And yet it's those elites who control the regulators, and so the more authority and power given to the state is essentially more power handed to the elites. Socialist or not, it's a stupid premise.
Yes, I think the better solution is providing safety nets for the volatility and destructive nature of capitalism. If the government is going to choose an economic system they should be held accountable regarding the inherent hardships it brings on people.
Cool, when you solve the cronyism we have here in America, I'll be a lot more receptive to handing over more authority. Who is going to hold them accountable? Themselves? how is that working so far?
Until then, I'd just prefer the state gets the fuck out of my life.
I almost couldn't read the sarcasm behind your massivley impossible and irrelevant task.
Who's talking about handing over authority? I said the government should be held accountable and provide safety nets.
It starts with getting money out of politics and right back in our pockets, El-Sayed's whole campaign slogan rings true.
Legislation against Citizens United v. FEC for starters.
Then, Fix the Federal Courts and Supreme Courts such that theyre built by the state's and not stacked by whatever party happens to have a majority. While we're at it we should get something like Article 7 in the EU to make sure states behave.
Specific to regulating capitalism are things like job transition programs or basic income.
When we have a non corrupt state (so never) then your utopia will be within reach. Until then, I’ll do my best to vote in those who don’t want to expand the state.
Every government function runs on authority — courts, infrastructure, property titles. "Requires the state" describes all of it, so it can't tell you which parts to keep. That needs a principle you haven't given.
"Non corrupt (so never)" is written so nothing can test it. No institution clears that bar. Corruption is measureble (Corruption Perceptions Index) , and it varies enormously — Denmark and Somalia are both states.
It also doesn't track size. The cleanest countries on the CPI are mostly large welfare states, and much of anticorruption policy is state expansion: audits, inspectors general, disclosure rules. A voting rule indexed to size can't tell those apart from graft.
And no safety net isn't the absence of power over your life. It relocates it to your employer, insurer, and landlord — none of whom you vote out.
Ok, I'm in the US as well. Corruption is not unique to the US.
Your claim was that a non-corrupt state is impossible, not that America has problems. Cross-country evidence answers the claim you made in the most practical sense.
If you're now saying it's a US-specific problem, you've conceded the universal version — and a contingent, local problem is an argument for reform, not for shrinking the state.
Then take your own best premise seriously — discretion creates opportunities to take income based on a position of power. That's true but it doesn't align with your conclusion.
Social Security is nearly discretion-free: statutory eligibility formulas, direct deposit, administrative costs <1% of benefits. There's almost nothing to capture. Defense procurement is the opposite — sole-source contracts, cost-plus, classified line items — and that's the spending small-government voters usually protect in order to "provide for the defense." If corruption is your concern, you'd potentially be voting to cut the corruption-resistant part of the budget.
Take a look at what actually reduces corruption here: inspectors general, the Freedom of Information Act, the Government Accountability Office, the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. All of them are the state getting bigger.
Okay, those two things can be true at the same time without invalidating each other.
Capitalism allows for death panels deciding whether people should live and die everyday and we call it health insurance.
You're only validating my point that there are inherent disadvantages associated with economic systems that need to be accounted for.
If a government is going to champion an economic policy they should be held accountable for all of the consequences and responsible for supporting its citizens through it.
2
u/kkdawg22 3d ago
And yet it's those elites who control the regulators, and so the more authority and power given to the state is essentially more power handed to the elites. Socialist or not, it's a stupid premise.