Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich

[theVOID]

I do think quite a bit about what some of the more libertarian-minded individuals around here and elsewhere think about society and how it works and how it can be successful. This article sort of articulated my worst fears about the kind of government we would have

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexcha...al_economy

So you do have a problem with government having such power as to create favourable legislation? If the government couldn't manipulate the economy like that the motivations and opportunities for the rich to hijack the system diminish.

Money should not be part of the political system, candidates should be required to campaign on equal budgets and the law makers shouldn't have the powers necessary to create these conditions for their buddies in the first place - In other words, elections should be about the number of people, not the number of dollars.

In other words, rich Democrats and rich Republicans elect politicians with a diverse range of views, but all of which ultimately respond to the policy preferences of the rich.

I've heard a lot of talk around here in particular because this is honestly where I can have any good political discussion with people much further to the consevative and libertarian side of the political spectrum, whereas I am more of a liberal. There's also been a lot of related issues in the news lately concerning this very issue.

The government abuses of power and the citizen's revolt in Egypt and the democrat, union, and teacher's revolt in Wisconsin against its govenor's attempt to quash the union's bargaining power despite the union's desire to help with the state's budget issues by cutting back benefits and pay.

The government shouldn't have any power to regulate unions at all - Again favourable conditions created by politicians with too much power.

Teachers and state employees make more on average than workers in the private sector (Average public individual income is $60k, private sector is $40k) they could stand to lose some of their benefits so the private sector workers pay less taxes. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed unions, it means the state should stop baying them undue benefits, such as higher pensions and better coverage.

Now, what I honestly think makes a nation successful is when its government takes a minimal role in their social lives and thus allowing people to have complete freedom in choosing the course of their lives.

I absolutely agree with that, and letting people have complete freedom in choosing their own lives includes not forcing people to buy health insurance from the government, not dictating the terms of their contracts etc.

I believe the government should only give opportunies here, such as in education and job availability and not take any away, such as though legislation of sex, such as gay marriage or a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not. The government should certainly, I believe, protect citizens from the abuses that we can inflict upon one another - robbery, rape, murder, and so forth.

I agree here too, though they can't effectively protect from abuses, they can only effectively punish abusers.

What I believe the government's role in our lives should be is the protection. I believe it is the right of every human to health, life, education, and our freedom from the tyranny and malfeasance of others. This is to say that I believe the government should provide all of the services that provide for the quality of life for the entire society as much as its safety and defense. I do not believe that human health, education, and other facets so important not only to each of us as individuals but even to the collective power of an entire society.

Again, protection isn't something they can do that effectively, it's punishment that ultimately deters wrongdoers.

And where do these rights come from? Why does my being a particular species of primate entitle me to education? If I get sick has my 'right' to be healthy been thwarted? There are huge problems with these categorical imperatives.

I have a problem with the idea that things like healthcare is left to those whose ultimately are looking for money and not for the general welfare of the human beings whose life literally depends on their service.

Healthcare should be the responsibility of the individual to provide for those in his/her care. Public healthcare should only be for those who are unable to buy private insurance. And life doesn't depend on healthcare for the vast majority of most people's lives, it only depends on healthcare when we are sick. That's the point of insurance (or personal fiscal responsibility), to set aside resources for when we need them.

Human history - and especially American history - is filled with the tyranny and greed of the powerful over the powerless. American history had what many libertarians and conservatives - to whatever extent - want out of the economic system. For the first few decades of American history really was as close to true Lassiez-Faire capitalism as I've known in the world.

And it worked a treat, back when the government didn't have nearly as much power as they do now, the problem was not an economic one, it was a social one, the rights they had established for themselves were not consistently applied to others, and that's a travesty.

It was a time when the government's budget could fit on a single sheet of paper and human equality was measured between white male property owners and genocide against the native americans was as overlooked as human rights violations against the geneva convention at guantanimo bay was (and still is) during the Bush-Cheney Administration.

Agreed, Gitmo needs to go.

It didn't take long for it to fail, utterly, precisely for the same reasons that many large companies are giving us problems today, such as BP ignoring safety standards in the Gulf of Mexico or Pharmascuticals essentially charging Americans 100x or more for our prescription drugs than in other countries we would consider 3rd world nations, like Cuba. It was a time when the first American monopolies began to form and essentially had utter dominance in American life for decades, until the government had to step in and start the regulatory culture that we still have today.

Fail? What, the social bigotry that was permitted by biased and ignorant men? The economy didn't fail, it thrived for a very long time.

Oh, and the government created the first monopolies with exclusive contracts.

You already know I think price-fixing is a case of fraud and coercion, I'm against both those things.

And when exactly did these monopolies begin utter dominance? You've always been conveniently vague when you bring that up. The fact of a company controlling a market does not make them in control of people's lives, it only makes them in control of what they charge for products and services, and a non-coercive monopoly can only exist so long as customer demand exists and customer apathy prevents them from seeking another source - There is always a potential for competition.

And you see, the government made these changes for good reason - the American people demanded it.

That's a good reason? What if the american people demand that gays not marry or people be arrested for smoking pot? Oh wait...

The railroads and Standard Oil and others abused their power over their employees and their customers, who frequently had little choice but to purchase their products, because like gasoline and healthcare today, there is no other shops in town.

Firstly, this is why globalisation is awesome, competition is immense now compared to before, the two situations aren't the same by any means.

Secondly, Abused their power? Tell me, if I have product x am I obligated to give it to you at a price you can afford or am I allowed to charge what I like for it? Why should your wanting product x, not part of your being or property, obligate me to provide it to you for a price that you want to pay?

They were either purchased, run out of town,

Force and coercion, both something I condemn.

or simply out-competed until there was only one shop to buy from

Nothing wrong with that, so long as they don't use force or coercion to keep people out and instead dominate them in terms of cost to the consumers they can freely do it. Nobody is obligated to keep their competition in business.

and other methods to keep their employees good and loyal, after all, as many have learned in modern times, once you're out of a job, there are few choices (particularly if your former job was the only local location that required someone with your set of skills) you have before you in terms of finding another job capable of supporting you and your family.

That's what the welfare for the destitute poor is for. If you lose your job once you have spent all of your savings you can get welfare payments.

So, what American history has shown us is that Americans demanded protection from those abuses (child labor laws, work safety, minimum wage, the 40-hour work week, vacation days, etc) which was each fought and won against the desires of a number of employers over the few centuries of American history.

If an employer wants you to work more and you refuse, and provided you haven't signed a contract specifically with those terms, then the employer should have the right to find someone who will work.

It's also the entire reason of why Labor Unions exist and they existed during the day and age when protests against terrible work conditions was cause for the employers to call in the national guard to break up these protests through the use of force.

I'm for people having the right to form unions AND for their right to protest peacefully. I'm AGAINST governments having the right to break up these protests. This isn't an issue of small government, it's an issue of social liberties, the two are not by any means mutually exclusive.

And so, the ultimate result of those battles is the America we see today,

More broke and more unequal? Great example!

where the battle continues to wage in places like Wisconsin, who has a govenor who publically stated that despite the union's willingness to concede to pay and benefit cuts for the betterment of Wisconsin, the GOP leaders there are still more interested in tax cuts and labor union busting.

That GOP governor is a cunt. He shouldn't have that kind of power to being with.

Benefit cuts ARE tax cuts, benefits are funded through taxes... That aside I think the unions have been more than reasonable considering the economic climate.

This isn't for some political ideal. This isn't even for the good of the struggling economy of Wisconsin.
This is to remove the rights of the employees - government and otherwise - of the state of Wisconsin.

Agreed, this is an issue of government having power they shouldn't that they use not to uphold the law but to pursue an agenda.

This isn't a battle even limited to that state, as many of those in the GOP and even many libertarians and tea party individuals within this country all want to see labor unions dead and the government reduced in power as much as possible out of what I can only imagine as the belief that rich and powerful companies are more good natured than the rich and powerful goverments.

Firstly, reducing the government as much as possible includes removing their power to control the establishment of unions, what we're seeing with the Tea Baggers is hypocrisy, treachery and double standards - They're generally a bunch of idiots and assholes who want not to have a small government so much as they want conditions that suit them, they need much more than minimal government to get that, they need a decent level of authoritarianism.

Secondly, that is the same straw man you've used again and again. It is NOT a case of corporations being better for us than government, it is a case of PEOPLE being better able to run their own lives than the government. Corporations shouldn't have ANY obligation to improve our lives, they only have an obligation not to cause harm.

Now, I'm not someone who finds companies inherantly evil - for every bad example I can name, I'm quite certain that I can find 1000 good companies - both small and local as well as those with billion dollar annual profits.

Agreed, if not more than 1000:1.

They can be good or evil. Efficient and well-to-do and lazy and inefficent despite whatever percieved benefits given by rules and regulations and the law. Where I and libertarians differ is that I believe that governments are no different than companies in this regard.

A small government is the only form of efficient government, bureaucracy being a layer of cost is an inevitable fact of large government.

I've been in a few discussions with a few of them - theVoid, Tiberius, and I think one or two others who appear to represent the position of a drastically reduced role of government and outright elimination of government in the realm of economics.

NOT a libertarian, thank you.

Personally, though, I take issue with this position and I'll tell you why -
First, it's highly conductive to the environment in which one company can come to completely dominate the market. Short of violating the law through the use of deadly force, this opens up an environment like those in American history against the abuses brought upon the employees of the steel industry, but this time, there are no unions (quashed by the company) and no goverment (lassiez-faire approach to economics).

For fucks sake stop making straw men.

1. Free Market economics =/= No government (as you've been corrected on multiple times already).

2. Free market businesses can only 'quash' unions to the extent that they have the right to hire non union employees if they want.

3. The steel industry was coercive, forceful and fraudulent, that is NOT a failure of the free market, it is a failure of law and order.

So how much freedom have we ended up with in this scenario? How and why is this good for society? How is this better than than a 1984-style "Big Brother" government?

Your scenario is a straw man, when you have the fundamentals correct try again.

I've been told that 'market forces' are supposed to control this.

ANOTHER straw man... The free market controls the direction of economic growth, the supply and demand of products, the value of resources etc NOT the social liberties of the people OR the consequences of negligence, force, fraud or coercion - THAT is the role of government.

Employees are allowed to leave or not purchase unsafe products as private companies would provide many of these protections and can do so better than the government can.

No they wouldn't.

Unsafe == negligent.

It is in the best interest of the companies NOT to be negligent (as the vast majority do) because of the potential for imprisonment and losing the demand for their product to a competitor.

My evidence against that is FOX News or any of the "big three" sources of information to the general American public - CBS, MSNBC, and FOX. Does anyone really trust any of those privately owned News Companies to fairly report the news? FOX beats the pants off the others for ratings, but they are the least trusted source of news broadcast on television.

No more than I trust a state broadcaster not to be just as biased.

They blatantly work effortlessly to promote an agenda and spin the news in the context of the GOP and republican party. What's to say that a privately owned company that's supposed to report on food safety couldn't be bought out in the same manner as a bribe to the food safety inspector?

Safety = negligence = role of government. Not an issue.

I'd rather have a corrupt government offical in a democratically elected government because it's at least easier to change the political climate than a corrupt company that stays afloat entirely because they get legal kickbacks from one or more companies they should be regulating.

Not when your only two choices are essentially two sides of the same coin.

