89
Purchase a Freewrite and start your distraction free writing experience!: https://getfreewrite.com/?utm_source=roster&utm_medium=influencer&rstr=Linuxlounge 5% Off Freewrite: LINUXLOUNGE Grab AtlasVPN with 82% OFF and get 3 MONTHS EXTRA using my link: https://get.atlasvpn.com/LinuxLounge Join Internxt and Support the Channel!: https://internxt.sjv.io/c/3655652/1296883/14378 25% Off Internxt Code!: LL25 My New Film Channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD6HbzWxoHr77JADSllMwIA Buy Me A Coffee: https://ko-fi.com/linuxlounge Follow Me On Mastodon For Channel Updates and News: https://fosstodon.org/web/accounts/170495 Support The Channel On Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/linuxlounge Watch The Channel Over On PeerTube And Support Decentralized Tech!: https://peertube.co.uk/accounts/linuxlounge/
Reducing the scope of government doesn’t mean removing the regulatory power of the government, it just means focusing the government on its essential roles. For example, instead of complicated emissions standards with tons of loopholes, implement a carbon tax and increase it to reduce total pollution. Instead of safety regulations for automakers, hold leadership of companies criminally liable for negligence and charge massive fines for incidents.
In other words, simplify government to price in negative externalities instead of directly trying to prevent those externalities, and the market will correct to eliminate those costs. The more complex government policy is, the more opportunity there is for corruption (it’s often cheaper to create a loophole than fix the underlying problem).
Who do you think wrote the “loopholes” into the law? The fossil Fuel Lobbyists. Those weren’t oversights. It wasn’t like some selfless senator was crafting legislation, and wouldn’t you know it, he accidentally defined a light-truck in a way that SUVs still qualify. Aw Shucks.
As far as criminal liability for corporations, do you think that our current representatives just don’t think of these “unique” and possibly even good ideas? No! They are PAID by lobbyists to pass the laws that the lobbyists have written specifically for the industry they are representing. Your entire premise is combination of just-world fallacy, and a healthy dose of the wisdom of the markets. But you are absolutely wrong on both accounts.
I think our electoral system is broken, so whether our representatives think about them is irrelevant, it’s not getting passed unless it fits with the party strategy. And sometimes the party strategy is to cozy up to the fossil fuel industry or whatever.
I’m under no illusion about that.
My point is that this isn’t some problem inherent to “rich people” and making rich people poorer won’t solve the problem. The problem is a huge mess of issues that all work together to reward backroom deals, and that’s the kind of thing larger organizations like corporations, labor unions, and PACs have the time to deal with. And that’s the nature of things anytime there’s high stakes, like with government power.
Everyone will have their pet solution(s), be it electoral reform, campaign finance reform, term limits, etc. Those are all well and good, but as long as there are rewards for hiding loopholes in the legal code, it’s going to be a problem. So my solution is more of a perspective that we need simpler, more easily audible laws, and the way we get that is by restricting the types of regulations we can enact (e.g. the government shouldn’t define the difference between a light truck and a passenger vehicle, all vehicles would pay a carbon tax, as well as a weight-based road fee). Unfortunately, that’s not possible until we do some of those reforms (my preferred starting point is electoral reform, such as ending FPTP), and even then it’s going to be an uphill battle.
Regardless, my point about rich people not being the problem stands, they’re merely a symptom of a larger problem.