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

[theVOID]

I have a problem with any corrupt or power-abusing body. The difference I see between you and I is that I think the government's influence on the economy is a positive one isofar as preventing companies from doing this very thing.

Doing what specifically?

The odd thing about this is - and I do apoligize, as I did put you in the same anarcho-libertarian mix as Adrian and a few others - is that you agree with me on this front - at least in principle.

I find myself defending libertarians often (so I can see how you'd get confused), mostly because of the plethora of strawman arguments launched against them, then again I would point out any straw man, regardless of how similar to my position it is.

Oh, and I can tell you now that most of what you think is Adrian's position actually isn't, he's certainly more anarchistic than me but he's not an anarchist.

The reason I find this odd is because the bulk of the government's influence on the economy (that isn't a result of corruption or some other negative influence) is through the regulation that does things like what the EPA or Food and Drug administration does - which is such an invaluable service that the only people I think that want to see them gone are the people whom these companies were created to police - the polluters and pharma companies for example.

Firstly, regulation is expensive and most of the people being regulated (as in the majority of companies who fall into this jurisdiction) are ethical and wouldn't be negligent in their responsibility to begin with, what that creates is 1) A cost to the taxpayer to pay for regulators (which are fucking expensive), 2) A cost of compliance to the majority businesses who are ethical 3) Marginal effect at preventing those who disregard the law from offending.

The cost of ethical businesses to comply with regulations prevents employment and raises in real wages as the overhead increases substantially.

You agreed earlier that the number of ethical companies is around 1000:1, do you think that it is either cost effective or fair to police 1000 innocent companies to try and prevent the 1 unethical one? It is like the police doing random raids on your house because 1:1000 homes will be committing an offence.

IMO it is a FAR more effective of a system to have much less regulation and much tougher sentences for people who do offend, that way the cost to the taxpayer is reduced, the cost of compliance on the ethical companies is reduced and the people who do offend get much more than a "cease and desist" order or some fines.

The only laws you need are laws against force, fraud, coercion and negligence, double the sentences for breaking these tenets and you've got a system that is more fair, more cost effective and

Personally, I would *love* campaign reform like that. The citizens united ruling from the US supreme court not too long ago abjucated that corperations and unions no longer have a limit as to how much they can donate. I'd rather pay for it through taxes and give all government candidates an equal opportunity to state their positions. It would certainly go a long way to take corruption out of the system.

Agreed completely, now remove the ability for government to great favourable conditions and you remove the incentive for unethical corporations corrupt politicians completely.

I do have to point out that the only reason the rich attempt to manipulate the system is because the system polices them, taxes them, and otherwise treats them the same as everyone else.

Policing is not regulating, keep that in mind.

Regulating is not confined to businesses either, government regulates in the form of a massive myriad of tax breaks, subsidies, interference with the money market, loan guarantees etc.

Their very role as government affirms them as a target by the wealthy for corruption.

Not their very role as government, a specific set of powers that through regulation can be used to manipulate the financial and money markets, give tax breaks and subsidies etc and it's almost always completely producer driven, not consumer driven - most of the time it's to the detriment of the consumer. Look at GM, they make inferior products at higher prices, and in order to make them affordable the government has to subsidise the fuck out of their cars and impose hefty taxes on imported vehicles - They did the same with Harely davidson when they almost went bust by tripling the cost to buy foreign bikes and giving huge subsidies on harley bikes - This did NOTHING to benefit the consumer just as the actions with GM do nothing to benefit the consumer, they hurt the consumer by removing really affordable quality imported bikes and cars from their reach and replacing them with products that seem slightly cheaper but actually aren't by the time you take into account all of the taxes required to pay the subsidies.

GM should have failed, so should have Harley, instead they're hopping along on a tax-payer crutch.

The only way I could imagine that it would be possible to eliminate the government as a target for corruption for the rich is if the rich are given the power and influence - essentially displacing the government entirely.

Or how about this: Remove the government from the markets completely save from their ability to imprison or fine anyone who has used force, fraud, coercion or neglected their responsibilities to society. This way the unethical corporations have no means by which to create the favourable conditions upon which they can really exploit people, instead they're on a level playing field where any competitor has a completely fair shot and the corporation in question can't hide behind exclusive contracts and subsidies and the competitors (especially the international ones) don't have to account for all the extra tax on their product effectively pricing them out of the market.

This sort of thing limits competition and the government does it all the time. This doesn't help the consumers AT ALL - it only helps the producers.

