The Political Brain

[Seth]

[

And that's what Citizen's United v. Feingold was all about. The Supreme Court overturned the "electioneering communications" aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finances act precisely because many corporations are formed expressly for the purposes of political advocacy, among whom are groups like PETA and the NRA. The Court held that corporations have a right of free political speech to protect the rights of the individuals who make up a corporation as its shareholders and employees. That's an aspect of corporate "personhood" with which I happen to agree. Political advocacy through advocacy groups, which must of necessity be incorporated for legal reasons (to receive funds) is indeed a fundamental right.

They don't have to be incorporated. There is no reason they can't act as General Partnerships and still receive funds.

a) A General Partnership with 4 million partners cannot function.
b) No limited liability applies to General Partnerships, and people aren't going to donate to an organization that does not limit their financial liability to their investment.

I would say, off hand, that there might be a rational distinction to be made between political or social advocacy corporations and purely commercial corporations in the law.

That's a tricky distinction to make, because other than a preference that commercial interests be subordinated to non-commercial interests - which is itself a political view - there is no reason why people engaged in commerce ought to shut up more than people not engaged in commerce.

Why should Tom and Bill, who form an ice cream store and start selling ice cream not have their political opinions heard or allowed to the same extent as John and Frank, who form a "save the bluefina tuna" organization? Why should Tom and Bill's ice cream not be permitted to contribute money, but John and Frank's Save the Tuna corporation can? Other than having a political preference for people who don't sell stuff for money, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for making that distinction - there certainly is no Constitutional difference in the US.

That's the conundrum, isn't it? Ban corporate contributions to prevent corruption, or allow them in order to be fair to all citizens.

My preference is stricter scrutiny of politicians in office, and fiscal and legislative rules that prevent them from providing quid pro quo benefits to their contributors. A good start to that end is made by making "earmarking" of funds illegal, and the next step is to make it illegal for any law passed by Congress to mention or favor any business, corporation, person or industry in any way that exempts them from the provisions of the law as applicable to ordinary citizens or other companies.

Remove the power of legislators to favor campaign contributors and you remove most of the impetus to corruption.

Add to that rigid enforcement of anti-corruption laws by establishing a branch of the Justice Department solely responsible for examining politician's finances and voting records to look for any signs of corruption, and making political corruption a felony with a mandatory life sentence. That would add some teeth to the demand that our legislators act honestly and in the public interest at all times.

Then one might enact laws requiring that any meeting between a legislator and a constituent be recorded, transcribed and placed in the public record for anyone to review. The Constitution guarantees one the right to petition government for redress of grievances, but says nothing about such petitions being confidential or private. With today's technology, every such meeting could be video and audio recorded and posted on the representative's website, with severe penalties for failing to do so, like impeachment and jail.

After all, the public's business is the business of the public.

[Coito ergo sum]

[

And that's what Citizen's United v. Feingold was all about. The Supreme Court overturned the "electioneering communications" aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finances act precisely because many corporations are formed expressly for the purposes of political advocacy, among whom are groups like PETA and the NRA. The Court held that corporations have a right of free political speech to protect the rights of the individuals who make up a corporation as its shareholders and employees. That's an aspect of corporate "personhood" with which I happen to agree. Political advocacy through advocacy groups, which must of necessity be incorporated for legal reasons (to receive funds) is indeed a fundamental right.

They don't have to be incorporated. There is no reason they can't act as General Partnerships and still receive funds.

a) A General Partnership with 4 million partners cannot function.
b) No limited liability applies to General Partnerships, and people aren't going to donate to an organization that does not limit their financial liability to their investment.

They don't need to have 4 million partners. They can have 2 partners and 3,999,998 people making donations.
Donating to a partnership doesn't make one liable. Becoming an equity owner does. You don't have to become an equity owner to donate.

I would say, off hand, that there might be a rational distinction to be made between political or social advocacy corporations and purely commercial corporations in the law.

That's a tricky distinction to make, because other than a preference that commercial interests be subordinated to non-commercial interests - which is itself a political view - there is no reason why people engaged in commerce ought to shut up more than people not engaged in commerce.

Why should Tom and Bill, who form an ice cream store and start selling ice cream not have their political opinions heard or allowed to the same extent as John and Frank, who form a "save the bluefina tuna" organization? Why should Tom and Bill's ice cream not be permitted to contribute money, but John and Frank's Save the Tuna corporation can? Other than having a political preference for people who don't sell stuff for money, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for making that distinction - there certainly is no Constitutional difference in the US.

