Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by big_curses 2050 days ago
It does make it unfair, but I don't see that as an issue in itself.

For the image in your first link, I don't see the issue as Standard Oil being powerful in itself, but rather the government having the power to create regulation and subsidies for businesses that would cause it to be a target of a trust in the first place. I believe the only way to get corporate money out of politics is to take the government out of economics completely. (of course they could still prosecute businesses for illegal action, but they could not solidify a business' power through subsidies or regulation)
3 comments
BlueTemplar 2050 days ago
You can't remove regulation, it's what keeps negative externalities in check.
link
RobertoG 2050 days ago
>>"(of course they could still prosecute businesses for illegal action, but they could not solidify a business' power through subsidies or regulation)"

What it's an illegal or legal action comes from the power of government to create regulation. Any business at that level will have incentive to try to write the laws. They could even try to create subsidies that increase profits.

At the end of the day, you need rules, the question is who define the rules, some democratic process or money?

link
mattlutze 2050 days ago
In a maximally capitalist system, corporations are only incentivised to make changes when those changes improve their profit generation. If environmental improvements would decrease net income, they generally won't do it on their own as it would be inefficient.

Similarly, companies won't generally elect to weaken their bargaining position with employees, such as paying higher wages, reducing working hours, providing PTO or fair hiring/firing practices.

One of the main purposes of government is to represent the will and interests of the general person, whether that's internationally or in collaboration with the companies that provide jobs.

link
big_curses 2049 days ago
"Similarly, companies won't generally elect to weaken their bargaining position with employees"

Agreed, but I think the force to combat this should be unions purely through collective bargaining rather than either side using regulation backed by the monopoly on force that is the government.

"One of the main purposes of government is to represent the will and interests of the general person"

I hold a stripped back view of the government. That it's proper function should only be to protect the rights of individuals via it's monopoly on force. Of course, 'what are an individual's rights?' is a whole other conversation. The government does provide many legitimate services, but they are things that I think can, and should, be done privately. The fact that the government has the monopoly on force is one of the reasons why it's purview should be so restrained.

link