This asymmetry makes me think that many libertarians are probably quite okay with fraud and manipulation;
Yeah. I now think most people with similar views wouldn’t change their mind when presented with the same sort of evidence that changed my mind.
This also applies to pro-capitalist Republicans, who are more numerous than libertarians.
And I’ve noticed something sort of similar applies to a ton of anti-capitalist left wing people: a lot of them think that big companies use lawyers to find holes in the law to get away with being evil while not actually breaking the law. They think we need to pass new laws to prevent the bad behavior of companies instead of believing that companies are routinely violating existing laws. For example, I was debating a vegan from Effective Altruism who hates factory farms but said one of the reasons it’s hard to fight them is they’re careful to follow the law. He changed his mind after I sent him a report from a lefty pro-animal charity investigating and documenting tons of law violations at factory farms. But his default belief was that the big companies that he hates are law abiding. When a lot of the people who are biased against the companies believe the companies largely follow the law, it makes more sense that it’s hard to get people who are biased in favor of the companies to see them as frequently breaking laws.
So both pro- and anti-capitalist people seem to underestimate how much big companies break the law? Pro-capitalists, because they want to defend all companies (they don’t realize how much an essential part of capitalism is that bad companies fail). Anti-capitalists, because they see the problem with companies per se, or market per se, so they don’t care much about details.
Yeah, I would expect that big companies win unfairly by lobbying and changing the laws in their favor, not by simply breaking the laws. But it makes sense that if you can bribe the legislative part of the government, you can probably bribe the judicial part, too. So breaking the law and not getting punished is easier than waiting for the law to be changed in your favor, and gives you more of an advantage against competitors.
I am not familiar with the American justice system, so I can’t comment on it. Here in Slovakia, the justice system is utterly corrupt. We had situations like the mother of a local crime boss was the regional judge, and she always ruled in favor of her son, no matter what he did. There is also a big company famous for winning all big construction contracts from the government, giving all the actual work to subcontractors, and often simply not paying the subcontractors—putting not just the profit but the entire budget in their own pockets. I kinda hoped it was better in other countries.
Cynically speaking, when you break the law as a CEO, you have multiple lines of defense:
you may simply not get caught
the prosecution may decline to prosecute you
your expensive lawyers may find a way to win
you may bribe the judge
worst case, the company (i.e. the shareholders) will pay the penalty, not you
So both pro- and anti-capitalist people seem to underestimate how much big companies break the law? Pro-capitalists, because they want to defend all companies (they don’t realize how much an essential part of capitalism is that bad companies fail). Anti-capitalists, because they see the problem with companies per se, or market per se, so they don’t care much about details.
Yeah. I’ve run into that not-caring-about-the-details-of-things-you-dislike thing before in other contexts. For example, Ayn Rand fans generally dislike Karl Popper (while not knowing accurate criticisms or summaries of his work). I tried posting Popper criticisms on a Rand forum and got negative reactions: people thought it was boring and pointless since they already thought they knew he was bad. I was hoping to show that I thought critically about Popper, and knew more than them about Popper, before bringing up some of Popper’s good ideas, but it didn’t work.
Also anti-capitalists tend to be pro-government. There’s a pro-company, anti-government tribe against an anti-company, pro-government tribe. Liking government gets in the way of seeing the government as enforcing laws poorly and being ~half of the problem. My view (that the companies and government are both bad) doesn’t fit with either tribe.
Yeah, I would expect that big companies win unfairly by lobbying and changing the laws in their favor, not by simply breaking the laws. But it makes sense that if you can bribe the legislative part of the government, you can probably bribe the judicial part, too. So breaking the law and not getting punished is easier than waiting for the law to be changed in your favor, and gives you more of an advantage against competitors.
I see more systemic non-enforcement of old laws than direct bribes or law changes. Fraud was illegal before the US was a country, but a common reaction to new types of fraud is to think we need a new law to make them illegal.
Also, when companies get caught doing fraud (and various other awful things) and it’s acknowledged as illegal, they often pay fines that are far too small to disincentivize bad behavior. I think most elite businessmen and politicians are part of the same social hierarchy that tends to protect their own without consciously realizing they’re doing something wrong.
I am not familiar with the American justice system, so I can’t comment on it. Here in Slovakia, the justice system is utterly corrupt.
