Mitch McConnel Bravely Tells The Corporate Elite To Stay Out Of Politics

[Utilitarian]

So absolutely no one elected them to dictate their interests. Their "power" is being able to corrupt others with their money, not to convince others with the power of their arguments.

At some point, the market purists will realize that free speech is only an illusion if a monopoly or oligopoly controls what can be spoken.

No, they won't. Because market purists recognize the difference between economic power - which allows no coercion, and state power - pure coercion. You can tell Facebook to piss off whenever you like. And Zuckerberg can't do a damned thing about it. Defy the government, and it's a different story.

Economic power can be very coercive. It's the entire reason we even have antitrust legislation.

 

[Utilitarian]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

 

[dblack]

So absolutely no one elected them to dictate their interests. Their "power" is being able to corrupt others with their money, not to convince others with the power of their arguments.

At some point, the market purists will realize that free speech is only an illusion if a monopoly or oligopoly controls what can be spoken.

No, they won't. Because market purists recognize the difference between economic power - which allows no coercion, and state power - pure coercion. You can tell Facebook to piss off whenever you like. And Zuckerberg can't do a damned thing about it. Defy the government, and it's a different story.

Economic power can be very coercive. It's the entire reason we even have antitrust legislation.

Ok. No, it can't. Not unless you play games with the definitions. If you really don't recognize the fundamental difference between the power of wealth and the power of the state, we're at an impasse. I won't let you pretend they're the same. Voluntary trade is simply not the same as threat of violence.

 

[Utilitarian]

So absolutely no one elected them to dictate their interests. Their "power" is being able to corrupt others with their money, not to convince others with the power of their arguments.

At some point, the market purists will realize that free speech is only an illusion if a monopoly or oligopoly controls what can be spoken.

No, they won't. Because market purists recognize the difference between economic power - which allows no coercion, and state power - pure coercion. You can tell Facebook to piss off whenever you like. And Zuckerberg can't do a damned thing about it. Defy the government, and it's a different story.

Economic power can be very coercive. It's the entire reason we even have antitrust legislation.

Ok. No, it can't. Not unless you play games with the definitions. If you really don't recognize the fundamental difference between the power of wealth and the power of the state, we're at an impasse. I won't let you pretend they're the same. Voluntary trade is simply not the same as threat of violence.

We're at an impasse then, because I don't separate government from big business much when considering that corporations themselves are a creation of the state via corporate law.

Capitalism does not require the existence of corporations or the corporate veil, but unfortunately, modern societies have granted corporations substantially more rights and power than individuals have. As long as most governments are servants of big business, said corporations have a lot of coercive power, both economically and legally.

 

[dblack]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

Yes. Those laws are wrong. In the same way that you are wrong. And I really hope liberals are paying attention. I've long argued that the notion that government should protect people from discrimination is overreach, and, as a precedent, a really bad idea. And now we have a "teachable moment" for the reasons why.

 

[Utilitarian]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

Yes. Those laws are wrong. In the same way that you are wrong. And I really hope liberals are paying attention. I've long argued that the notion that government should protect people from discrimination is overreach, and, as a precedent, a really bad idea. And now we have a "teachable moment" for the reasons why.

I'd be fine with repealing said laws, but until they are, it is logically consistent to include political orientation among protected classes.

Law must be consistent for it to be worth anything. Short of that, it is abusive and corrupt.

 

[dblack]

Capitalism does not require the existence of corporations or the corporate veil, but unfortunately, modern societies have granted corporations substantially more rights and power than individuals have.

I actually agree with this point. There's much about the corporate charter that is questionable, most notably limited liability.

As long as most governments are servants of big business, said corporations have a lot of coercive power, both economically and legally.

If the government is corrupt, the last thing we want to do is give it more power.

"Government is the corrupt servant of corporations so we must give it more power." How's that again?

 

[Grumblenuts]

economic power - which allows no coercion

Conditional promising or threatening to withhold campaign dollars is coercion. Our reps spend enough time begging for money from rich fucks who do just that every day.
Oh, Ew, Over here! I have money! Just make sure I can double my "earnings" by seeing to it this regulation never gets enforced and I'll make sure you get to keep your job! Win Win Yay!

 

[dblack]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

Yes. Those laws are wrong. In the same way that you are wrong. And I really hope liberals are paying attention. I've long argued that the notion that government should protect people from discrimination is overreach, and, as a precedent, a really bad idea. And now we have a "teachable moment" for the reasons why.

I'd be fine with repealing said laws, but until they are, it is logically consistent to include political orientation among protected classes.

Law must be consistent for it to be worth anything. Short of that, it is abusive and corrupt.

So double down on bad law? I don't see the benefit of that, outside of perceived short-term political advantage. It just further entrenches the bad precedent.

 

[Utilitarian]

Capitalism does not require the existence of corporations or the corporate veil, but unfortunately, modern societies have granted corporations substantially more rights and power than individuals have.

I actually agree with this point. There's much about the corporate charter that is questionable, most notably limited liability.

As long as most governments are servants of big business, said corporations have a lot of coercive power, both economically and legally.

If the government is corrupt, the last thing we want to do is give it more power.

"Government is the corrupt servant of corporations so we must give it more power." How's that again?

I understand the inherent contradiction. The ideal would be to end corporate law altogether and return the market back to similar legal environment to what it was in the mid-1800s.

Because that's not going to happen, the more realistic approach is to utilize antitrust regulations more aggressively to open up competition in things like the social media market.

 

[dblack]

economic power - which allows no coercion

Conditional promising or threatening to withhold campaign dollars is coercion.

No, it's just not.

 

[Utilitarian]

When competition is kept out due to collusion, there's not much voluntary about it. Parler's collapse was a good example of that.

It depends on whether the collusion is fraudulent. There's nothing illegal about shunning those we find reprehensible. Nor should there be.

Plenty of people find certain races or ethnicities reprehensible, but it is illegal to shun them from service. So, the precedent has already been set for protecting some classes over others. It's why political orientation isn't a stretch to include in that group. Political orientation is no more mutable than religion is, yet we protect religion from discrimination.

Yes. Those laws are wrong. In the same way that you are wrong. And I really hope liberals are paying attention. I've long argued that the notion that government should protect people from discrimination is overreach, and, as a precedent, a really bad idea. And now we have a "teachable moment" for the reasons why.

I'd be fine with repealing said laws, but until they are, it is logically consistent to include political orientation among protected classes.

Law must be consistent for it to be worth anything. Short of that, it is abusive and corrupt.

So double down on bad law? I don't see the benefit of that, outside of perceived short-term political advantage. It just further entrenches the bad precedent.

The status quo has to change in one direction or the other. "Doubling down" is still better than what we currently have. The political advantage in the long term is neutral but also fairer.

 

[dblack]

Because that's not going to happen, the more realistic approach is to utilize antitrust regulations more aggressively to open up competition in things like the social media market.

Government regulation never, ever, opens up competition.

 

[Utilitarian]

economic power - which allows no coercion

Conditional promising or threatening to withhold campaign dollars is coercion.

No, it's just not.

It's not the same as a gun to your head, but it is definitely coercion.

To be clear, I'm not saying you can create a system devoid of coercion, nor should you. However, monopolies and oligopolies are viewed negatively for a good reason.

 

[Utilitarian]

Because that's not going to happen, the more realistic approach is to utilize antitrust regulations more aggressively to open up competition in things like the social media market.

Government regulation never, ever, opens up competition.

It does sometimes, like the breakup of the Bell system.

 

[dblack]

economic power - which allows no coercion

Conditional promising or threatening to withhold campaign dollars is coercion.

No, it's just not.

It's not the same as a gun to your head, but it is definitely coercion.

That's just silly. By that reasoning, every woman who "withholds" sex from me is coercing me.

 

[Grumblenuts]

economic power - which allows no coercion

Conditional promising or threatening to withhold campaign dollars is coercion.

No, it's just not.

It's not the same as a gun to your head, but it is definitely coercion.

Right. dblack has convinced himself that coercion must involve physical violence. A nonsense argument.

 

[Utilitarian]

economic power - which allows no coercion

Conditional promising or threatening to withhold campaign dollars is coercion.

No, it's just not.

It's not the same as a gun to your head, but it is definitely coercion.

That's just silly. By that reasoning, every woman who "withholds" sex from me is coercing me.

It's like discrimination. Not all discrimination is bad or illegal. We discriminate against people for good reasons sometimes.

By the same token, money is used to coerce politicians into various directions via lobbyism. It's not illegal coercion or violent, but it is coercion.

The degree of coercion that is acceptable in a given context is where people debate.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It should always be illegal to coerce politicians with money. They should argue Bills based on their merits alone. Get money out of politics.

 

[dblack]

economic power - which allows no coercion

Conditional promising or threatening to withhold campaign dollars is coercion.

No, it's just not.

It's not the same as a gun to your head, but it is definitely coercion.

Right. dblack has convinced himself that coercion must involve physical violence. A nonsense argument.

Listen, equivocate however you like. When I use the word coercion, in relation politics and the law, yeah - it requires violence, or the threat thereof. Simply refusing to do what someone wants you to do isn't coercion.