You mean the power given to unelected departments like the FTC, FDA, etc that actually create regulations or the unelected judges with lifetime appointments or the unelected officials in the Department of Justice?
Those obviously need to be fixed. Finding egregious oversights in the structure of our public office doesn't immediately invalidate it because we have tangible, actionable mechanisms for fixing it.
Corporations on the other hand are effectively vestigial 21st century monarchies, with all the cost and benefits that comes with that.
I've ran a few small ones and believe in private industry. I'm not anti corporation, but let's call a spade a spade here. Believing in bullshit never helps you in a competitive marketplace, don't do it.
You mean fix one entire branch of the US government - the judicial branch. Or do you mean the Senate that has two senators regardless of population where someone in the Midwest has far more voting power than someone in a more populous state? Or do you mean gerrymandering?
It’s not libertarianism. It’s seeing the history of biased enforcement when it comes to the “War on Drugs” among other things but even with tech, we see the government would love to get access to data and in the case of the current administration “shut down Twitter”.
If the government had more control over the tech industry, who do you think they would go after?
The government could trivially shut down the internet.
They could easily raid the ICANN and IANA offices in playa vista and shut down global DNS in about an hour if they wanted. It's just a single floor, you could probably do it with 2 police officers.
The chains that bind them from doing so are those of public accountability.
A diligent public strangles the powers of a revanchist government.
Again I agree with you there are regrettable policies that should be addressed. Governance offers us that mechanism. That's why it's preferable as an institution in deciding public policy.
I'd rather have our imperfect government with their awful War on Drugs running the show than say Beyer, who marketed heroin to kids for mild ailments, or Purdue pharma which peddled opioids, you know, as late as last year, or the huxster Elizabeth Holmes or the price gouging Martin Shkreli or RJ Reynolds or any other profit seeking unaccountable entity.
Replacing the FDA with say a board of Shkreli, Holmes and Purdue? Yeah, I'm sure that'd go just great.
And there you have it. When drugs were affecting the inner city it was all about “lack of morality” and being “tough on crime”. But when it started affecting “rural America” it was “let’s blame the drug companies” and “treat it like a disease”.
I doubt people in the inner city or the people who “fit the description” wouldn’t feel the same way about the “War on Drugs”.
Some corporations will kill people if there's a buck to be made and then intentionally cover their tracks. Pg&e, ge, bechtel, nestle, exxon, rj reynolds, purdue, beyer, exelon...
The system as it stands is designed for people to "be as greedy as they can possibly get away with."
Then there's this theory that is everyone is exclusively a conniving bastard trying to double cross everyone and snatch profits by stomping on everyone else, the world will be a functional happy place.
Building a society by incentivizing what basically every religious text says leads to crime is a big mistake.
