"the reaction to the Bush administration by the left seems to be not 'too much government power is bad' but 'we have to make sure Republicans never are in power'"

Huh?

"True, if I choose to watch television, I must choose between various options brought to me by corporations; that means I have to choose between ~150 channels on the basic package I pay for with DirectTV."

A claim I think is that corporations aren't interested in running bite-the-hand news - that is, reporting that would draw in eyeballs to their programming but would reflect badly on them.

I have yet to see a Democrat say that their eyes have been opened to the abuse potential of excessive government power by the Bush administration. Everything I see from Democratic/liberal blogs argues for more government power. While the argument isn't explicit, I can only assume that they believe that the problem isn't too much government power but just that President Bush/Republicans are somehow unique and once they're out of power we don't need to worry about government power.

Regarding bite-the-hand news, I concur with that, but I still fail to see how that makes corporations somehow more dangerous than government.

While the argument isn't explicit, I can only assume that they believe that the problem isn't too much government power but just that President Bush/Republicans are somehow unique and once they're out of power we don't need to worry about government power.

Well, I think that it's arguably that Rs and Ds are worried about different kinds of gov't power (if you'll excuse the generalization). Rs worry about things like too much gov't regulation of private businesses in certain areas (and of course embrace it in others, the FCC's regulation of cussing on TV comes to mind), Ds worry about encroachment on civil liberties and the like (and of course embrace encroachment in others, gun regulation and smoking bans come to mind).

In general both are worried about the abuse of gov't power the other party likes to use. I don't think (in general) it's a knee jerk "I oppose gov't power the Rs support because its Rs that are supporting it" but rather, they join the party that uses gov't in the way they prefer, which in many ways is also opposite of the other party.

Ultimately, it comes down to "well, we need the gov't to do something, what should it do and not do?" resulting in differing opinions about what it should do and not do.

As to the larger point, I agree that it seems odd that certain people seem to fear corporations more than gov't. Why they think this I don't know.

(as to Microsoft, while they certainly lost in the district court, they ultimately got off with what seemed to me with a slap on the wrist (and I happened to see part of Bill Gates' deposition in that case, and he came off as about the most disingenous f*ck imaginable))

Ugh,

And that's the rub. Sometimes, the best thing the government can do is nothing, but the idea that the government has to act regardless of the situation is probably too deeply embedded in the American psyche for it to be dug out at this point.

Sometimes, the best thing the government can do is nothing,

Which is why I am very much in favor (as a general matter) of divided gov't, though two years of total Dem control from, say, 2009-2011 might be necessary to undo some of the very serious damage done these last 6 years (in all areas). I would also propose, as a general matter, that the Rs and Ds be in charge of the sections of gov't that they are least likely to abuse (which I would say is the Ds in charge of the executive and Rs in charge of the legislature, and mixed courts but that's hard to get if Ds are always in charge of the executive) which is not to say that there would be no abuse, of course.

If you have to compromise with your political opponents you have to listen to them and maybe (just maybe) you'll be convinced on some points and convince them on others. Or you could trade favors, I guess. Plus, always good to have at least one house of Congress keeping an eye on the executive, which is the most easily abused branch.

No disagreement here, Ugh. I have noted previously how the development of factions has undermined the checks and balances built into the Constitution.

You might find thisthis Mark Schmitt essay interesting re my comment above.

I don't subscribe to the idea, but I suppose one argument would be that (at least in this country) the government's defined purpose is to do what's in the best interests of its citizens, whereas the corporation's defined purpose is to maximize its own wealth regardless of the effects on any other entities.

You are 100% correct about a certain group that demonizes corporations. Corporations never have the same degree of power as government. Although, to some degree this fear is based on the fact that a corporation typically has a lot more power than an average citizen to get what it wants from government. But an aroused citizenry making use of the power of government can overcome any corporation.

Its also worth noting that corporations have a form of sociopathy inherent in their structure. They separate ownership from management of business, and as a result make the pursuit of profit the highest ethical value in a corporation. An individual business owner may feel the ethical pull not to do something harmful to his neighbors (i.e., pollute) that was nonetheless legal at the time. But corporate management will defend such behavior as fulfilling their fiduciary duty to shareholders. No one would find much merit in the argument that an individual has a duty to maximize his profits by engaging in harmful but legal behavior -- yet this argument is frequently made by corporate management and is considered a serious counter-argument.

I think many people sense this about corporate culture, and fear its sociopathy. And for good reason.

Justice Holmes posited a famous formulation about how law and government should be understood from the perspective of the bad man -- something I think is profoundly true (If you really want to study law, the law and nothing else, with the end of keeping your client out of trouble, you must "look at it as a bad man, who cares only for the material consequences which such knowledge enables him to predict, not as a good one, who finds his reasons for conduct, whether inside the law or outside of it, in the vaguer sanctions of conscience"). A lot of law is necessary to deal with the problems created by corporations. It would be nice if this was not so, but history has demonstrated the necessity for it.

In short, I think I can explain the basic idea for liberals' hatred for corporations and desire for more government:

Corporations have one goal (more or less): money. Not much they won't do for it.

Government should be for one thing (more or less): the people it represents. Sometimes it doesn't seem that way, but our government is a huge one with many things to accomplish. Liberals usually are of the opinion that the Bush Administrations' priorities are not in order.

Liberals tend to live with an idea that doesn't exist, and probably can't exist in a population the size of ours.

This has been my opinion.

"but I suppose one argument would be that (at least in this country) the government's defined purpose is to do what's in the best interests of its citizens..."

Good point, but many terrible terrible things can be done according to the "best interests of its citizens..."

My thought is that I do not trust the government at all to know what's best for me. If the government decides wrongly for me, then I'm screwed, because my relationship with big government is involuntary.

However, my interaction with big corporations, for the most part, is voluntary.

The thing with government is everyone decides what's best for other people. It's like "I, Robot" where

###spoiler###
the robots decide to lock everyone up so that they will never get hurt, even killing or harming some for the overall good of society.
###end spoiler###
That is how I see government.

"It's like 'I, Robot' where"

That's the plot of Jack Williamson's 1947 classic "With Folded Hands," actually. "I, Robot" is either a collection of linked stories by Isaac Asimov, or the original story he swiped the title from, by the twin brothers who wrote under the name "Eando Binder."

Of course, it's possible some movie company would buy the rights to Asimov's short story collection, and make a movie that has nothing whatever to do with that collection, or Asimov's work, other than to use a handful of character names, and quote the "Three Laws," but that wouldn't change the classic work, and hardly would be worth mentioning, surely.

Jack only just died last month, which I've been meaning to get around to blogging.

Williamson's most famous story is arguably "With Folded Hands", a cautionary tale of life made too easy. This story introduced the humanoid robots, dubbed simply humanoids, which figure in several of Williamson's novels, as the premise established in "With Folded Hands" plays out across the galaxy.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: