Social Atomization and Social Capital

Punk-Stasi 2.0 punks at
Tue Jun 9 12:29:37 PDT 2020

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 06:04:35 +0200 (CEST)
recondite at wrote:

> Jun 7, 2020, 16:22 by punks at
> > On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 06:35:40 +0200 (CEST)
> > recondite at wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> For example, most of us don’t need to trust a farmer to deliver food that isn’t poisoned because in the US we have the FDA

> I don't know much about the FDA other than their "official goals" which is a shame, I'll be rewriting that.

	Well, first question is, why would farmers want to poison their customers? Even from an amoral, purely commercial point of view, it would be a bad and counterproductive practice.

	Then, assuming a farmer does poison somebody, the case should be handled by ordinary courts. There's no need for a special bureaucracy setting 'rules' like "poisoning people is bad" because those 'rules' are already part of virtually any half-decent legal/moral system. 

	So you have to ask, what does the so called FDA and other 'regulatory' groups actually do? What they mostly do is 'regulate' the market in order to give an advantage to big or  established businesses and shield them from competition. For instance, do a search for "goldman sachs revolving door" and you'll see that the 'financial regulators' are 'ex' bankers. So the 'ex' bankers are 'regulating' the bankers. You should do a search for "regulatory capture" too.

	just a sample :

	Also, if businesses are not to be trusted, what about regulators themselves? How is it possible for regulators to even theoretically achieve a level of trust that businesses don't deserve? 

> The jargon I can defend as well. I think we should all practice being as specific as possible in the language we use. 


> Now, I define how I'm using the terms before I get into the substance of the article, which almost declassify the jargon for my readers/listeners. 

	fair enough. I suppose the terms you chose are better suited for your intended audience.
	I just re-read the article. So, despite granting as you do that a 'regulated' and technocratic economic system is more 'efficient', you do see a (big) problem with it. Nice =)

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list