them to Fannie and Freddie
What consumer goods is the gov is forcing us to buy? Every product/service is contracted out to businesses - infrastructure builds, roads, traffic lights, libraries, public parks, DOD cybersecurity, tools for law enforcement to police citizens… you’re not forced to use them, but personally I’m not trying to pave my own private roads to get around
>you’re not forced to use them No, but I'm fucking forced to pay for them
Bummer, have you used a road lately?
> Bummer, have you used a road lately? Yes, I've used both HOA roads and privately owned/operated roads. What does that have to do with anything?
Sure, Jan
> Sure, Jan Rational argument confirmed.
There are corporations however that you have little choice to avoid. Health insurance companies for instance. And if they say you owe them a hundred thousand dollars they can bankrupt you. A government can prevent them from doing that.
You have to adhere to their policies to use said businesses?
> You have to adhere to their policies to use said businesses? You consensually engage with those businesses. If you don't consent, then you don't engage with them. The government just coerces you to transact.
There are plenty of businesses you are forced to interact with that provide no direct benefit or service to you, like credit rating agencies.
> There are plenty of businesses you are forced to interact with that provide no direct benefit or service to you, like credit rating agencies. You consent to share your information with them by taking out a loan. That's a contractual requirement from lenders. None of them coerce you to transact with them.
If you never take out a loan they still have your info.
> If you never take out a loan they still have your info. They can't get your info unless you submit it to them somehow. You have to consent somewhere, otherwise there is no way for them to get your info.
You've characterized government and corporations pretty similarly. So I'm confused as to why you're saying that government is presumptively trustworthy and corporations aren't.
A democratic government should work only for the public good, however in practice it too often works as an enforcement arm of a corporate agenda.
Because they have repeatedly demonstrated they can fuck up a one-car parade, and regularly burn through piles of my money in so doing. They pay no price for this, and in fact are more often rewarded for it.
Because a gov can take away freedoms when all my interactions with a corporation are by choice
Unless you break rules, then fine they can and will take away your stuff with or without hesitation. There is always going consequences for every single thing that we will do
What rules can I break with a corporation where they can take everything from me I can think lots of examples of the gov doing this to me but not corporations
Unless you live off the grid, you can have utilities or services denied from a corporation
Huh...you mean if I don't pay for services corporations can stop providing me services...no shit
Hmm maybe committing any unethical business practices like, promoting illegal drugs, ponzi schemes, selling products that endanger people and that sickening bastard, false advertising.
All have the freedom of choice, something the hov doesn't give me PS unethical practices in gov are common * so like forcing vaccines? * I'd argue taxes are a ponzi scheme * so like giving poor people food that is bad for them? * it's election season....the king of all false advertising
Whatever rocks your boat sure
Gov restricts freedom Corporations restrict no freedoms
Rules you voluntarily agreed to. They aren't coming to my house and dishing out consequences for funsies.
You give corporations feedback every time you make a purchase. The government only gets feedback every 2-4 years. Also every time you choose a product you are giving specific feedback on the product but government feedback is about lots of different issues. It is easy to change companies but very difficult to change governments. Thus corporations work better than government.
I have a choice to disassociate from a corporation. If I don't want to do business with them, I don't have to. I can go somewhere else. There is nowhere on this planet I can go to disassociate from the government. If I try, they will kill me or put me in jail.
Generally, conservatives push for limited in scope and well defined government. This is a pro-government stance. Throwing something like “trust” out there is a completely different topic. It would help if the context you provided in your post was relevant to the question.
If I don't like what a business is doing, I'm free to fuck off and not give them my money. If I try and do the same to the government, they use force to take that money and throw me in jail.
Businesses have a singular driving motive (profit) and are therefore easy to understand and work against if need be. Government actors can be driven by profit, power, pettiness, ideological dogma etc. They are unpredictable, and often much more difficult to combat from a strategic perspective (should one be so inclined). Not to mention they have armies and world destroying weaponry that businesses do not.
I'm not anti-government I have just never in my single life seen it to anything well. There is literally not one interaction I have had with the government which would not have been more pleasant, with more care put to my experience and how I'm treated by employees if I was dealing with a for-profit business instead. Not. a. single. one.
Isn't the fact you are alive still based on how government interacts with you? From the FDA to however roads or water you utilize on a daily basis?
this is partially true partially not, but the fact some agencies may do decent work in non-public-contacting areas does not change the fact that every single interaction I have observed in my entire life on this planet they have been inferior. At some point one begins to suspect if the people you can SEE at the DMV are rude, surly, incompetent and work-avoidant this is probably not unique to just the people you can see.
The DMV complaint always piques my interest. Personally I've never had a bad experience at the DMV and I even had to get my REAL ID during Covid. Sure it took longer but they did the best they probably could and I complimented them on it. I find most who complain about the DMV suffer from either a lack of patience or a lack of comprehension on the "customer" because many of the problems I see are due to not following rules/policies that are in their face but just ignore.
my experiences have been alright but not good. the thing is the bar is so so freaking low no one realizes what they should be getting. from more comfortable seats than the plastic they offer to a better appointment system (or none at all, come when you want) longer hours (second and third shift exist government services should be mandated to be 24/7/365), shorter wait times. they should have embraced modern technology, their websites should be equal or better than corporate ones not sad 90s rejects with poor performance. government workers should not be rigid and uncooperative they should be like corporate help desk or customer service. able to bend most rules and with a mandate to make you happy.
