Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[wufwugy]

I'm not pro-government. I'm a lot more pro-government that pro-corporations though.

So you're not pro-government because you want government to stop corporations? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but okay.

What about the fact that mega corporations get their disproportionate power from government creating laws on their behalf?

[OngBonga]

So you're not pro-government because you want government to stop corporations? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but okay.

What about the fact that mega corporations get their disproportionate power from government creating laws on their behalf?

My problem with government is the form of government we have. Its sole duty should be to serve the masses. Government here doesn't do that... it serves its own interests. I would be pro-government if such government was ideal. But power corrupts, I'm unconvinced government can be ideal.

The fact that mega corps get power from corrupt governments serving their interests is my problem with capitalism and my problem with government. Again, it comes down to the nature of government.

It's not even that I want government to stop corporations. It's more that I want someone or something to, and government is best placed to do so because it has a tax base and thus huge potential capital, plus it has power in the form of a mandate.

Of course, one needs a non-corrupt government. Has one ever existed anywhere?

[wufwugy]

My problem with government is the form of government we have. Its sole duty should be to serve the masses. Government here doesn't do that... it serves its own interests. I would be pro-government if such government was ideal. But power corrupts, I'm unconvinced government can be ideal.

You're idealizing government and deglamorizing capitalism. You're looking at government and saying "I see all these potential positive things" and looking at capitalism and saying "all I see is negative potential."

The fact that mega corps get power from corrupt governments serving their interests is my problem with capitalism and my problem with government. Again, it comes down to the nature of government.

Good news, that's not capitalism, at least not market capitalism. You can technically call it state capitalism, but that's using a definition of capitalism that we don't normally use.

It's not even that I want government to stop corporations. It's more that I want someone or something to, and government is best placed to do so because it has a tax base and thus huge potential capital, plus it has power in the form of a mandate.

First off, government's mandate is to itself, not the people. We tell ourselves stories that the government has a mandate from the people, but the facts say otherwise. The state's primary goal is to protect the state. This is why the state is above the law. When agents of the state are said to be acting in the interests of the state, what is illegal for the wards of the state (you and me) becomes legal for agents of the state. Two examples are how killing in war is not murder and cops can break traffic laws when engaging state priorities.

Additionally, when we think of who has the greater mandate to its constituents, corporations have far more for their consumers than government does for its citizens. We have seen this fact manifest in every aspect of our society already. The companies you choose to do business with treat you much, much, much better than your government does. The economic theory for why this reality emerges in a market is that because consumption is a choice, producers have to convince people that consumption of their goods are worth their while. Government does not have to do any of this because it takes your money at gunpoint. It then gives it to other people and gives you some money from others and says it's doing you a favor. The state is a secular religion. A lot of atheists think they're smarter than everybody else for seeing through the false deities, but the truth is that they're just as "dumb" as everybody else when they uphold the god of their secular religion.

So, what you're proposing is an entity that is far more powerful than any corporations, that has even less of a "mandate" to its constituents, to be the authority to control the corporations (and you).

Of course, one needs a non-corrupt government. Has one ever existed anywhere?

We do ourselves no favors by calling the innate function of good government "corruption". Most of the stuff that people call corruption today is actually the government acting exactly the way it's supposed to. Government officials have constituencies. Those constituencies lobby the officials for certain laws. Those officials then pass those laws. This is how government is SUPPOSED to work. But the unintended consequences of this is thousands of different subsets of the constituencies getting special treatment. This includes you and me and everybody from the poor to the rich. The rich don't even get more special treatment from the government in the first place. The various middle class special interest groups are the ones who end up getting the most "corruption" from their governments.

It is absolutely important to understand that what people say is corrupt government behavior is not corruption whatsoever, but instead how the system is supposed to function. Let's not blame dark boardrooms for the problems caused by the peoples' support for a dysfunctional system.