Dictators aren’t accountable to their consumers/citizens. I think it’s perfectly possible have a strong executive and excuse messy interest group politics while still maintaining the social contract.
-
-
Governance is a service and like all services it should be subject to optimization via market competition. But we have fundamentally different conceptions of politics/reality and I highly doubt either of us will experience a conversion from a Twitter interaction.
-
It'll becomeva game of pure power and the market will be destroyed. The CEO's will become warlords. The market is pretty artifical. Something like that would probably work better with worker cooperatives.
-
Kind of like how socialist regimes devolve into despotism



-
If warlordism wins out, then warlordism is optimal. But seeing how our techno-productive social base doesn’t graft well to despotism I doubt reality will shift into this scenario, as reality tends to select for the most stable scenario that advances techno-productive elements
-
Also the only way a market is destroyed if all life on earth ends. As long as more than one person exists, so does the market. Think more abstractly and less economically.
-
No. In order to have a free market, you need extremely complex legal machinary to have corporations, currency, monetary, and trade policy, then you have intellectual property, you need law enforcement to protect corporations, and to protect property from people who want it, etc.
-
-
So mercantilism is the capitalist state of nature? Do you think Queen Elizabeth read The Road to Serfdom?pic.twitter.com/2ZPfrgvOXf
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.