Total posts: 
Business vs. government: an abstract political question:
Fuzzy Orange DoomsayerSomething I've been thinking about lately: communism is supposed to prevent business from screwing us, and the argument against it is that government will screw us. Libertarianism is supposed to prevent government from screwing us, and the argument against it is that business will screw us. The argument against the current system, however, is that government and business work together to screw us. With that in mind, is there any way to get government and business to screw each other, so as to leave us relatively untouched? (I'm trying to address this on a relatively abstract scale, since I'm not sure whether us Tropers know enough about politics and economics to answer it on a practical scale.)
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
I changed accounts.Eh... ideally you want business and labor well under the boot of government, and government in turn well under the boot of the people. It's easier to have everything democratically working in tandem than to try and pit it all against each other and hope things still get done.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Or, to put it another way; you want a government that regulates business to the benefit of the people as a whole, but one which leaves enough freedom to allow the businesses to make significant profits. Ideally, this would result in a system that worked toward maximizing the country's economic potential.
Pro-Freedom FanaticThere's no clean way to keep them at each other's throats, so our best bet is to fuck them both. Neither government nor business are trustworthy, and neither should be allowed to survive: Government should be exterminated, along with the corporate slavemasters. The entire economy should be put under direct control by the workers, and the elimination of injustices in the redistribution for wealth would greatly diminish the need for law and order: When the people own the goddamn place... They tend not to riot.
edited 7th Dec '11 4:59:32 PM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Proud CanadianThere's no good way get rid of either one, so our best bet is to control them both. Both government and business can be trustworthy, and both should be allowed to survive: Government should be restrained along with the corporate big cats. Couldn't change the next part because it's too radical. Why do soemthing radical when we have a system that works (social capitalist liberal dmeocracy)?
edited 7th Dec '11 5:37:41 PM by Erock
If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.
The first thing you should bring to mind is that both these things are run and operated by people. The "us" you speak of quite often work for one or the other, so everything either does affects all of us. You cannot, on any practical level, actually separate us from our businesses and our government and the consequences of their actions. They're not separate from our society; they're part of it. Any solution that acts as if they're entirely separate from the rest of of society is not an actual solution. So yeah, enough government regulations in place to make sure that business doesn't screw us over. And enough watchful citizens to make sure that the government doesn't go crazy. Which is what things like voting and protests and recall petitions are for. I know that's not really an abstract answer, but there's not really one for this question.
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠThe current government is bad because the previous generations got elected on a platform of "business and government working together will improve things" disguised as "Government is the enemy." There were laws keeping business out of the government, and we should re-instate laws like that.
Three StepsI suppose the problem is that both business and government have very little incentive to not work together, which happens to "screw everyone else". A lot of political and economic theory is designed under the assumption that people are generally in opposition, but the boundaries of loyalty aren't nearly so clean cut. Economic theory assumes businesses will compete with each other to lower prices and raise quality, but there's much more incentive for them to form a collective monopoly. Political theory assumes the branches in government will keep each other in check, but there's much more incentive to form a unified party and prevent opposing parties from entering any branch. It seems we need a lot more game theorists in charge of things.
edited 8th Dec '11 6:31:52 AM by Clarste
Who Am I?"Or, to put it another way; you want a government that regulates business to the benefit of the people as a whole, but one which leaves enough freedom to allow the businesses to make significant profits. Ideally, this would result in a system that worked toward maximizing the country's economic potential." Which is pretty much what we actually had from the 1930's up to about the mid-1980's. Going back to that wouldn't be all that radical. Limit political campaign expenditures, restore Glass-Steagal, and strengthen the social support network. Doesnt require Communism, just some common sense policy.
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 10
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.