Live data from Hacker News

The Real Adam Smith

aeon.co

121–125 of 125 posts

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporations don’t have any power without government, which is why a limited government limits corporate power. That's a fairly naive view. Corporations have lots of power, potentially unlimited power, without government. A limited government has a limited ability to protect the people and limit corporate power. We need a strong democratic government, because in the end people are what matters.

No they don’t. Seriously, you watch too many movies. Corporations have no power over you. You can voluntarily do business with them, but they don’t have the power of coercion. Please name one instance where a corporation had the power to forcibly coerce someone without the government’s backing. To be clear, don’t cite voluntarily-entered contractual obligations.

You missed the part about no government apparently. If there is no external force to prevent corporations, any person or organization for that matter, from forcibly coercing people.

to be clear... my comment was only when there isn't a government involved at all, which was the context of the conversation. Thanks!

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#122
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporations don’t have any power without government, which is why a limited government limits corporate power. They have as much power as they have resources to enforce, which is a lot more than you have, meaning they have a lot more - and in practice all - power. > If government is the source of protection for your rights, they can only take that protection away. Leaving you your rights and now full burden of pro…

Unless corporations have the right to coerce you (which only government can grant them), they have no power over you. Walmart is one of the largest corporations around and they have no power over me. I can voluntarily work or shop there, but they can’t force me to do it.

> (which only government can grant them)

You've missed the point, there is no government to grant or revoke anything in this scenario.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#123
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes on land have been popular forever. Adam smith talked about it, then Ricardo formalized why rent is what it is, to which Marx barely made an addition and Henry George made an economic and moral argument for Land Value Tax in California. That was over 100 years ago. Today, Krugman, Stiglitz and Milton Friedman agree on land value taxes. The economic consensus on this topic was achieved long ago. Its a political i…

Popular with economists maybe. What has worked well in practice is the government owning much of the land and raising money by renting or selling it which is how Monaco gets by with zero tax and how HK raised quite a lot of money while keeping tax <17% on income, zero on gains.

I cant speak for the details of your examples, but taxing land or owning it and renting it out are economically identical.

High Land value taxes really does mean that the land is not owned by a private individual. But Im perfectly fine with that, definitely better than taxing work or consumption.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no "of course" about it. If you're going to claim that the problem is the existence of the state, you need a lot more evidence than "of course". Certainly you cannot claim the support of Adam Smith in your assertion.

sufficient evidence was provided by Rothbard, et al.

>natural rights philosophy >evidence

choose one

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so you agree that the state is almost always the initiator of aggression? if so, it's simply immoral to allow it to exist, just as you wouldn't allow organized crime to exist. my opinion about the state stems fully from morality, as presented in the non-aggression principle.

If you believe in any form of consequentialism, unilaterally disarming is rarely the moral choice.

of course not, the moral choice is to give everyone equal access to weapons and military equipment.
Post reply on HN