That's the conundrum, isn't it? Ban corporate contributions to prevent corruption, or allow them in order to be fair to all citizens.

There's nothing inherently bad about corporate contributions. There is only the opinion that corporations are bad, and those folks want to reduce the influence of the point of view they oppose by reducing the ability of corporations they dislike to contribute.

[JOZeldenrust]

No, he's not confusing them, he's deliberately conflating them in a strawman argument he commonly uses to misrepresent my positions. You'll see him do this commonly, particularly with Libertarianism, which I would say he is utterly ignorant of, except I know he's not because I've personally thoroughly educated him on the issue. He commonly refuses to distinguish between, for example, taxation used to pay one's share of one's use of public facilities like roads and military forces and redistributive taxation intended to redirect wealth from one private individual to another.

So taxing people according to the amount of government services they consume is the way to go? That makes no sense whatsoever. If it was possible to charge people just for consuming government services, then private parties could provide those services. There's a government precisely because it isn't possible or at least desirable to charge people for using government services.

Charging people for consumption of government services would mean that poor people have less access to police protection, less access to the judicial system, they somehow should be defended less by the military. That doesn't make one iota of sense.

And then there's the issue that redistributing wealth is actually good for the economy, because people with little money increase their productivity more by getting a little bit of money extra then rich people do by letting them keep every penny they make. Gossen's first law applies to money as well as any other good. Of course redistribution should be doen in such a way that increased productivity will not lead to a decrease in income, as has happened in the past, but that's quite easily achieved: just don't use subsidies, but instead settle on an amount of income that can provide for an acceptable standard of living, set minimum wage to be something in the order of 120 - 150 % of that, and have normal wages replace wellfare as a person's productivity increases.

[Seth]

No, he's not confusing them, he's deliberately conflating them in a strawman argument he commonly uses to misrepresent my positions. You'll see him do this commonly, particularly with Libertarianism, which I would say he is utterly ignorant of, except I know he's not because I've personally thoroughly educated him on the issue. He commonly refuses to distinguish between, for example, taxation used to pay one's share of one's use of public facilities like roads and military forces and redistributive taxation intended to redirect wealth from one private individual to another.

So taxing people according to the amount of government services they consume is the way to go? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Er, that's how it was designed to work, back when government was intentionally kept small and powerless. You paid taxes for roads and bridges and perhaps law enforcement and fire protection and that was about it.

If it was possible to charge people just for consuming government services, then private parties could provide those services.

It is possible, and it's being seen more and more. It's actually a RETURN to original principles and a move away from the Progressive Administrative State.

There's a government precisely because it isn't possible or at least desirable to charge people for using government services.

Not hardly. There is a government because certain aspects of public life require a) regulation; and b) certain aspects are best served by government.

Specifically, the military is a publicly-paid for element of government that we fund with taxes because the dangers inherent in privatizing the military are too great. Mercenary armies are far more cost-effective from the economic standpoint, but they are very dangerous from the social and political standpoint because a mercenary army with nothing to do isn't getting paid, so it starts eying the possibility for a coup or deliberately fomenting mischief so it'll have a contract.

So, the military is a "necessary evil" that justifies taxation, but it's not an economic argument, it's a political one.

Charging people for consumption of government services would mean that poor people have less access to police protection, less access to the judicial system, they somehow should be defended less by the military. That doesn't make one iota of sense.

Only if you take the notion of "charging people for consumption of government services" to reductio ad absurdum lengths.

Remember, the distinction I'm drawing is between taxes that are necessary to fund the legitimate and necessary functions of government, which are somewhat vague but include things like police and firefighters and the military, from social welfare programs that simply redistribute money from one taxpayer to another without providing any service to the person the money is being taken from.

A tax to fund roads is legitimate because I may use roads at will. A tax to fund police service is legitimate because the needs of the public as a whole, in addition to individual needs, calls for suppression and investigation of crime as a "common enemy." All such services are freely available to all members of the community to an equal extent. Anyone may call the police or drive on a road or call the fire department and receive service in return for that contribution of tax dollars.