Another downside of government is their concern with short term popularity designed to get them through election cycles - There is very little concern by the government for long term implications of policy, such as the bailouts and stimulus spending, as well as the creation of the automotive bubble by offering subsidies - that combined with low interest rates and guaranteed loans was the same damn thing that was responsible for the housing bubble, the loans might be lower now but the interest rates are going to be the killer, seeing as they're currently at 0.25%... people who are already poor and who were coaxed into buying cars by government subsidies are going to see their teaser interest rates expire and be faced with the same repayment problems as before. Your country is going to need to borrow even more money from China, Japan, Russia, Australia, Canada and your other BIG financiers who own 14 trillion fucking dollars of your debt already... That's 14 thousand billion dollars, say it with me! Soon the rest of the world will cut you off and you'll have to start printing money just to cover the interest payments. The government will probably never default on their loan, so they'll start selling more and more treasuries (Fancy IOU's) to the Fed who will continue printing more $2 trillion bundles to pay for them, the value of your dollar will collapse, the value of savings will diminish, prices will skyrocket - Collapse.

What they should have done was ridden out the dotcom/NASDAQ bubble in the late 90's and again in early 2000's when it became apparent that the value of the Internet at the time had been overestimated and literally tens of thousands of companies who were valued by speculators at at hundreds of thousands to millions and in some cases billions of dollars weren't making a cent, pretty much all of them were taking loans against their speculated value and the bubble burst - That would have been a recession that would have been NOTHING compared to what is faced today OR what will happen in the future, instead, stimulus spending, low interest rates, guaranteed loans and subsidies for housing designed to 'absorb' the effect of the recession instead created a housing bubble - Bush obviously didn't get it, he still says that one of his great achievements was ending the recession in the early 2000's, the same actions that caused the housing bubble. Obama doesn't get it either sadly, he's doing pretty much the same thing, but spending 4 times as much, he's already outspent Bush's two terms.

This only gets worse when you start to consider things like education and health.

Private healthcare is a really competitive industry, given people expect to pay for their behaviours such as smoking and not exercising they can get it much cheaper that the cost per person in a public system. The government and charity can look after the uninsurable and those who can't afford it.

Second, the greatest human achievements both before and since the industrial revolution have had as much to do with huge government projects. The entire space race would have never happened if the government didn't create and fund the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Not to mention the boon on the quality of human life that government organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency or the project that created the Hoover Dam. The Statue of Liberty was a joint venture by both the French and US governments.

I'm not against research like that (I don't give a fuck about the statue, it's just aesthetic), these lines of research usually have implications that fall into the government's realm of responsibility, like defence, the NASA missions most certainly did. Saying that however, more and more larger and pioneering developments are being developed in the private sector, like the entire modern technology industry and private organisations offering space flight are emerging, I don't think government research will ever completely diminish but things are changing.

When a goverment works well as many have and do (and it tends to be a thankless job, given the anti-government climate that seems to flourish in the United States, even among us "big-government" liberals), it can fly us to the moon and provide us the cohesiveness and solidarity that allowed so many to fight and die for their freedoms in Wars both new and old.

Um, they're both roles for government that almost everyone wants, It's not an argument for or against, just a statement about some useful roles of government.

When a company is a good company, it give you a happy life and place to work and even build up a legacy.
Who doesn't remember Thomas Edison or Washington Carver or Bill Gates or Walt Disney and so many people who built a legacy and good, decent places that allowed people to happily build a life for themselves.

Right, good examples of capitalism.

When a Union works well, it protects those employees who simply want to work for a decent wage and reasonable hours - whether the trouble comes from government getting too far into your business or a company that patently ignores safety standards for its employees.

Yeah, and when a Union holds a business to ransom for hiring non union employees they are being just as bad as a business who fires people for being in a union.

And I don't see why there is such a problem with someone being willing to work longer and for less than someone else, we should have to compete for our jobs and not expect them to be handed to us on a platter.