Allowing companies like Citigroup to basically get everything they want.

Broken link.

Getting the government out of the economy isn't going to stop people from corrupting the government. If it's a small government, they'll try to expand it to help them.

And when the government has no obligations to these companies for campaign financing or the power to make these laws because they are ultimately accountable to an independent court (and not a government appointed one) who operates entirely on the principles that have been set the corporates have no means by which they can create the conditions they want to get an anti-competitive advantage.

If it's a large government, they'll try to expand it to help them and reduce it where it hinders them.

Of course they will, any government who manipulates the markets in terms of subsidies, taxes, tax breaks, tariffs, excise and import tax, guaranteed loans and low interest rates etc has the ability to create exactly the kind of conditions that these companies need.

Let's also not forget that the government is fucking useless when it comes to making financial predictions and directing the market. When the government offered the subsidies, tax breaks and taxes to direct investors towards the housing market they cocked up completely, there is a VERY simple reason why, All businesses take risks in terms of investment and SOME investments go bad, when you direct the entire market in one direction and it goes bad rather than just SOME investors losing money the MAJORITY do. Then you're faced with a recession as the overvalued speculation of these government enticed market segments becomes apparent and everyone tries to get out of their investments as quickly as possible - This sort of massive and abrupt imbalances NEVER happen in the free market because investment portfolios are much more spread out and even if one segment goes belly-up the overall picture doesn't change a hell of a lot.

This is where the government can either chose to let the bad investments fail and weather out the recession (and hopefully learn their lesson) or they can try and absorb the recession in another round of market manipulation and inevitably cause another bubble and find themselves in a fucking TON of debt.

At least with a moderately sized democratic federal government that isn't afraid to battle for the common good, it can be much more of a positive force in this respect than a negative one.

I disagree, a moderate government still has the power to regulate which is not only unfair on ethical businesses, detrimental to growth and job creation and ultimately create costs that are passed on to consumers (raising the cost of living) they also have the power to create favourable conditions when corrupted (and often inadvertently, seeing as how much of their 'advice' comes from these same corporate interests) as well as having the ability to manipulate the markets which NEVER has a good result.

The markets are self organising and emergent systems that arise from supply and demand, they are FAR too complex for any organisation to predict, let alone manipulate, that is why investments are supposed to be risks and risks are supposed to have consequence and reward, when you remove the risk you create recklessness.

This isn't to say that I want it to be a communist government

I should hope not, that would make you verifiably insane.

- but I think the government's entire purpose is to work for the common good of all of its citizens to the extent that it can. Staying entirely out of the economy would be entirely contrary to this purpose.

No it wouldn't, for the reasons i've laid out above.

Per hour, yes, but the yearly income of a teacher drags well behind what people generally make given the education required to become a teacher.

No, those are annual figures nation wide.

I think the entire US education system needs an overhaul given how far behind the rest of the world we are. Right now, I'd be for making school an all-year-round proposition, or at least add two months to the 3 month leave that teachers (and all educators in general) have so they can earn a much better wage.

You want to give them MORE time off? They already have more paid leave than almost any other profession you can name.

However, I think this should be coupled with a reform in teacher qualifications so help alleviate teachers that think teaching creationism is the same thing as teaching science. Still, a lot of work yet to do in respect to the US education system. I don't know if things are different down under in this respect.

It shouldn't be up to the teachers at all, it should be entirely the decision of the community board, and since they are public there should be no religion involved. A private school can teach whatever the fuck it likes.

Government should definately have the power to regulate unions for the same reason they should regulate business - to prevent them from becoming corrupt. Philidelphia was famous for a long time because Unions essentially took over the city like a giant mafia ring.

If you regulate neither you maintain the balance, the workers are free to join unions and if their demands get out of hand the employers are free to hire non union workers or outsource.

Yes, but where we disagree is that I also believe that if the government didn't 'interfere' in many ways, the result would be that the non-governmental bodies - be they mafia-style unions, corperations more interested in money that human life, or some other powerful group taking advantage of the powerless - would take advantage of the population in such a negative way that the result can be just as bad as a big brother 1984 government.

No no no, regulations of employment law caused that stranglehold too!

As for the mafia-union or plutocracy thing, that would only happen with no law and order (or favourable laws), not "no regulation".

As long as the unions aren't using force, fraud coercion or neglecting their responsibilities they can do whatever the fuck they like, like iv'e said before the unions and corporates aren't obligated to give us anything, they're simply obligated NOT to break the law, If I agree to join a union or take a job that is between me and the union or employer.

