Well, simply, because those companies own the Government.
? Are you saying those companies can influence (through bribery and what not) what the governement does? Is that not an argument for removing government since it is used as a tool to pursue companies own interest at the expense of others?
Basicaly, in your words the government itself is the tool you are fearing most – tool the rich use when they squeeze out the poor for what they`ve got.
The only thing I agree with you on is that the Government is not doing its job appropriately.
No, not really. I understand that the governments very purpose is to act as outlined above – as a parasite. In other words, if I say the government acts as a parasite, I am not saying it is not doing its job appropriately. For me, personaly, there`s neither no place for the government in a free world, nor it can do its job appropriately (in a metaphysical kind of sense).
Where we differ is that you think that removing Government is somehow the answer, leaving everyone to fend for themselves.
I`m not too sure why you always suggest that everyone will be left alone. Do not people tend to help each other? Family, friends, completely strange people too? How about charities, see the world wide donations to South East Asia after the catastrophe. It clearly is happening - people are not left alone to fend for themselves where the state fails.
If anything, the belief that the state wil take care of weak and poweless kills sympathy and philantrophy among people. Because you can always say – I paid enough taxes so the state has enough money to take care of the poor, why should I donate again? Long time ago I posted here an article how American Red Cross spoke against government donations because of this very reason. Maybe I`ll be able to look it up again.
I'd suggest Government simply has to be redefined back into what it is supposed to be, a service for the citizens of a nation-state, providing security, legislation, and order through democratic means.
This comes back to my previous post where I tried to define minimal state. Originally, in classical liberalism point of view, that was the way government was supposed to be. I could somewhat accept that as a starting point, as a mean, but not as a goal. But without adding additional "ingredients" of a democratic state.
|