A tax that takes money from me and gives it to someone else merely because their economic circumstances are unequal provides me with no services that I can even potentially make use of. It's pure transfer of wealth by government fiat and authority. There is no moral argument to be made that another person's unequal economic condition imposes upon me a duty to rectify that disparity.

And then there's the issue that redistributing wealth is actually good for the economy, because people with little money increase their productivity more by getting a little bit of money extra then rich people do by letting them keep every penny they make.

Fallacious appeal to pity. This is not a moral argument for seizing the property or wealth of anyone, it's class based jealousy.

Gossen's first law applies to money as well as any other good. Of course redistribution should be doen in such a way that increased productivity will not lead to a decrease in income, as has happened in the past, but that's quite easily achieved: just don't use subsidies, but instead settle on an amount of income that can provide for an acceptable standard of living, set minimum wage to be something in the order of 120 - 150 % of that, and have normal wages replace wellfare as a person's productivity increases.

Providing an "annual income" does not improve the economic condition of anyone, it imperils the economic condition of everyone. If government must provide, as by right, a "living wage," the effect of this will be to eliminate jobs for the poorest and least qualified workers.

This effect is already perfectly clearly seen in US (and everyone else's) minimum wage laws. Every single time the minimum wage goes up, unskilled entry-level employees lose their jobs. The minimum wage is directly responsible for the 21 percent or more youth unemployment rate in parts of the US. In places the teenage male unemployment rate exceeds 45 percent precisely because business owners, when faced with having to pay a minimum wage no matter how skilled or unskilled the employee, will always opt to hire the more-skilled and experienced employee, and will refuse to hire the new worker just entering the workforce.

The historical practice of "apprenticeship" has disappeared precisely because of minimum wage laws, leading to shortages in skilled tradesman. Historically, apprentices received on-the-job training from a Journeyman or Master in the trade, and were given, generally, room and board and perhaps a small stipend while they learned their craft. This is an eminently reasonable system because it does not disproportionately reward unskilled employees based on socialist notions of "fairness" and "equality of outcome"

Benjamin Franklin once said that the best way to help the poor was to make them "uncomfortable in their poverty." "Living wage" laws do precisely the opposite, and in fact doom unskilled workers to a lifetime of unskilled minimum wage labor.

What raises the poor from poverty are job opportunities. Job opportunities result from capital risk by investors and business owners. Capital risk is taken only when the prospect of reward for that risk exists. High taxation, "living wage" laws, and other government meddling in the free markets diminish or eliminate the prospects for reward for capital risk, which prevents jobs from being created, which leaves the poor and unskilled with no jobs.

That's how capitalism works, and how socialism doesn't work.

[pErvinalia]

Look - having a police department or government regulations is not a principle borrowed from socialism. I understand you completely, you're just flat out wrong. Police departments are no more borrowed from socialism than they are borrowed from capitalism. Got it yet?

I haven't had time to write anything substantial today. So, in short, what you are not getting is something I have already mentioned to you:

Government monopolies are anathema to the free-market (i.e. liberal capitalism).

[Coito ergo sum]

Look - having a police department or government regulations is not a principle borrowed from socialism. I understand you completely, you're just flat out wrong. Police departments are no more borrowed from socialism than they are borrowed from capitalism. Got it yet?

I haven't had time to write anything substantial today. So, in short, what you are not getting is something I have already mentioned to you:

Government monopolies are anathema to the free-market (i.e. liberal capitalism).

Government monopolies on the means of production are anathema to free market capitalism.

Government law enforcement is not a monopoly. The government is empowered to make and enforce laws. Government agents who enforce laws are the police. That is not in any way anathema to free market capitalism.

By your logic, a government, which has a monopoly on making laws, is anathema to free market capitalism, or that having judges in the judicial branch is anathema to free market capitalism.

[Seth]

Look - having a police department or government regulations is not a principle borrowed from socialism. I understand you completely, you're just flat out wrong. Police departments are no more borrowed from socialism than they are borrowed from capitalism. Got it yet?

I haven't had time to write anything substantial today. So, in short, what you are not getting is something I have already mentioned to you:

Government monopolies are anathema to the free-market (i.e. liberal capitalism).

Yes, they are. But the key word in that claim is the word "government."

Monopolies do not exist in free markets WITHOUT the support of government and regulations and enforcement that prohibit and prevent competition.