So the result is a government that should be not too small to be effective but not too big as to become a problem in and of itself.

I agree with that, but I think the right size is much smaller than you. A government that meets those criteria doesn't fuck with the money supply, doesn't regulate ethical businesses, doesn't make people but health insurance from them, doesn't offer guarantees and subsidies, it simply provides a safety net for emergencies both personal and natural, defends the borders, prevents our freedoms from being thwarted and stays out of our personal lives.

If the government was only concerned with the markets so far as preventing the use of force, fraud, coercion or negligence and opened up trade completely at both national and international levels you get the following effect:

No control of the money supply limits inflation, keeps the cost of living from rising, keeps the value of people's savings stable which provides a substantially lesser need for social security, keeps the value of real wages rising (real wages (measured in purchasing power) are currently falling due to government stupidity causing inflation to rise) and causes prices to fall (like they used to before all this keynesian horseshit) because productive capacity increases with technological improvements lowering the cost of producing and creating more market competition.

Corporations compete on a fair playing field and constantly have to compete against both national and international rivals for market share, trade taxes and subsidies no longer favour producers and they no longer get an unfair advantage in local markets, the price wars continue and it is the consumers who benefit rather than the producers.

Unions can't hold to ransom businesses because the employees have to compete against rivals both nationally and internationally.

That should make my point, but I could go on and on and on and on...

So, the best path to freedom given this is that some interferance is possible at the cost of some freedoms. Such 'costs' come in the form of security - be them against pollution, foreign terrorists, local criminals, poisoned food, natural disaster, or whatever.

You don't need regulation for pollution, or food, you need laws against negligence and prison for people who are guilty.

You can't regulate criminals, you can only punish.

Terrorists come under defence.

Natural disasters are part of the social safety net, it should be funded through an accumulation of tax revenue and not debt unless absolutely necessary.

The reason the government is forcing everyone to buy health insurance runs precisely along these grounds and for a number of reasons -

Well at least you admit it's forced, lets get to the added layer of bureaucracy being a waste of resources and why it's better for those who can afford it to buy their own insurance later.

The democrats folded like a wet paper in a hurricane against the republicans on the public option (to force competition amongst the providers) and the single-payer system - both of which I was hugely in favor of.

Public options never increase competition, they tried it here in NZ and the cost of healthcare has kept rising while the quality diminishes.

Mandating health insurance is the worst option, but it (among the other parts of the healthcare law) at least force the health insurance to compete and actually provide the healthcare they kept denying to patients to line their pockets by keeping the pay gap between those who paid into insurance and those who drew from their insurance as wide as possible.

It's an ass backwards way of doing it, the government should NEVER force a private company to do business with someone, it's plainly authoritarian, instead those people who cannot afford to get insurance (and it would necessarily be means tested) will be provided for by the government safety net when they get sick.

This arrangement would make healthcare amongst the majority better and cheaper and rates would be adjustable based on factors like obesity, smoking, drug use, fitness etc, those people who have a proactive role in their health reap the benefits via lower premiums.

Essentially, insurance is for the unexpected risks, it is way of setting aside resources for when they are needed, people with long term health problems don't need insurance, they need healthcare, two different things.

Charity and government can look after healthcare, health insurance should be (almost) entirely private.

The mandate isn't my favorite option either, but at the very least, it'll do two things: 1) It'll cover everyone and the poorer individuals will get financial help in doing this.

If someone has money and doesn't want health insurance (he has savings instead) why should the government require him to buy it?

2) It'll keep the insurance companies solvent by giving them the largest constituent base possible now that they actually have to provide healthcare that people need to live.

It has the opposite effect, it is completely beside the point of insurance to cover people who need ongoing and predetermined care, how the fuck is making the insurance companies cover someone who couldn't possibly put into the fund more than they take out going to keep them solvent? It's not...

Charity and Government could cover this small portion of the sector all by themselves, keep the insurance companies out of it, now instead you have TWO layers to go through, the insurance company and the government, that is FAR more overhead than is necessary.

I really don't like it that much, but only because it was #3 on a list of 3 - but at least it'll hold until the law is changed to allow in a public option or replace the entire thing with single payer - both of which are far better options.

Fuck all of those options, Single payer removes quality, increases cost and lowers innovation. Public option just takes money from elsewhere in the economy to offer subsidies healthcare, this has a negative impact on competition.

What you need is private insurance for anyone who can afford it and charity and government for the uninsurable and the destitute poor.

Since I suspect you may disagree with this since I know your position is that only the poorest people should get healthcare from the government, I will say something pertinent on that fact:

I'm actually somewhat perplexed by some of your statements. You state that the government is terrible at everything,

Complete straw man.

but you're fine with them controlling our power

Power INFRASTRUCTURE, they don't sell power, they keep the lines open for competition. Government run power companies are a joke.

water

Water INFRASTRUCTURE, they own and maintain the pipes but contract to private companies to provide the water and pumping stations.

santitation

Contracted out.

police, fire fighting services,

Yeah, they're essential, a private police force is corruptible far more so than a public one, this is a somewhat rare instance of where that is true. Fire services aren't profitable but they are necessary, thus it falls on the taxpayer

libraries

No....

and a poor-only healthcare

Only where Charity can't cover it.

, but people should shit bricks if they decide to start manufacturing

Why the fuck should the government be involved in manufacturing at all? Firstly, It's a complete conflict of interests from a government that is supposed to maintain a fair and free economic playing field. Secondly, government can't predict manufacturing demand as well as a free market because the free market is made of a great many manufacturers all catering to different fields and this makes the total liability for the investments involved spread out much more - Unlike a government manufacturing sector when a manufacturing industry collapses only a small portion of the total manufacturing investment is lost, the rest of the investment is still out there gaining capital and accounting for the shortfall.

Thirdly, governments are FAR worse at allocating resources than the vast web of supply and demand, just do some research on the USSR manufacturing sector, it was a complete fucking joke, seriously you'll laugh out loud when you hear about the blunders.

or providing healthcare for all?

Kills competition which in turn limits growth and innovation and keeps prices rising (through ever increasing taxes) not to mention the government bureaucracy is more inefficient with resources and public health systems worldwide have huge problems with retaining quality staff.

If the government's hand in healthcare is so goddamn terrible, then why do we have government at all?

It's not 'goddamn terrible' it's just worse than individual health insurance.

And how the hell do you get from "government healthcare sucks" to "no government"?

We need the government to provide defence, law and order, represent us on an international stage, look after the essential infrastructure and provide services that are needed but not possibly profitable.

The only difference between local and federal governments is size. The size of the federal goverment makes it no less corrupt outside of those who choose to corrupt it.

Yes it does, the bigger the government the more power it has and the more potential there is for abuse, these potential opportunities for abuse create more motivation for unethical corporations to take advantage of the system and also increases the number of people that it is possible to corrupt.

I understand that you're not a libertarian, but many of your arguements certainly sound libertarian.

There are no individual "libertarian" arguments any more than there are individual "socialist" arguments, it's the accumulation of positions that defines what your political label is. I'm not a Libertarian because I'm not far enough to the right (slightly) and not as anarchistic/minarchistic as they are (more significantly), I'm pretty damn close though, when it comes to the free market especially, we really only disagree about what should be taken completely out of the market.

In any case, I completely disagree that only the poor should get government healthcare (and my arguements to private v public education is mirrored with this arguement) because healthcare should be a right and not a privilage.

A right? Why? Where do these rights come from? How are they not arbitrary constraints?

And no less people are covered in my way of doing things, the burden is simply moved from the inefficient government spending to personal spending.

This isn't to say that I don't think private healthcare providers should exist,

If everyone is already buying healthcare through taxes they can't exist.

but I don't think your financial capabilities should be a stopping point to getting all the healthcare you need, when you need it.

Neither do I, I simply think that because it is FAR more resource effective to spend the money personally we should do so.

The very definition of 'freest possible' includes the right to health and education.

No it doesn't. The only freedoms that exist are "Free from" freedoms. Freedom is being free from a constraint that would otherwise be imposed upon you - Forcing someone to buy healthcare is not a freedom, it is a constraint.

So, in conclusion, I do believe that the path to being a free and definatively a prosperous nation MUST include free healthcare and education, or something as close as possible to that.

Bollocks, freedom is about not being imposed upon, not being required to buy healthcare, not having unnecessary taxes imposed upon you so that you are free to spend your productivity as you like, free to make your own decisions in ALL areas of your life and to do so without punishment so long as you do not impose yourself on the freedoms of others.

I don't understand where you draw a distinction between providing protection and dispensing justice.

Protection is before the fact, punishment is after the fact.

