For me, the 5QQ interview was too abstract. It presumed that the fundamental problem in all human societies, acquisition and abuse of power, is limited to government. It is not. Because of this, simply talking about economic freedom in opposition to governmental intrusion into the economy conceals the problem.
Commercial enterprises will grow and, as they grow, they will have increased influence over the environment in which they grow. In the late eighteenth century, there was little to no prospect of any commercial organisation approaching the power of a government. That began to change in the late nineteenth century when railroads and oil companies began to exert their growing powers to control the markets to whose movements they were supposed to be subject. Thus the anti-monopoly legislation by which the government sought to limit the companies' ability to parasitise the economy as a whole.
This was again demonstrated in the crash after the relatively unconstrained ("Roaring") 1920s: some countervailing power was needed to restrain the animal spirits of the financial behemoths of the time. Those restraints were loosened in the late twentieth century with the GFC as a result.
The problem is that the requisite blend of government & non-government economic influence in a commercial republic needs to change as the entities and institutions of that republic develop.
No organisation, whether government, religious or private commercial, can be trusted not to abuse power that it acquires. In general civilian life, we do not unconditionally trust individuals not to abuse any power they may have. Similarly, with the behaviour of commercial entities, we need one or more institutions with independence, power and legal/constitutional sanction to police and sanction these organisations' behaviour.
For me, the 5QQ interview was too abstract. It presumed that the fundamental problem in all human societies, acquisition and abuse of power, is limited to government. It is not. Because of this, simply talking about economic freedom in opposition to governmental intrusion into the economy conceals the problem.
Commercial enterprises will grow and, as they grow, they will have increased influence over the environment in which they grow. In the late eighteenth century, there was little to no prospect of any commercial organisation approaching the power of a government. That began to change in the late nineteenth century when railroads and oil companies began to exert their growing powers to control the markets to whose movements they were supposed to be subject. Thus the anti-monopoly legislation by which the government sought to limit the companies' ability to parasitise the economy as a whole.
This was again demonstrated in the crash after the relatively unconstrained ("Roaring") 1920s: some countervailing power was needed to restrain the animal spirits of the financial behemoths of the time. Those restraints were loosened in the late twentieth century with the GFC as a result.
The problem is that the requisite blend of government & non-government economic influence in a commercial republic needs to change as the entities and institutions of that republic develop.
No organisation, whether government, religious or private commercial, can be trusted not to abuse power that it acquires. In general civilian life, we do not unconditionally trust individuals not to abuse any power they may have. Similarly, with the behaviour of commercial entities, we need one or more institutions with independence, power and legal/constitutional sanction to police and sanction these organisations' behaviour.
If not government, then who?
Why would you accuse AI of taking US jobs when you have living, breathing, H-4's for that ?