What most ignorant socialists classify as "monopolies" are simply companies who have achieved dominant market share through shrewd business dealings. The ne-plus-ultra of Progressive interference with the free markets in this regard are the exercises of the "anti-monopoly" laws by the Progressives both during Wilson's term and FDR's.

And then there's Standard Oil, which wasn't a "monopoly" at all (there were plenty of other competitors) and wasn't harming the economy. In fact, oil product prices were never lower, and more petroleum products were invented and made available to the public under Standard Oil's reign as the dominant market force than at any time previously. Consumers benefited enormously from Standard Oil's advanced business model and market dominance, which gave it the money to do basic research in petroleum science, out of which came a plethora of new products, processes and techniques that are still in use today.

The result of breaking up Standard Oil was higher oil prices and less innovation. Standard Oil, and the other "bigs" of the time, were broken up not because they were bad for the economy or consumers, they weren't. They universally provided better goods at lower prices because they were able to take advantage of the economies of scale. They were broken up because the collectivists in government thought it wasn't "fair" that they held the dominant market position. And that Progressive meddling in the markets continues to this day, and higher prices and less selection and innovation is always, always the result.

There are very, very few government-authorized monopolies in the US anymore, and deregulation has been, overall, tremendously beneficial to consumers, and has resulted in things like the Internet and cellular telephones, neither of which would exist as they do today if government were still supporting a monopoly on telephone service.

[pErvinalia]

Look - having a police department or government regulations is not a principle borrowed from socialism. I understand you completely, you're just flat out wrong. Police departments are no more borrowed from socialism than they are borrowed from capitalism. Got it yet?

I haven't had time to write anything substantial today. So, in short, what you are not getting is something I have already mentioned to you:

Government monopolies are anathema to the free-market (i.e. liberal capitalism).

Government monopolies on the means of production are anathema to free market capitalism.

Well if you take "production" literally then I guess you are right. But i don't see that "services" should be excluded from the definition of socialism. I'm not a socialist, and honestly don't know a huge amount about it, so I don't know technically whether 'services' can be included in 'production'. But until I hear otherwise, I'm happy to assume they are.

Government law enforcement is not a monopoly.

Well technically it is, as the government is the only one who employs law enforcement officers (although I honestly don't know if this is entirely true for the US).

The government is empowered to make and enforce laws. Government agents who enforce laws are the police. That is not in any way anathema to free market capitalism.

By the way, I notice you are only focusing on the police from my initial list. What of other government services?

By your logic, a government, which has a monopoly on making laws, is anathema to free market capitalism,

No, fail. "Making laws" isn't an economic activity. Employing the labour to enforce them, and receiving payment for the service through taxation IS an economic activity.

[pErvinalia]

Look - having a police department or government regulations is not a principle borrowed from socialism. I understand you completely, you're just flat out wrong. Police departments are no more borrowed from socialism than they are borrowed from capitalism. Got it yet?

I haven't had time to write anything substantial today. So, in short, what you are not getting is something I have already mentioned to you:

Government monopolies are anathema to the free-market (i.e. liberal capitalism).

Yes, they are. But the key word in that claim is the word "government."

Why the "but"? That's all I am talking about. I'm not making any statement on other monopolies.

Monopolies do not exist in free markets WITHOUT the support of government and regulations and enforcement that prohibit and prevent competition.

[my bold]
So you claim. But given that we've never had truly free-market conditions, you can't actually back up that statement.
EDIT: And further to that, your sentence above is an oxymoron.

The rest of your anti-socialism rant has been ignored.

[Hermit]

Just because Obama isn't calling for revolution in so many words doesn't mean he's not a Marxist. He's just a canny, cunning Marxist

[pErvinalia]

Just because Obama isn't calling for revolution in so many words doesn't mean he's not a Marxist. He's just a canny, cunning Marxist

It's all one big socialist conspiracy, Seraph. They even got to the creaters of that site and mixed the axis up and changed the questions so that BO would come out looking like a standard conservative. I can't believe you can't see through this. He's basically Stalin 2.0.

[Coito ergo sum]

The government is empowered to make and enforce laws. Government agents who enforce laws are the police. That is not in any way anathema to free market capitalism.

By the way, I notice you are only focusing on the police from my initial list. What of other government services?

You'll need to be specific about the other government services you're referring to.

By your logic, a government, which has a monopoly on making laws, is anathema to free market capitalism,

No, fail. "Making laws" isn't an economic activity. Employing the labour to enforce them, and receiving payment for the service through taxation IS an economic activity.

Not "fail." Arresting people for committing crimes is also not an "economic activity."

Employing a labor force to make laws (legislators and their staff) and receiving payment for the service through taxation.....is that an economic activity?
Employing a labor force to interpret laws (judges and their staff) and receiving payment for the service through taxation......is that an economic activity?
Employing a labor force to ENFORCE laws (police and their staff).....

By your logic, government is anathema to a capitalist system.

[pErvinalia]

The government is empowered to make and enforce laws. Government agents who enforce laws are the police. That is not in any way anathema to free market capitalism.

By the way, I notice you are only focusing on the police from my initial list. What of other government services?

You'll need to be specific about the other government services you're referring to.

By your logic, a government, which has a monopoly on making laws, is anathema to free market capitalism,

No, fail. "Making laws" isn't an economic activity. Employing the labour to enforce them, and receiving payment for the service through taxation IS an economic activity.

Not "fail." Arresting people for committing crimes is also not an "economic activity."

Employing a labor force to make laws (legislators and their staff) and receiving payment for the service through taxation.....is that an economic activity?
Employing a labor force to interpret laws (judges and their staff) and receiving payment for the service through taxation......is that an economic activity?
Employing a labor force to ENFORCE laws (police and their staff).....

By your logic, government is anathema to a capitalist system.

The legislative and judicial branches of our government are required by our constitutions. There is no requirement for a monopolised government police force. Once again, employing labour to enforce laws, and receiving payment for the service through taxation IS an economic activity, and that activity falls outside of constitutional requirements.

[Coito ergo sum]

The government is empowered to make and enforce laws. Government agents who enforce laws are the police. That is not in any way anathema to free market capitalism.

By the way, I notice you are only focusing on the police from my initial list. What of other government services?

You'll need to be specific about the other government services you're referring to.

By your logic, a government, which has a monopoly on making laws, is anathema to free market capitalism,

No, fail. "Making laws" isn't an economic activity. Employing the labour to enforce them, and receiving payment for the service through taxation IS an economic activity.

Not "fail." Arresting people for committing crimes is also not an "economic activity."

Employing a labor force to make laws (legislators and their staff) and receiving payment for the service through taxation.....is that an economic activity?
Employing a labor force to interpret laws (judges and their staff) and receiving payment for the service through taxation......is that an economic activity?
Employing a labor force to ENFORCE laws (police and their staff).....

By your logic, government is anathema to a capitalist system.

The legislative and judicial branches of our government are required by our constitutions. There is no requirement for a monopolised government police force. Once again, employing labour to enforce laws, and receiving payment for the service through taxation IS an economic activity, and that activity falls outside of constitutional requirements.

The executive functions (including law enforcement) is also required by our constitutions.

Paying police officers to enforce laws has never fallen outside of any constitutional requirements of which I'm aware, certainly not American or British.

We pay a military too - are you suggesting that hiring soldiers as part of national defense is anathema to capitalism now?

[pErvinalia]

The government is empowered to make and enforce laws. Government agents who enforce laws are the police. That is not in any way anathema to free market capitalism.

By the way, I notice you are only focusing on the police from my initial list. What of other government services?

You'll need to be specific about the other government services you're referring to.

By your logic, a government, which has a monopoly on making laws, is anathema to free market capitalism,

No, fail. "Making laws" isn't an economic activity. Employing the labour to enforce them, and receiving payment for the service through taxation IS an economic activity.

Not "fail." Arresting people for committing crimes is also not an "economic activity."

Employing a labor force to make laws (legislators and their staff) and receiving payment for the service through taxation.....is that an economic activity?
Employing a labor force to interpret laws (judges and their staff) and receiving payment for the service through taxation......is that an economic activity?
Employing a labor force to ENFORCE laws (police and their staff).....

By your logic, government is anathema to a capitalist system.

The legislative and judicial branches of our government are required by our constitutions. There is no requirement for a monopolised government police force. Once again, employing labour to enforce laws, and receiving payment for the service through taxation IS an economic activity, and that activity falls outside of constitutional requirements.

The executive functions (including law enforcement) is also required by our constitutions.

If that is the case (can you provide a link?), then I guess i will concede on the issue of the police. But what of the other services which government provides as a monopoly?