[estearum]

You know the point of democracy is that the government is also run by people who've proven themselves in a marketplace, right? It's just one where having more money doesn't entitle you to vastly more power, which is, you know... one well-established failure mode even of private marketplaces...

[parineum]

That chat control vote in the EU sure was sometime, wasn't it?

[estearum]

Are you attempting to make an argument? Because just off-handedly referencing topic-du-jour doesn't exactly achieve that.

[parineum]

Well, you seem to be giving blanket support to the government and conflating it with democracy.

I thought a good example of the pinnacle of government bureaucracy in action acting undemocratically both undermines your position and, secondly, might have you alter your opinion a bit.

You've, essentially, just appealed to authority to justify your position.

[estearum]

Uhhh no. I was pointing out the fallacy of GP portraying “government” outcomes (they’re the only ones that made a blanket statement) as somehow characteristically not generated by marketplace victories.

Actually many forms of government mandate and authority are generated by marketplace mechanisms, many of which are actually more true to desirable marketplace dynamics than those we see in private marketplaces, due to concentration of power, which is a known failure mode of marketplaces in general.

The idea that “government” is some mysterious mythical entity that just exists outside of people’s input and outside of marketplace forces is juvenile.

Neither government nor private market outcomes are intrinsically more legitimate than the other.

[parineum]

> Actually many forms of government mandate and authority are generated by marketplace mechanisms, many of which are actually more true to desirable marketplace dynamics than those we see in private marketplaces, due to concentration of power, which is a known failure mode of marketplaces in general.

Isn't government the highest concentration of power? They, typically, hold a monopoly on taking money with the threat of violence. Seems ripe for market failure.

[digitaltrees]

Yes. But that’s why we created checks and balances between branches and across local state and federal. And have a balance of direct democracy and representative republic institutions. That’s why the rule of law matters.

And just like you can have a good form of government or a bad form of government you can have a good form of market capitalism and a bad form. A monopoly is not market capitalism, it’s the equivalent of a monarchy. Say what you will but even the UK has checks and balances on the monarchy.

[estearum]

Just copy/paste my first comment back here