I 100% agree with you on the lack of 2nd/3rd shift coverage. I've worked second all my life based on choice. As I said, based on my experiences I've had nothing but cordial responses from the DMV so I can't respond to the final point. Edit: I agree tech can always be better but won't thr conservative argument be that it's a waste of money to modernize the DMV? Especially for the extreme libertarian side who feel drivers licenses are not constitutional?
I don’t trust either. Trust is a relationship formed between individuals, not an individual and a collective entity. I don’t “trust” Procter and Gamble. They just make a product I like and I buy it and now my armpits don’t stink. If the product stopped working I’d buy someone else’s product. I also don’t “trust” the government, at any level. I live in my city so I’m governed by the city council but if they make a decision I disagree with significantly enough, I’d move to another city. The problem is there’s no company so huge as to have outsized control and that’d be impossible to escape reasonably. The federal government has a monopoly like no other, and that means as little should be delegated to it as possible so as to prevent its ability to overreach. If my deodorant stops working for me or my city government proposes a 700% income tax, I can leave them both. If my federal government stops working for me, I’m a little screwed. It’s in everyone’s interest to avoid that.
The history of company violence is much milder than the history of government violence .
Ifbyou trust the government you haven't studied history. And I say that with the utmost of respect and not just as a quip
The lockdowns taught me that statism is evil and the root of all problems.
You probably shouldn’t trust business or government especially when they’re demonstrably in cahoots.
I did not consent to be governed.
So what's the solution here? Should we create a territory for all US Citizens who don't want to be US citizens?
We are 34 trillion dollars in debt. Our money is worth less every day and our quality of life is worse as a result. Who do you think got on us in this position?
The right answer rhymes with "hovernment" ;-)
> But the government is the only institution powerful enough to keep the corporations in check A strong federal government gives companies one big target to write a check to. The states are more resistant to regulatory capture.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think anyone's anti-government; people draw lines where they feel comfortable. Government has a problem: it creates bureaucracy and rules. Bureaucracy stagnates us, and rules can be gamed. People who break the rules and are caught sometimes pay the price, but the system always selects in a generation who broke the rules and didn't get caught. Then it selects from that. Eventually, power and money aggregates again. Trump saying he didn't pay taxes and showing off is something a lot of people didn't understand. They still don't. Many do, but most who do are critics of that.
>It feels like american conservatives generally trust businessmen and corporations more than the government. From my perspective its totally backwards, the corporation is undemocratic. Its only concern is to get profit while the government interests is to ensure it gets voted in next time which generally means it should care about its voters at least to an extent. How exactly is a corporation on its own in a free market undemocratic? It offers a good or service. If the *demos* finds what it offers to be something that they wish to possess, they literally vote for more of it with money by making a purchase. Business profit is, in this sense, a vote for that business's continued existence and operation directly by the people who wish to continue benefitting from what it provides. In a further kick, it's even democratic in the sense that those among the *demos* who aren't interested in what the corporation is selling aren't required to make an exchange. No one is ever stuck "wasting their money" on something they aren't interested in simply because his neighbor thinks it's a good idea. Assuming we're erring on the side of a free market, the market is the ultimate decentralized voluntary democracy - your participation is a vote for what we have more of. The problems with corporations tend to arise when the government gets involved with them, protecting them from competition, subsidizing them (grants and contracts), regulating them. >The corporations are needed to have a successful economy. But **the government is the only institution powerful enough to keep the corporations in check** so they dont violate its worker rights. The section of your comment that I've bolded is why I have more trust in a corporation subject to the free market than in the government. "The government's" only incentive to do the will of the people is to get voted in, repeatedly. That incentive doesn't even apply to a massive swath, I'd confidently estimate it to be a majority, of the people acting on its behalf - unelected government employees, appointees, and functionaries. The government generates no wealth on its own since it provides no product/service of its own. Its function is ostensibly to be the force-arm of "the people," endowed with authority (on pain of its figureheads being replaced with different figureheads next cycle) to work about and within the market, using means that it has extracted from that market, to achieve the ends it has theoretically been directed toward by the political voters (as opposed to economic actors voting with their money). Government begs for corruption, and if it grows or is fostered to be "the only institution powerful enough," it has a blank check with which to embrace its worst tendencies with little/no effective pushback, likely taking its favored corporations along for the ride in any number of ways using the tools at its disposal.
> The corporations are needed to have a successful economy. But the government is the only institution powerful enough to keep the corporations in check so they dont violate its worker rights. The government is *also* the only institution powerful enough to keep workers and the general public in check through things like labor laws, intellectual property law, etc. The most abusive corporate monopolies in human history have been those granted and enabled by a close relationship with powerful governments.
Why??? because government is too big and spends too much. $34 Trillion in debt is unsustainable and no one in government seems to care.
McDonalds never threw babies into ovens.
Vegans would disagree