You see, I think that if history has shown us anything, is that the freest and happiest society exists when it has the most opposing forces at work. I consider this to be the "big three" - which each represents the government, the people, and the compprivate industry. When all of these things are in opposition, the result can be wonderous because they are forced to compromise and bargain with one another as a "gangster" union would have to answer to the government and complaining companies and employees over bad practices. Polluting companies have to answer to complaining citizens and government regulators. Unpopular senators (like a certain Wisconsin govenor) will have to answer to angry mobs of teachers, unions, and common citizens in their attempt to obliterate the union's ability to bargain and organize in their state.

There are so many problems with that I hardly know where to begin... Firstly, the government and the people aren't supposed to be in opposition, the government is supposed to be an extension of the people. Secondly, the government isn't supposed to oppose business, it's supposed to create a climate in which business can be successful in order to give people jobs and bring money into the economy through exports - the government is supposed to oppose lawbreakers, represent the people on an international stage, defend the borders, look after basic infrastructure and stay the fuck out of people's personal lives.

Freedom flourishes in a system of checks and balances.

No, freedom flourishes when people are free to control their own lives and not have their lives diminished by others, the only freedoms that need exist are "Freedom From" freedoms, freedom from persecution for victimless crimes, free from regulations and instead punish the guilty, not those with the potential to be guilty at some later point in time. The only checks and balances needed are laws against force, fraud, coercion and negligence, after that people can do anything they like because they'd necessarily then be doing no harm to others.

Some of these can be corrupted, but there can bea systems for dealing with that as well.

Systems such as?

I think the American system as well as several of those around the world, although all flawed, have figured this out.

Figured out how to get into debt because they can't work out how to make do with the product of their own productivity, they need to import someone else's.

This is why I think the European systems, Canadian, American, Australian, and so many more have environments in which all of these forces exist, flourish, and remain in opposition to one another and thus allow each one of us to do as well as we can. We're all in this together.

Australia is $1 trillion in debt.
Canada's debt is $560 Billion.
America's debt is $14 trillion
Europe's total debt is $18 trillion

Last time I checked, when you're in the red flourishing is an illusion.

Yet, the libertarian arguement states that the oppositional forces can come from people and competing companies rather than government (and/or union, as some have argued), but as history has shown, that isn't enough. It's been tried. It's failed. It's why things are now the way they are.

And being that far in debt is success? The government is too damn big, it does too much shit it shouldn't, spends too much money and it's resource inefficient.

Now, I don't believe that governments, companies, unions, or people are inherantly evil. Quite the opposite in fact, but that has never stopped the few of those with power and influence from taking advantage of those who don't have the power to stop them.

Seriously, another straw man?

The government has the power to arrest them for breaking the law - That is NOT the same thing as regulation.

Be them government or a CEO or a Union leader. What a free society should strive to do is prevent those from being able to corrupt or take advantage of others in this way.

Be really careful with what you mean by 'take advantage' of someone. Am I not able to take advantage of a skill someone else has to achieve something? Am I not allowed to take advantage of someone's hospitality? It's NOT something you can be so vague about.

And again this is a straw man, depending on what you specifically mean by 'take advantage', no libertarians advocate someone being forced into anything they do not desire to do, it's only the pseudo-libertarian teabaggers with their authoritarian leanings that would do anything similar.

Eliminating government will only be conductive to this environment.

Another straw man, nobody wants to eliminate government.

It's why communism will fail. It's why best and greatest answer is always everything in moderation.

How naive a statement to make. Some things are right, some are wrong some are simply unknown. Arsenic in moderation? Be my guest...

Everyone is equal to one anther in that it should be a given right to all humans to have equal power to one another - even if this isn't measured by wealth.

Which is why you remove politics from capital, both in terms of outside funding for campaigns and outside interest in using the government to set up convenient legislation.

I believe in capitalism, but I believe in democracy more than anything else. One individual. One vote.

Agreed.

Anyway, thank you for reading my rant/random thoughts. I'd be interested in any thoughts that anyone may have regarding anything I've discussed above or the linked article.

You've got plenty of mine