The real question for me is, do you think that a Government is different or in a better position than corporations or people operating in the market in making economic decision for an entire country?
I believe it isn't. Actually I think it's in a much worse position for the following reasons:
1) A Government is made of people (usually elected directly or indirectly by the majority based on feelings and all the same irrationality), which in turn will likely be "irrational", or have the wrong incentives (be elected again).
2) A Government is made of few people compared to all the people that there are in the Country. They can't possibly know about all the details of the economy and the situations people are in or they can't process it.
3) Government policies can affect the entire economy. An error there can have bigger repercussions than, for instance, a company making a mistake.
Because the government isn't, (or at least shouldn't be) beholden to short term interests in the same way those other classes are.
Companies will happily destroy everything around them, poison and impoverish entire nations if not reined in, just to turn a quick buck.
People are extremely short-term, local thinkers in general. Yes, I include myself. Most struggle with delayed gratification, let alone retirement planning.
A government, under the purview of democracy, is needed to try to balance these things out and help a society actually operate. Without one, well, you'll likely end up with Grafton, NH, writ large - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...
I'm not arguing for no Government. I'm arguing against Government intervention in the economy. I disagree on many points though (I have seen the Vox article before - I don't have much respect for Vox as it is very biased, so I tend to ignore it, just like The Guardian or Fox News).
"Because the government isn't, (or at least shouldn't be) beholden to short term interests in the same way those other classes are".
A Government is made of people. "Shouldn't" doesn't mean "Isn't". You need to convince me that it "Isn't".
"Companies will happily destroy everything around them, poison and impoverish entire nations if not reined in, just to turn a quick buck."
I disagree. What's the point for investor to make money and then die of pollution or die in a fire. Yes, there are bad apples and stupid people, but you can't design a system that prevent people to do things because there are some bad apples. Look at the big tech, they are mostly investing voluntarily to reduce fossil fuel dependency. Of course if there is a market failure that really can be solved by the Government and that would otherwise kill us all, then I'm in favor of (indirect and market based) intervention.
"People are extremely short-term, local thinkers in general."
Disagree, people have different plans, some shorter term some longer term.
Also why would they have short-term thinking in the market but long term thinking at the election?
"A government, under the purview of democracy, is needed to try to balance these things out and help a society actually operate"
Very likely so. Although there are some ANCAP proposals I find interesting like the one form David Friedman, I'm not convinced it would work in practice.
However my ideal Government doesn't balance anything (I don't think it actually can without making more harm than good). It instead define the rules and what constitute private property, but it doesn't decide how to allocate these resources. That would be left entirely to the market.
> What's the point for investor to make money and then die of pollution or die in a fire.
Because then they have the money and you don't. That's all there is to it. Look at the world aroudn you and tell me how corporate greed isn't ruining it.
Actually don't tell me, your philosophy is bankrupt.
Did you miss I wrote I don't know it would work.
Not an argument anyway? I don't know if you know the version I'm talking about. It doesn't even assume the non aggression principle.
"Because then they have the money and you don't".
Money can't buy you a planet (yet) and money only have value in a functioning economy.
"Look at the world aroudn you and tell me how corporate greed isn't ruining it"
Most very rich people are actually donating most of their time to fix what they think are the worst problems
"Actually don't tell me, your philosophy is bankrupt"
Your assertion that people wouldn't damage the environment in the pursuit of self enrichment is possibly the most naive thing I've ever seen written down.
It also flies in the face of 'hard data' like climate change, pollution of waterways and the air, extermination of species and all the other stuff people do in pursuit of money.
I believe it isn't. Actually I think it's in a much worse position for the following reasons:
1) A Government is made of people (usually elected directly or indirectly by the majority based on feelings and all the same irrationality), which in turn will likely be "irrational", or have the wrong incentives (be elected again).
2) A Government is made of few people compared to all the people that there are in the Country. They can't possibly know about all the details of the economy and the situations people are in or they can't process it.
3) Government policies can affect the entire economy. An error there can have bigger repercussions than, for instance, a company making a mistake.