This is generally how justice is dispensed once a criminal has committed a crime.

Justice =/= protection.

Prevention generally involves enforcement of laws.

No, not unless that law demands you do some action x to avoid consequence y, like wearing a bike helmet, and even then the enforcement of the law is a punishment for not following the rules intended to protect, it's sort of the same as the difference between regulation and punishment, a regulation is before the fact.

Perhaps I was using the wrong term - assuming 'protection' meant like how the police protect a witness by having escorts and watches around to prevent harm to this person.

No, that example is valid.

What I meant is 'protection' by way of enforcement of laws.

Protection by way of deterrent? "I am deterred from committing act x by fear of punishment y"

For example, Obama did pass a law that's supposed to protect credit card and bank customers from certain abuses they impose on their customers (spiking interest rates, predatory banking fees). As someone who has had to pay hundreds of dollars in fees for using my debit card to buy candy bars and other minor items, I can't say enough good things about this particular interferance in the US economy and business practices.

You might have a good point depending on the specifics.

If it was a case of you signing an agreement without paying attention to the details I can sympathise but it's ultimately your fault. Private companies are NOT obligated to provide you ANYTHING at the price you want to pay, they set their prices to satisfy demand and by agreeing to those terms it's your responsibility. You should have taken a loan instead or looked for a credit line with better rates.

If it was a case of the credit card company misleading customers with hidden terms or obfuscation then it's a case of corporate fraud and they should have been arrested and forced to refund all fees and pay retribution.

If it was a case of credit companies price fixing to eliminate competition while lying about being competitive it was also corporate fraud and they should again be arrested and forced to refund the fees and pay retribution.

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Regulation in this case is still less effective than strict and thorough punishments for offenders, it's both a cost to the taxpayer and a cost that the ethical companies will have to pass on, raising the cost of taking out even good lines of credit.

Isofar as social legislation, I believe the government should have minimal interference here precisely because there's nothing to regulate that would have any benefit the way preventing overly harmful monopolies would be a boon to what should be a thriving civilization.

Except they don't just take down the harmful ones with their blanket regulations, they impact on the non-coercive monopolies too, the ones who have the entire market not because of price fixing or force or fraud or coercion, but because they have secured the customer demand - There is nothing wrong with that.

Which is to say that preventing gays from marrying or allowing them to marry would have no effect on society other than affecting the relative freedoms of its constituancy negatively through its restriction and positively through its allowance of gay marriage.

Agreed.

Since allowing individuals to have rights requires no laws or regulations, then clearly a free soecity would have minimal influence here.

It does require laws so far as making it illegal to use force, fraud, coercion or neglecting your responsibilities, they are the only types of laws you need.

That minimal influence would, however, have to come in the form of laws protecting victims of crime by those who would use their freedoms and rights to harm another's freedoms and rights. This very act, in and of itself, would be a restriction of freedoms. I can't dump my trash just anywhere, for example.

Right because it's negligent.

The same concept applies to the economy. You've been arguing for minimal influence on the economy, but the vast majority of the regulations you've been railing against and siding with are all designed to ultimately do the same thing.

But they don't just punish for thwarting freedoms, they take an active role in manipulating the markets and the money supply controlling the direction of the market which is usually disastrous, it's what cause the dotcom, NASDAQ and hosing bubble which led to massive stimulus and bailouts which lead to debt which led to the Fed going through QE1 & 2 printing more money to buy the debt of the US government that, because the USD is the global reserve currency, forced the other nations to also print money (which devalues the dollar and increases prices) in order to keep their currency at the same level relative to the dollar so their exports don't suffer, this increases the global money supply which allows nations to bid up prices on commodities like oli, gas, corn, wheat, beef etc which causes the cost of living to rise: The government and Fed caused this global inflation which is BY FAR the biggest burden on the working man GLOBALLY.

SEE: http://fetch.noxsolutions.com/schiff/aud...022811.mp3

Regulation also harms many more ethical companies than it prevents unethical ones, it burdens them with an extra cost of doing business that is ultimately seen as an increase in prices and a lack of capital for investment resulting in less jobs. That is something that 1) Increases the cost of living 2) Increases the burden on the taxpayer for both the cost of regulators AND the cost of supporting more unemployed people.

It is more effective to have harsher punishment for those that do wrong than it is to regulate the markets which are far too dynamic, complicated and adaptive for any government can deal with.

*This seems like it's just going to repeat, if there is anything specific you want me to answer from below post it in your next reply*