I'm not saying that it doesn't help - I'm saying that an outsized government response that tramples on previously fundamental civil liberties sets a dangerous precedent as there is no scale which you could apply to a crisis that measures whether it's acceptable to temporarily suspend constitutional rights. In case it's unclear why I say this, the 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of assembly - right now in many states you no longer have that, or it's severely limited. Constitutional right to Freedom of Movement has also been restricted. Now, just to be clear, I'm sitting on my ass at home because I'm not an idiot, but with that said, I can think of a number of things that cause loss of life that could be subject to a similar response, none of which should be restricted. The question of "where is the line?" is very valid and prescient.Restaurants are still open for take out here in the U.S. but you can't eat inside.
On the question of should government shut down the free market in times like these. Well hospitals are being over run by Corona Virus patients. They are running out of supplies. They need to limit the amount of people getting the virus. Even people that don't have to corona virus are affected. People that are in a car accident, people that need cancer treatment, and other types of illnesses, if the hospital is over run by corona virus patients and not enough doctors and supplies to go around who's gunna help these people when they need help?
Shutting down business and having social distancing helps so that hospitals are not over run. Sometimes government needs to take these actions like these and shut down the free market.
EDIT: What? You can't buy clothes online? It's a multimillion dollar business, that's crazy talk.
That's a really long way to say "I didn't understand the premise". I'm not against taxation in its totality, I'm against the income tax. The government would still impose a variety of fair taxes and have other revenue streams. That's neither here nor there - the arguments you've presented are aimed at windmills since I'm not against the existence of the state, rather I would like to see a diminished degree of state interference in the private lives of its citizens. Once again, a government doesn't build bridges - private companies compete for contracts and build said bridges. Those bridges are designed by architects, and on a more macro scale cities are planned out by city planners. In all factuality, there are some privately ran cities, or cities that are for the most part privatised, both in the U.S. and abroad. The idea that a corporation can run a multinational franchise, but can't run city services is a little silly.Sure. lets say corporations "produce" all the wealth. Corporations also are social structures. But they are structures that usually are unfit to plan along into the future for more than 30 years (usually even more than five).
Lets say it works out well - corporation flurishes, what does it do with their workers? Worker camp arrangements?
Lets say they build cities (and not just worker camps), who builds and maintains the roads, who buils the bridges, who makes sure basic education is a thing?
A company usually cant handle that complexity very well (It goes opposed to the way they are structured - ), so the answer becomes "we all do" (everyone that then lives in that city). And we need the means, so company pays for it. But through a revenue sharing agreement with us. So we influence planning decisions, and not company.
As soon as you get to 'and what about that bridge in 100 years' or 'and what about the workers children' - same logic applies.
Rough cut of "whats a company".
A company basically splits complex tasks into parts, and then seeks to replicate people that can perform those tasks. Thats narrow focused, efficiency driven, ... Those structures are unable to run societies (or large groups, or call it what you like. ), because they care about position fulfillment and role replication, and see the entire rest as an externality.
Also companies can go bankrupt - and its better, that when they do - your city doesnt collaps as a result (destroyed wealth (the roads were still fine?!).
-
The basic point you need to understand is the 'who pays for infrastructure, education, ...' question, model wise. For centuries it wasnt the people in a state. It was corporations and the state. (They made all the money.)
With industrialization workers got a major share of that, and voting powers, but also had to pay for 'society maintenance'.
And they do it (especially in the US) mostly through (also taxes on) consumption (if demographics hold, and you can make them through PR). So to them it even seems fun.
You cant have both. (Pay increase that came after the industrial revolution, and not having to pay taxes.)
-
If we'd go back to libertarian models, you would earn much less, and company would pay for worker camps. (Accommodation, infrastructure, ...)
Also it turns out - Infrastructure - also strongly correlated with how wealthy a country can become. (Synergy effects when stuff works) And we are back to the issue of "who builds them for 120 years and then maintains them"-
If you say "companies" at that point, they cant take risk and fail at the same rate - so you end up with corporate states. (Or oligopolies. Cartels.)
All you are doing is insisting "there is no structural cost" - while sticking your fingers in your ears at some point.
(Corporations build skyscapers based on grants, or insurances that they 'own profits' for that spot for about 100 years (concessions). Those are only worth anything, if someone can convincingly argue, that they get returns back - hence, executive branch, legislative branch, overall structure that honors contracts even in 100 years) and thats 'just' Skyskrapers. If you are talking about highways or railway nets - the costs are a factor higher, and the risk is much harder to absorb by even one (or even a few) very rich individual(s).
And if youd then supplement a company - that company would have to be granted not to be able to fail for the reamortization period, effectively becoming 'state like' (systemic).) Just so that the investment makes sense to anyone.
Last edited by Foxi4,