Democracy and Freedom

[dblack]

Given the authority that corporations currently wield over our economy, who would control them if not their workers or the state?

Corporate power is another matter. There's much that needs fixing there. But would you have the same concerns over any private business?

If you would, I'd look at it this way. In my view there are a great many useful parallels between religious and economic power. When it was first proposed that religious power be separated from political power, I'd assume those who wanted religion to remain under government control had similar concerns over independent religions (who will control them?).

But we don't need, or want, to "control" religions. Though they of course must follow the same laws as the rest of us. I see the separation of business and government in the same way. It doesn't mean businesses aren't subject to rule of law. It means that government can't control business and vice-versa.

 

[Dragon]

You lost me with the last statement. If it's really your conjecture that the list of policy imbalances you cite is what maintains an economic elite, eliminating those perks would inevitably "redistribute" that wealth back to people who earn it. Indulge the tit-for-tat urge, and promoting programs to redistribute the wealth 'downward', only encourages more of the kind of government that cause the problem in the first place (ie government that has the power to directly redistribute wealth in the first place.)

I knew you'd say that.

Most of the above (with maybe the exception of #5) the government doesn't have any option about doing. I guess the government could refrain from subsidizing business, but it has to levy taxes somehow or other, set trade policy, set labor policy, set immigration policy, etc. It's not hard to predict that if you have a top marginal tax rate of 90% on income above a million dollars with steep drop-offs at lower incomes, you'll discourage concentration of wealth, whereas if you have a flat tax of 25% you'll encourage it. Similarly, if you have a low quota for immigration and actually enforce it, you'll produce a tight labor market, while if you have a high quota for immigration (or fail to enforce a low one), you'll flood the labor market and either of these will have an impact on wages and hence on the distribution of wealth. Taxes HAVE to be set somewhere, and immigration policy HAS to be set somehow. And so on.

Along any of these positions, to label a particular policy stance "neutral" is arbitrary. So it really comes down to how wide or narrow you want income gaps to be, along with other considerations of course (e.g. obviously how high overall you set taxes has to relate to government expenses not social engineering).

The point is that when you say "redistribution of wealth" people tend to think of seizing one person's funds and paying it out to another person, but that's hardly ever how it works, no matter which direction the redistribution is taking place.

 

[dblack]

Most of the above (with maybe the exception of #5) the government doesn't have any option about doing.

It has an option in how it performs these functions. And further, I believe that under the principle of equal protection it has obligation to do them in a way that doesn't favor one segment of society over another. It's fair to say such a goal will never be perfectly achieved, but the way it is now, we're not even trying. In fact, we do the opposite, deliberately using tax and regulatory polices to manipulate society, intentionally rewarding some while punishing others.

 

[georgephillip]

Property rights are human rights. What are these "special rights" you refer to?



Who are the "victims" of capitalism?

The special rights of those who hold property over those who do not.
The special rights of creditors over debtors.
If your idea of a social contract includes the idea that the legitimacy of all governments result from an agreement of all its citizens to form one, debtors and those without property are all victims of the 55 rich, racist aristocrats who secretly crafted the US Constitution.

The answer to your question about capitalism's victims is too obvious to warrant an answer.
Google "chattel slavery."

Mr. Dumb Ass, Sir:

So , the fact that you sat on your unmotivated fat ass, smoked weed and waited for the taxpayers to fucking feed you has nothing to do with the fact that you are one of "capitalism" victims?


.

JP:

Would it be alright if I used public streets and sidewalks to get to my local market?
Where I spend my food stamps on cocaine and a new Escalade.
Or should I work another 45?

 

[Dragon]

If you would, I'd look at it this way. In my view there are a great many useful parallels between religious and economic power. When it was first proposed that religious power be separated from political power, I'd assume those who wanted religion to remain under government control had similar concerns over independent religions (who will control them?).

But we don't need, or want, to "control" religions.

Hmm, I don't think that parallel really works. Religion isn't really a danger as long as it's denied government power, but that isn't true of big business. The whole point of both religion clauses of the First Amendment is to protect religion and religious freedom. Establishment of religion would automatically infringe the free exercise of all religions except the established one and that's the reason we forbid it. But business, unlike religion (absent government power for the latter), can impact people's livelihoods, employment, consumption safety, the environment, etc.; business, unlike religion, is a mundane-world activity with mundane-world consequences.

 

[georgephillip]

Beware of the Entitlement mentality. This mentality clouds the brain and causes one to become very irrational. It causes severe confusion in those who have that mentality. It's actually very sad.

You should mention that to the 1%.

They are the ones who feel entitled to 20% of US income and nearly 40% of US wealth.

 

[Contumacious]

The special rights of those who hold property over those who do not.
The special rights of creditors over debtors.
If your idea of a social contract includes the idea that the legitimacy of all governments result from an agreement of all its citizens to form one, debtors and those without property are all victims of the 55 rich, racist aristocrats who secretly crafted the US Constitution.

The answer to your question about capitalism's victims is too obvious to warrant an answer.
Google "chattel slavery."

Mr. Dumb Ass, Sir:

So , the fact that you sat on your unmotivated fat ass, smoked weed and waited for the taxpayers to fucking feed you has nothing to do with the fact that you are one of "capitalism" victims?


.

JP:

Would it be alright if I used public streets and sidewalks to get to my local market?
Where I spend my food stamps on cocaine and a new Escalade.
Or should I work another 45?

Going to the mailbox to pick up the food stamps and voting for the liberal democrats or compassionate conservatives is not work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[dblack]

Hmm, I don't think that parallel really works. Religion isn't really a danger as long as it's denied government power, but that isn't true of big business. The whole point of both religion clauses of the First Amendment is to protect religion and religious freedom. Establishment of religion would automatically infringe the free exercise of all religions except the established one and that's the reason we forbid it. But business, unlike religion (absent government power for the latter), can impact people's livelihoods, employment, consumption safety, the environment, etc.; business, unlike religion, is a mundane-world activity with mundane-world consequences.

The bolded part has always been our principal point of disagreement. I don't believe that private enterprise is a danger as long as it's denied government power. And without that, the parallel works. Religions still do have a fair of power in the US. But not nearly as much as they would if there wasn't a prohibition against colluding with the state. I think it would be similar with business.

Obviously, the religion analogy will break down at some point, but I've yet to find that point. I'll continue to beat on it a while.

 

[bripat9643]

To clarify the above, the government does certain things that always redistribute wealth in one direction or the other. These include:

1) Tax policy. The government must levy taxes. How progressive the tax structure is, and what deductions apply, either encourages or discourages concentration of wealth.

The only kind of tax that doesn't redistribute wealth is a capitation tax. All other tax money from the people who earned it and give it to people who didn't earn it.

2) Labor policy. The passing and enforcement of laws affecting the rights of labor, particularly the right to collective bargaining, has a huge influence on wages. High wages distribute wealth downward, while low wages distribute wealth upward.

By "right to collective bargaining" you mean giving union thugs the authority to prevent employers from offering jobs to whomever is willing to take them.

Compulsory union membership only benefits the unions. It doesn't benefit workers in general.

3) Immigration policy. When the government encourages high rates of immigration, either honestly or in the look-the-other-way fashion it currently uses, wages fall; when immigration is restricted, wages rise -- in both cases due to supply and demand factors.

I won't argue with that.

4) Trade policy. Which countries we choose to enter into free-trade agreements, and how incentives are structured, either encourages or discourages outsourcing. Encouraging outsourcing distributes wealth upward, while discouraging it redistributes wealth downward.

Of course, you think low taxes "encourage outsourcing" when precisely the opposite is the case.

5) Corporate subsidies and socialization of risks/costs. Subsidies for business, and socialization of the costs and risks of business (e.g. the bank bailout), generally redistributes wealth upward; there can be times when the long-term effect of this sort of thing acts to redistribute wealth downward, however.

Of course, you support the politicians who do this sort of thing. bailouts never redistribute wealth downward.

All of these policies are things that the government must do in one direction or another, and how it sets these policies redistributes wealth either upward or downward. For the last 30 years, we have been redistributing wealth upward. For the four decades prior to that, government policy redistributed wealth downward. None of this (or very little of it) is done by literally, hamhandedly taking money from one person and giving it to another. But the distribution of wealth in our society is complex and responds to a lot of different factors, many of which are in the control of the government.

A democratic government (whether representative or direct) would set these policies so as to redistribute wealth downward. A plutocratic or aristocratic government sets them to redistribute wealth upward.

Your definition of "redistribute wealth upward" means to stop redistributing it downward. You simply can't conceive of a government that doesn't redistribute wealth. Of course, such a government would be miniscule compared to the leviathan state you endorse.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialists are working to bring democracy into the workplace (see Mondragon).

Given the authority that corporations currently wield over our economy, who would control them if not their workers or the state?

Their owners would control them. That's called capitalism.

Corporations wield almost no authority over our economy. They pay ransom to whichever politicians promises to loot them the least.

 

[bripat9643]

Beware of the Entitlement mentality. This mentality clouds the brain and causes one to become very irrational. It causes severe confusion in those who have that mentality. It's actually very sad.

You should mention that to the 1%.

They are the ones who feel entitled to 20% of US income and nearly 40% of US wealth.

They are legally entitled to what they have earned, nitwit. Your belief that anyone else is entitled to it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[georgephillip]

The special rights of those who hold property over those who do not.

What "special rights" are those, the right to use their property?

The special rights of creditors over debtors.

Again, what "special rights" are those, the right to collect the money they are owed? Do you think debtors shouldn't be obligated to repay their debts?

If your idea of a social contract includes the idea that the legitimacy of all governments result from an agreement of all its citizens to form one, debtors and those without property are all victims of the 55 rich, racist aristocrats who secretly crafted the US Constitution.

The social contract is a myth conceived to justify organized plunder.

The answer to your question about capitalism's victims is too obvious to warrant an answer. Google "chattel slavery."

It's "obvious" only to lunatics who reject all the fundamental institutions of a just society.

Is the institution of chattel slavery included in your "just society?"
Do you think the first private fortunes could have been created thousands of years ago without slave labor?
If you object to a social contract, from what source does government derive its legitimate authority?
Special rights for property began with suffrage in this country. Today it includes the "right" of the 1% to bribe politicians for favorable tax and trade policies that work to impoverish the majority of taxpayers.
Are you arguing in support of usury and aristocracy and lunacy?

 

[georgephillip]

Beware of the Entitlement mentality. This mentality clouds the brain and causes one to become very irrational. It causes severe confusion in those who have that mentality. It's actually very sad.

You should mention that to the 1%.

They are the ones who feel entitled to 20% of US income and nearly 40% of US wealth.

They are legally entitled to what they have earned, nitwit. Your belief that anyone else is entitled to it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Except they haven't earned it, Tool.
They've bribed politicians to let them steal it.

 

[Contumacious]

You should mention that to the 1%.

They are the ones who feel entitled to 20% of US income and nearly 40% of US wealth.

They are legally entitled to what they have earned, nitwit. Your belief that anyone else is entitled to it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Except they haven't earned it, Tool.
They've bribed politicians to let them steal it.

And now you know how the mafia learned about the protection racket!!!!!!!

.

 

[georgephillip]

Your belief that government should decide who gets what is where your theory of society collapses.

Can't speak for Dragon, but what I read there is not the government deciding who gets what. It's the government getting out of that business.

Then you don't understand dragonspeak. Anyone who claims the government is "redistributing wealth upward" is actually arguing to plunder the wealthy. People like dragon believe that anything short of confiscation of all incomes above a certain level constitutes subsidies to the rich.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages).

"This issue is very much at the center of determining who wins and who loses in the modern economy."

The Conservative Nanny State

Is this another example of a "just society?"

 

[Dragon]

The only kind of tax that doesn't redistribute wealth is a capitation tax. All other tax money from the people who earned it and give it to people who didn't earn it.

This statement assumes that maximum concentration of wealth possible w/r/t taxes is natural and proper. It is certainly and absolutely not economically healthy, and I would assert that there is no such thing as "natural and proper" distribution of wealth apart from economic health. Also, your statement ignores other factors such as property rights enforcement, contract law enforcement, and corporate chartering, which affect the distribution of wealth at an underlying level. (Granted none of those would exist in the type of society you say you prefer -- but then, neither would taxes, and actually neither would capitalism.)

Of course, you think low taxes "encourage outsourcing" when precisely the opposite is the case.

No, I think that low or high taxes have no measurable effect on outsourcing. I do think that tax incentives to outsource encourage outsourcing, but the biggest single incentive is the low price of foreign labor.

Of course, you support the politicians who do this sort of thing. bailouts never redistribute wealth downward.

Where'd you get that idea? Are you confusing me with an Obama fan?

Your definition of "redistribute wealth upward" means to stop redistributing it downward.

No, because I don't accept your arbitrary assertion about what a "normal" wealth distribution is or should be.

About "earning": this word implies labor. The whole point of capitalism, however, is to reward not those who earn, but those who own, at the expense of those who earn. This is a vice of the system. Capitalism functions at all well only when that vice is curtailed, so that a healthy portion of the wealth produced goes to those who earn it, rather than to those who own it.

 

[American Horse]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

How many people in a country like the US (or any country for that matter) are sufficiently informed to make sound decisions in the case of full democracy? Couldn't public opinion be manipulated by a news/information media that had a strong bias? That seems to be the true reason that representative republics have worked out so well in the past and was chosen for us.

And although the technical means is theoretically available to vote on major public issues, some are so complex that there would have to be multiples of series of votes to reach a workable piece of legislation to become law.

And in the case of an internet connected voting scheme, who wouldn't trust a paper ballot more than trusting to technocrats to keep the keys to our collective decision making process, or however else it was employed as a mechanism of a so called democratic process?

I for one would rather have elected representatives working the system to its fullness, and being able to throw them out if need be than having to overturn the massive inertia of a direct democratic system.

Anyone who has been a member of a neighborhood association has been witness to the fact that even the simplest issues need committees and structure to render the decision making process operable. In our present representative republican system, the committees meet and the expert witnesses present the essential information to be considered, and the committee members discuss and evaluate the options, and render up a piece of legislation that can be voted on by the full body. All of that is essential to a smooth flow of processing the problems of a society into final legislation.

Seems to me we just need full disclosure and transparency to make the system work better, and most of all a media that actually informs the citizenry without an innate bias.

 

[Full-Auto]

Beware of the Entitlement mentality. This mentality clouds the brain and causes one to become very irrational. It causes severe confusion in those who have that mentality. It's actually very sad.

You should mention that to the 1%.

They are the ones who feel entitled to 20% of US income and nearly 40% of US wealth.

Really? How about posting the boasts.

 

[Wiseacre]

Can't speak for Dragon, but what I read there is not the government deciding who gets what. It's the government getting out of that business.

Then you don't understand dragonspeak. Anyone who claims the government is "redistributing wealth upward" is actually arguing to plunder the wealthy. People like dragon believe that anything short of confiscation of all incomes above a certain level constitutes subsidies to the rich.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages).

"This issue is very much at the center of determining who wins and who loses in the modern economy."

The Conservative Nanny State

Is this another example of a "just society?"

No, this is an example of total bullshit comin from an ideologue who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass. To suggest that conservatives deliberately want to distribute incomeupward is pure nonsense. The simple truth is that conservatoves want to implement policies that have the most growth potential for the economy and create the new most jobs. Since the rich folks have the most money to invest, it makes sense that they will be the ones to reap the most financial gains, there's just no other way to go.

 

[georgephillip]

Then you don't understand dragonspeak. Anyone who claims the government is "redistributing wealth upward" is actually arguing to plunder the wealthy. People like dragon believe that anything short of confiscation of all incomes above a certain level constitutes subsidies to the rich.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages).

"This issue is very much at the center of determining who wins and who loses in the modern economy."

The Conservative Nanny State

Is this another example of a "just society?"

No, this is an example of total bullshit comin from an ideologue who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass. To suggest that conservatives deliberately want to distribute incomeupward is pure nonsense. The simple truth is that conservatoves want to implement policies that have the most growth potential for the economy and create the new most jobs. Since the rich folks have the most money to invest, it makes sense that they will be the ones to reap the most financial gains, there's just no other way to go.

Over the last forty years the richest 1% of Americans have seen their share of aggregate income nearly triple. They've accomplished that by bribing politicians for favorable tax and trade policies that have shipped millions of middle class jobs to China and shifted the tax burden from FIRE sector incomes to wages and salaries.

By way of comparison, the richest 1% of Germans earn the same 11% of income today that they earned in the 1970s primarily because German unions have voting members sitting on the boards of the corporations they work for. Hence, German jobs were not shipped to China.

Forty years ago the US government taxed the richest individuals and corporations.
Today the government borrows from the 1% and corporations to fund government.
Tomorrow the government will be bailing out the 1% once again when their European bets go bad.