Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The problem in the US isn't capitalism, it's that the government interferes extensively in the economy.

Well... maybe the problem is that the economy interferes extensively in the government.

> Building a society is the responsibility of each individual who values it. Using government force in pursuit of that goal leads only to the co-option and disenfranchisement Simon complains about.

Individuals have to band together to accomplish things because at some point one individual isn't enough. In democratic society such a banding, supported by the people and for the people, is called a government.



>Well... maybe the problem is that the economy interferes extensively in the government.

Well... maybe the government shouldn't have so much power that when influenced it can cause so much harm.


If the government does not have power, someone else will. The governments power is meant to balance out the power of individuals, so that a few do not control society.

I would argue that with that amount of power, government necessarily has the ability to cause harm to the economy/society. Otherwise it fails as a government.

Stripping the government of power will do nothing. We must fix it.


If the government hadn't such power, no one would try to influence it.


> In democratic society such a banding, supported by the people and for the people, is called a government.

Only when the people banding together claim a monopoly on the use of force to achieve their goals. This is exactly the distinction that Bastiat describes.


I'll assume you live in the US: doesn't your constitution grant you the rights to bear arms and didn't one of the founder said it's the people's duty to throw away the government when it gets corrupted ?

On a more "scholar" note there is the notion that a leviathan is needed.

Moreover, I think private companies and individuals can be as violent, or more, than any government that claim monopoly on its use.

Be it physically or symbolically.


> Individuals have to band together to accomplish things because at some point one individual isn't enough. In democratic society such a banding, supported by the people and for the people, is called a government.

Individuals who band together to accomplish things can also be called a corporation.


No, because you missed "by the people, for the people" and the voting part.

Do you genuinely fail to see the difference or is that comment just for the sake of that (weak) argument ?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: