Forum Post: Get money out of politics? How about get politics out of money.
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 14, 2011, 9:03 p.m. EST by voluntaryist
(5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Ever think of what the difference is between politics and economics? Politics is the use of coercion to get one's (or group's) way. Economics is voluntary trade. Politics is tyranny. Economics is freedom.
Politicians are not held to any contract. They may pledge an oath to uphold the laws, but guess what? They make, enforce, and interpret the laws. Conflict of interest maybe?
Money ain't the problem. Money is a commodity one uses voluntarily (or not) in a world free of politics. We don't live in a world free of politics controlling money.
Those who scapegoat money will never find a way out of the trap of power. Money can't do a thing. People using coercion, which is the job description of a politician in office, are the problem. Ever muse over how a politician running for office asks for contributions, yet once in office suddenly no longer has to get voluntary contributions, and can legally steal with taxes? Bait and switch. This is why politicians can sell promises without being held to a contract.
Can Starbucks or any corporation put you in jail, tax you, or coerce you in any way? No. Government can. Problem is government has its meddling, coercive hand in almost everything, especially business. Corporations are the result of the environment that government has created and enforces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-3hZsXrxaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Monopolies are the result of the environment that government has created and enforces under the influence of corporations.
In capitalism, the corporations rule the world, not the government.
Of course, that is why you pay your taxes to the government and not corporations...
You also contradicted yourself when you say that government creates the environment that allows corporate monopolies, yet corporations rule. It can't be both, so which do you mean? Either government makes the rules (ie the environment) or corporations do.
It's a chicken and an egg argument, but the decisions are actually coming from the corporations and the banking elite. Government just enforces them.
The taxes you pay are nothing comparing to what you pay to corporations that influence the government.
And also, just to clarify, government intervention is not the main course of monopolies, the nature of capitalism is.
I appreciate your time exchanging posts.
Can you explain how a monopoly is created in the free market? First of all, a free market means COMPLETELY voluntary trade. Zero coercion.
The free market is the antithesis of a monopoly. A monopoly implies coercion preventing competition. How would this happen in the free market?
Sure. Let's say there is a company 1 in city A that compete with company 2 in the same city A. Both companies are generating a substantial income. Now, the companies can expand to other cities. Now, one of the companies started a new branch(or even a different company) in different area or multiple areas. Company's income has doubled. The next step is to repeat it. You can repeat it as much as you can. Now the company can temporary lower the prices in city A and shifted the burden onto it's other branches, company 2 lost most of it's customers and went bankrupt. Now it can set any price it wants in that area as there is no more competition.
Let's suppose the company 2 somehow knew about it and started doing the same thing. That would be some chess game and a constant time raising. Eventually, one of them will loose and we are beck to scenario #1.
If any new company is dare to open up, the monopolizer can repeat the same tactic.
Of cause, there could be different types of companies that just suddenly decide to operate in the different market like Google does all the time. But they are not playing game limbo stick, they are playing game monopoly. They will play until one of them looses and we are back to scenario #1.
Well, there's a problem with your scenario. To open a branch takes a serious investment. That company now does not have that money to spend in other ways like marketing or research and development. When a company spends money in one way, it closes the door on other possibilities. Which strategy is the best? Is it best to open two branches with less product development, as an example? The company that expanded may not be able to bring out the next, cool product, for instance, and lose market share and future profits to the company that focused on product development. Also, in a free market, a company is only as good as its latest service, and cannot compete in all niches of a market as well as individual companies can focus on one niche as a strength.
The game, Monopoly, is not an example of the free market. How can you innovate in that game if you follow the rules strictly? That's not the real world. The real world is open to possibilities that someone is only thinking about now.
"serious investment"? if an individual can open a company to compete with another company, then already established company can definitely open another branch.
Sure, serious doesn't mean anything, so I am not defending my choice of word there. You didn't actually deal with my argument though. Money spent one way is an investment that may or may not pay off. One company can open a branch with money. The other company can lower prices with that money, and gain market share in its region. A third company can put money into developing the next great thing, and shrink demand for competing products. And so on. There are many possibilities and variations. So which is the best strategy? And why do you think there is one strategy? Even a strategy that works temporarily may not work in the future when something new arises. Facebook came to the fore suddenly despite starting small, and competitors having much more money. Apple required a loan from Microsoft to stay solvent, and now is the most valuable traded company. So fortunes rise and fall, and success is hard to maintain. Only violence, ie coercion, could stop the rise of new innovations and discovery of new opportunities. Violence is government, meaning authority. In the free market, there is no central authority.
The fashion industry is a good example for the possibility of the free market. In the fashion industry, copyrighting is not legal. The industry is still very innovative and profitable for all the levels of production. No monopoly has formed. The consumer has so many options in fashion and clothing.
The worst thing about any type of market is the ownership concept. This concept is incompatible with people and nature.
The rest of free market is not pretty ether. It's a constant competition and struggle for survival with no safe place at all, I fill bad even visualizing it.
Kudos to Voluntaryist for posting a thought provoking chicken and egg dilemma!
Part of the problem is we tend to use the terms "money" and "politics" in an overly broad manner that ignores the complexities of the increasingly interdependent relationship between government and the economy. Complete deregulation to an utterly "free" market is neither achievable nor desirable.... in the end, such an extreme libertarian view boils down to advocating Anarchy (ie, a system with no rules at all where everyone has to fend entirely for themselves)…kind of ironic given that I have seen a few self-described “anarchists” at the OWS protests!
Indeed, a well functioning economic system is dependent on specific types of purposeful regulation and social/governmental support. For instance, there are many reasons why completely "free" economic markets cannot function effectively when left to their own devices.... factors such as information asymmetries, externalities, extreme concentration of market power, inability of private sector to profitably offer public goods... just a few examples of why free markets cannot function without setting some regulatory boundaries (SEE details of "market failure" theories at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure ).
This is completely obvious if you just think about it. How could companies of all sizes succeed without any regulations protecting private property and intellectual property rights, and also providing massive taxpayer investments in educational systems that help train future workers; interstate highway systems; DARPA helping to create the entire infrastructure now known as "the internet"; without the streets, streetlights, water/sewage treatment systems, community parks, public lands, and many other resources. No, "government" and "economy" are not oppositional forces as people like to pretend, but rather a "yin" and "yang" that are utterly interdependent on one another to support a broader vibrant society. For this reason, when one gains too much control over the other, the entire system is thrown out of balance and society suffers as a result.
I have never bashed corporations as inherently "evil", quite the opposite. Businesses large and small are the lifeblood of invention, job creation, and economic productivity that help enable every citizen to support ourselves and our family. Think of all the OWS advocates who drive to the protest sites in their Fords, Toyotas, VWs, etc. and depend on their smart phones, iPads, and Facebook to get out their message … these are some of the largest corporations in the world! I know many corporations who are doing so much to support society and who do much more good than harm. Indeed, forward-thinking companies are engaging in important public-private partnerships that apply free market concepts to solving some of the greatest social problems of our time. This should be extolled and commended, not ignored or derided under catch-all, anti-corporate slogans. That being said…. Personally, I am with those who say money has gained far too much control over government, and we need to set the system back into balance in order to give "power" back to the people, where it plainly belongs in any true democracy. The genius of our unique form of democracy in the US is that it was founded upon the principle of "checks and balances". Our forefathers were so wise to set up three branches of government with checks and balances among all three.... but they could not possibly envision how much corporate money and lobbying would come to dominate all three of those branches. Unfortunately, it may take a constitutional amendment to clarify "corporate personhood" and "money = speech" to restore the structural balance. An uphill battle to be sure, but one worth fighting for...
I know I am a broken record here, but they would never be able to get away with what they do without the complicity of the corporate media.
The media keeps repeating the lie that insider trading is legal when Congress does it, but that is patently absurd. Congress knows the corporate media will cover their asses, so they feel free to break laws at will.
None of this would be acceptable to the American people if they really knew what was going on, that is why they have taken over our public airwaves and exactly why we need to take them back.
Occupy needs to move to surround TV stations, Demand they tell the truth!
Demand Congress is held accountable.
Demand that they stop lying and blaming the victims for illegal foreclosures.
Demand an end to the speculating on our food that is driving the costs so high, causing people to starve in other countries.
The media should be the ones holding our politicians and corporations accountable. That is their job. Our Democracy requires a functioning free press. Yes, we have the internet, but they are controlling that big time. And millions of people are not searching for the news themselves, they are waiting for corporate media to tell them what to think.
We have to stop the lies and return the media to what we use to call 'investigative reporting'... politicians use to fear the media, these fat cat CEO's use to fear the media exposing their crimes, now they trust them to cover it up.
Occupy the TV stations!!
Good post, V. "Politics is tyranny. Economics is freedom." -- love it.
Thanks!
How about get the 40,000 lobbyists out of D.C. and outsource those jobs overseas (I mean eliminate them).
Private banking, through their investment firms, hedge funds and various financial services, sold hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of debt, making billions and billions in profit, then when that fact became widely recognized and the LIBOR and EURIBOR froze (inter-bank lending --- not a 4% mortgage default rate as the propaganda specialists would have us believe), public monies are used to bail them out repeatedly, then they want global austerity programs to continue to fund their criminality.
First, we require freedom of the press today in America.
Next, immediately nationalize the Federal Reserve, along with the top ten banks in America, and re institute the financial transaction tax (which previously existed from 1914 to 1966).
End labor arbitrage and labor deflation. (The only jobs which should be off shored are those 40,000 lobbyist jobs.)...who spin these numbers to no end...
Why do you trust government to get it right, when government has been getting it so wrong? Are people suddenly less greedy nowadays? How about accepting people are greedy, and not accepting forms of authoritative and governmental violence or coercion? Why is the trifecta of legislation, judiciary, and executive the best way for people to solve their problems? The trifecta is about making, interpreting, and enforcing laws. Why are laws useful? Who watches the watchers? Political officials are supposed to uphold oaths, yet with their influence over laws, they have a backdoor. Why do you believe that a small group of individuals can accurately represent everyone? Why do you believe that empowering a small group of individuals with the power to decide for everyone will lead to wise decisions? How are these empowered individuals supposed to overcome their conflict of interest between their individual interests and the interests of those they represent?
Government can't be trusted to get it right. The only way for them to overcome their conflict of interest between their individual interests and the interests of those they represent is to put those they represent in the position to check them with Referendum and Recall. When the threat of recall hangs over their heads, they will be more inclined to adhere to the interests of those they represent. A simple constitutional amendment could achieve this as well as remove much of the influence of private money on government.
Free Democracy Amendment
Subject to the Fourth Amendment and barring violation to the rights of others, the right of a free people to be secure in their decisions of personal safety, activity, association, and property, shall not be violated.
The right of a free and democratic people to engage in Initiative, Referendum, and Recall, shall be exercised at all levels of government.
The provision of Patriot Dollars to voters for the sole funding of candidates at all levels of government shall be enacted to keep election campaigns free from the undemocratic influence of wealthy entities.
The offering or acceptance of any item or service of value including the offering or acceptance of future employment involving a public official or candidate for public office of any branch or level of government shall be prohibited and punishable with equivalence to an act of treason.
Any communication between a lobbyist and a public official shall be public and open to the press.
Beyond this, a state bank in every state like the one in North Dakota could further limit the influence of private money upon the state economy.
How are you going to regulate this stuff? The free market is direct democracy. What you described is less freedom, and subject to prey to corruption at many points where individuals, or regulators may have a conflict of interest.
Also, what would stop politicians from changing the laws to further empower themselves or those they favor? What would stop them from altering the laws to prevent recall?
Less freedom, how?
Subject to prey to corruption at many points where individuals, or regulators may have a conflict of interest, in what way?
Referendum would prevent politicians from altering the laws to prevent Recall.
you need regulations that work, because all that happens is that basically we are already living a liberatarian nightmare-- there are no rules in the financial system and all that happens is that the .001 percent have control (the billionaires and own the gov. they just tilt the system in their favor). All we have now via shadow banking and unregulated financial systems is debt serfdom and total control of monopolistic corporations. End the lobbyists. Take corporate money out of politics. Stop total privatizations. End the sham.
Sorry, I don't agree that we live in a libertarian unregulated world. We live in a highly centrally regulated world. Give me one industry, and we can look at it together to see where the government intervenes.
When I mean the free market, I mean zero intervention and zero coercion. Completely voluntary trade. I assume you like being able to choose your romantic partner and friends voluntarily, true? Why do you want someone else telling you what to do for goods and services? Do you enjoy being told what is right for you?