5 ms·

I don't understand that kind of thing: the government is presumably elected by the people. Why would the people want the government to fight a business that the

I don't understand that kind of thing: the government is presumably elected by the people. Why would the people want the government to fight a business that they could voluntarily avoid, without any government intervention whatsoever? I mean the government represents what the people want. The people apparently want to buy at local businesses, rather than at Amazon. Why don't they simply do it? Or if they actually DO want to shop at Amazon, why would they want the government to prevent them from doing it?

chr1 6y ago
Government represents what the people want, just as much as a browser bundled with OS represents what people want. That is people do not have any way to say what they want and what trade-offs they are willing to accept, they have to choose between two or three horrible bundled packages, which end up doing things only small minority wants. As long as we do not have a way to vote for individual policies, and to trade our support for a policy with other people we are doomed to have governments that do more harm than good.
- schnischna 6y ago
  Sure - but even then, how can such a policy be justified. They can not claim it is for the benefit of the people.
  - Voloskaya 6y ago
    > They can not claim it is for the benefit of the people Why not? Amazon dodges taxes everywhere it operates, which directly impacts us, the citizens. But it is so convenient that people use it nonetheless. So the government is trying to help make local shops a bit more convenient to use in response, wihch would benefit the people.
    - schnischna 6y ago
      Shouldn't they simply curb the (alleged) tax evasions then?
      - Voloskaya 6y ago
        Except there is nothing simple about that. You wouldn't have all of the europe and half of the other countries in the world complaining about it if you could just "simply curb" it.
Hokusai 6y ago
> Why would the people want the government to fight a business that they could voluntarily avoid, without any government intervention whatsoever? In my case, I am willing to pay more to the local shop if everybody is doing it. If Im the only one, the benefit is lost but I personally pay the cost. You can see it as a community agreement. When I travel with friends we agree to pay each one a lunch, it is way faster than to pay individually. But, I agree to do it because all of us agree. If Im the only one, the it is problematic.
- CountSessine 6y ago
  You can see it as a community agreement. When I travel with friends we agree to pay each one a lunch, it is way faster than to pay individually. But, I agree to do it because all of us agree. If Im the only one, the it is problematic. Except that you and your friends agreed to do this voluntarily. I want to shop at Amazon and I don't want to pay for a government alternative that's a sop to obstreperous and uncompetitive local retailers. I'm buying your lunch twice.
  - Hokusai 6y ago
    > I want to shop at Amazon and I don't want to pay for a government alternative And I want abortion to not be restricted, and that other person wants to discriminate by age, and that other one wants to throw the trash to the street or I want let my factory dump dangerous chemicals into a river. Democracy is NOT perfect. But, it is a great solution. Even if sometimes you need to follow a law that you do not fully agree with. And, if it does not work you are free to express your side of the story, go to the justice system if the laws are unconstitutional, and also vote differently next time. That's a very good system.
    - CountSessine 6y ago
      No - democracy and social responsibility aren’t perfect and I’m fine with that. But don’t dress up coercion and force as “community agreement” and compare it to a bunch of friends who’ve agreed to voluntarily pay for each other’s lunches. I haven’t agreed to anything and you’re forcing me to pay for this. You’ve got my money. But you don’t get to delude yourself that you have my willing cooperation.

chr1 6y ago

Government represents what the people want, just as much as a browser bundled with OS represents what people want. That is people do not have any way to say what they want and what trade-offs they are willing to accept, they have to choose between two or three horrible bundled packages, which end up doing things only small minority wants. As long as we do not have a way to vote for individual policies, and to trade our support for a policy with other people we are doomed to have governments that do more harm than good.

schnischna 6y ago
Sure - but even then, how can such a policy be justified. They can not claim it is for the benefit of the people.
- Voloskaya 6y ago
  > They can not claim it is for the benefit of the people Why not? Amazon dodges taxes everywhere it operates, which directly impacts us, the citizens. But it is so convenient that people use it nonetheless. So the government is trying to help make local shops a bit more convenient to use in response, wihch would benefit the people.
  - schnischna 6y ago
    Shouldn't they simply curb the (alleged) tax evasions then?
    - Voloskaya 6y ago
      Except there is nothing simple about that. You wouldn't have all of the europe and half of the other countries in the world complaining about it if you could just "simply curb" it.

Hokusai 6y ago

> Why would the people want the government to fight a business that they could voluntarily avoid, without any government intervention whatsoever? In my case, I am willing to pay more to the local shop if everybody is doing it. If Im the only one, the benefit is lost but I personally pay the cost. You can see it as a community agreement. When I travel with friends we agree to pay each one a lunch, it is way faster than to pay individually. But, I agree to do it because all of us agree. If Im the only one, the it is problematic.

CountSessine 6y ago
You can see it as a community agreement. When I travel with friends we agree to pay each one a lunch, it is way faster than to pay individually. But, I agree to do it because all of us agree. If Im the only one, the it is problematic. Except that you and your friends agreed to do this voluntarily. I want to shop at Amazon and I don't want to pay for a government alternative that's a sop to obstreperous and uncompetitive local retailers. I'm buying your lunch twice.
- Hokusai 6y ago
  > I want to shop at Amazon and I don't want to pay for a government alternative And I want abortion to not be restricted, and that other person wants to discriminate by age, and that other one wants to throw the trash to the street or I want let my factory dump dangerous chemicals into a river. Democracy is NOT perfect. But, it is a great solution. Even if sometimes you need to follow a law that you do not fully agree with. And, if it does not work you are free to express your side of the story, go to the justice system if the laws are unconstitutional, and also vote differently next time. That's a very good system.
  - CountSessine 6y ago
    No - democracy and social responsibility aren’t perfect and I’m fine with that. But don’t dress up coercion and force as “community agreement” and compare it to a bunch of friends who’ve agreed to voluntarily pay for each other’s lunches. I haven’t agreed to anything and you’re forcing me to pay for this. You’ve got my money. But you don’t get to delude yourself that you have my willing cooperation.