"This is just mind blowing to me. These are endeavors normally left to nation states. There's something buried in here that I find fascinating."
One wonders if the rise of markets, global communication, etc., have rendered the nation state somewhat obsolete.
In theory, we still depend on our governments for things like public works, for ensuring peace, for promoting justice, and protecting personal property. These are things that we believe corporations would be ill-suited for.
And yet, in practice, at least in the United States and in the PIGS of Europe--we see that hey, holy shit, they've dropped the ball in a lot of cases. I'm willing to wager that we wouldn't be too much worse off with a different system.
Note: I take this position not in support of our new corporate overlords, but out of the necessity born from the realities of our government. If our government actually helped the public, actually had a legal system that worked justly and fairly, and actually did Good, I'd shun the amorality of the free market. But it doesn't, so I can't.
Here's a thought: compare the system we have now, with its imperfections and bad things, and compare it to what happened prior to it. It is generally better. Now look at what would happen if we just dropped them, the way it is shaping up as is, looks a lot more like feudalism (and other aristocracy based systems) than not. That is the concern.
I know, blah blah free markets never existed so a truly free market would lead to utopia blah blah. But, markets right now are freer then they have ever been, and we are still seeing the concentration towards aristocracy. More freedom of market would probably swing more towards this, as the current owners of stuff would just demand all output of workers (including any thought they ever had) reducing the ability of new entities to exist to create the churn assumed in free markets. Unless you get rid of IP and large portions of property rights (and in the later case, unfreeing the market by standard definitions). Basically, a system without feedbacks will move to extremes.
The regulations are just more local. 100 years ago, America was a bit irrelevant (too young), and Europe had British or German-level bureaucracy down pat.
I'm willing to wager that we wouldn't be too much worse off with a different system.
Are you willing to bet your life?
If our government actually helped the public, actually had a legal system that worked justly and fairly, and actually did Good, I'd shun the amorality of the free market. But it doesn't, so I can't.
For one thing, any government is amoral at best. Laws are only approximations.
For another thing, the US government and the governments of the states I've been able to visit do help the public. They are not perfect. The problem with anything approaching anarchy, or even some sort of pure free market utopia, is that those things are not yet politically stable in the current context. Regardless of how good or bad life in one would be, a nation state or some other large polity will come over and destroy such an entity. Perhaps technology will level the playing field somehow.
Is the legal system perfect? No, but I'll take my chances in Houston over Mogadishu any day. And the extent to which the government tries to prevent the spread of certain communicable diseases, dissuade people from stealing from and raping strangers, maintain infrastructure, I would say they do help people in these ways and myriad others. Granted, they do this rather imperfectly. That's just real life.
Again, please don't interpret what I've said as "Hey, fuck governments, let's all place our safety in the hands of the free market!"
I merely mean to point out that the idea that governments are the solely-enabled providers of the Good is being threatened by the advent of enabling technologies and poor precedent set by governments themselves.
One wonders if the rise of markets, global communication, etc., have rendered the nation state somewhat obsolete.
In theory, we still depend on our governments for things like public works, for ensuring peace, for promoting justice, and protecting personal property. These are things that we believe corporations would be ill-suited for.
And yet, in practice, at least in the United States and in the PIGS of Europe--we see that hey, holy shit, they've dropped the ball in a lot of cases. I'm willing to wager that we wouldn't be too much worse off with a different system.
Note: I take this position not in support of our new corporate overlords, but out of the necessity born from the realities of our government. If our government actually helped the public, actually had a legal system that worked justly and fairly, and actually did Good, I'd shun the amorality of the free market. But it doesn't, so I can't.