I’m American. I think most court cases are biased not corrupt, but we do have corruption too. I think our politicians take more bribes than our judges do. What’s tricky is that systemic bias overlaps with systemic corruption. For example, for-profit prisons lobby politicians and make friends in high places. They seek a greater supply of profitable inmates, then as a downstream consequence the average judge is more biased and worse laws are passed. Then more black and brown people are put in jail. The cause and effect is often indirect without a bribe or kickback for the judge. Direct corruption happens sometimes, and it’s hard to know how often, but at least it’s a scandal once it gets into newspapers, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
Yeah. I now think most people with similar views wouldn’t change their mind when presented with the same sort of evidence that changed my mind.
This also applies to pro-capitalist Republicans, who are more numerous than libertarians.
And I’ve noticed something sort of similar applies to a ton of anti-capitalist left wing people: a lot of them think that big companies use lawyers to find holes in the law to get away with being evil while not actually breaking the law. They think we need to pass new laws to prevent the bad behavior of companies instead of believing that companies are routinely violating existing laws. For example, I was debating a vegan from Effective Altruism who hates factory farms but said one of the reasons it’s hard to fight them is they’re careful to follow the law. He changed his mind after I sent him a report from a lefty pro-animal charity investigating and documenting tons of law violations at factory farms. But his default belief was that the big companies that he hates are law abiding. When a lot of the people who are biased against the companies believe the companies largely follow the law, it makes more sense that it’s hard to get people who are biased in favor of the companies to see them as frequently breaking laws.
So both pro- and anti-capitalist people seem to underestimate how much big companies break the law? Pro-capitalists, because they want to defend all companies (they don’t realize how much an essential part of capitalism is that bad companies fail). Anti-capitalists, because they see the problem with companies per se, or market per se, so they don’t care much about details.
Yeah, I would expect that big companies win unfairly by lobbying and changing the laws in their favor, not by simply breaking the laws. But it makes sense that if you can bribe the legislative part of the government, you can probably bribe the judicial part, too. So breaking the law and not getting punished is easier than waiting for the law to be changed in your favor, and gives you more of an advantage against competitors.
I am not familiar with the American justice system, so I can’t comment on it. Here in Slovakia, the justice system is utterly corrupt. We had situations like the mother of a local crime boss was the regional judge, and she always ruled in favor of her son, no matter what he did. There is also a big company famous for winning all big construction contracts from the government, giving all the actual work to subcontractors, and often simply not paying the subcontractors—putting not just the profit but the entire budget in their own pockets. I kinda hoped it was better in other countries.
Cynically speaking, when you break the law as a CEO, you have multiple lines of defense:
you may simply not get caught
the prosecution may decline to prosecute you
your expensive lawyers may find a way to win
you may bribe the judge
worst case, the company (i.e. the shareholders) will pay the penalty, not you
Yeah. I’ve run into that not-caring-about-the-details-of-things-you-dislike thing before in other contexts. For example, Ayn Rand fans generally dislike Karl Popper (while not knowing accurate criticisms or summaries of his work). I tried posting Popper criticisms on a Rand forum and got negative reactions: people thought it was boring and pointless since they already thought they knew he was bad. I was hoping to show that I thought critically about Popper, and knew more than them about Popper, before bringing up some of Popper’s good ideas, but it didn’t work.
Also anti-capitalists tend to be pro-government. There’s a pro-company, anti-government tribe against an anti-company, pro-government tribe. Liking government gets in the way of seeing the government as enforcing laws poorly and being ~half of the problem. My view (that the companies and government are both bad) doesn’t fit with either tribe.
I see more systemic non-enforcement of old laws than direct bribes or law changes. Fraud was illegal before the US was a country, but a common reaction to new types of fraud is to think we need a new law to make them illegal.
Also, when companies get caught doing fraud (and various other awful things) and it’s acknowledged as illegal, they often pay fines that are far too small to disincentivize bad behavior. I think most elite businessmen and politicians are part of the same social hierarchy that tends to protect their own without consciously realizing they’re doing something wrong.
I’m American. I think most court cases are biased not corrupt, but we do have corruption too. I think our politicians take more bribes than our judges do. What’s tricky is that systemic bias overlaps with systemic corruption. For example, for-profit prisons lobby politicians and make friends in high places. They seek a greater supply of profitable inmates, then as a downstream consequence the average judge is more biased and worse laws are passed. Then more black and brown people are put in jail. The cause and effect is often indirect without a bribe or kickback for the judge. Direct corruption happens sometimes, and it’s hard to know how often, but at least it’s a scandal once it gets into newspapers, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal