It may be salient to add here that libertarianism was associated with socialism long before anyone started associating it with capitalism. The libertarian, believing that our society must maximise freedom, that all social structures should be decided upon by individuals with equal bargaining power, is against modern incarnations of capitalism that concentrate power in the hands of the few. The corporate structure and its accompanying wage slavery is as abhorrent to the left libertarian as a strong centralized government.

There is no contradiction for the libertaian socialist. Allow me to quote from Wikipedia's entry on libertarian socialism:



The anarcho-capitalist (or objectivist) and the libertarian socialist (a group that contains more than a few philosophies) disagree in several fundamental ways about what constitutes freedom, and therein lies the belief of both that the other side is "contradictory." Neither really is, if one can accept - or at the least, understand and grant for the purpose of argument - the other's principles of freedom.

Quark, I object strongly to your associating anarcho-capitalism with objectivism. Objectivism is a moral code and a social philosophy, not a political ideology. I despise objectivism but you cannot get any more anarcho-capitalist than me. The two are not correlated, they are completely separate entites in two completely separate spheres of philosophy.

CP

Because SCOTUS didn't agree with Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce under the commerce clause. Anti-trust legislation isn't comparable to the New Deal.


It's the other way around. It wasn't until monopolies had enough discretionary revenue to bribe local governments into allowing, or at least ignoring, anti-competitive trusts. Why would elected politicians bend over backwards for business interests without getting something out of it? A lot of money doesn't necessarily translate into enough votes to stay in office, raising the premium. At least not in the 17th century. This is partly why the welfare state persists; business-related interest groups can't compensate politicians with the war chest necessary to pass unpopular legislation and remain in office. The millions of dollars politicians receive from business-related interest groups allow them to chip away at the welfare state here and there, but so far, that's it. And how could business interests afford to bribe politicians without monopolizing unregulated markets first? How do you influence politicians to adopt pro or ambivalent policies on trusts without eliminating competing business interests and without your own war chest?


Well to be honest I don't know much about market abolitionists. Of the three I mentioned I'm certain Gintis and Bowles are neoMarxists, but neoMarxism is so broad a term it may or may not include left-libertarianism. I think it's more anarchic than libertarian.

After rereading the Wiki definition I'm not sure (1) I disagree with its definition of the initial distribution of property, although an article or example would be helpful, and the Lockean provisio sounds like a crude stab at eliminating negative externalities. Could "promot[ing] redistributive types of justice in ways compatible with libertarian rights of self-ownership" entail taxing polluters for endangering the public's health? If this is the case (maybe Quark or someone else can chime in) then I don't see a libertarian contradiction.


The tragedy that ensued doesn't detract from the egalitarian principles that came about as a result of the revolution, such as the inalienable rights of man. If empire is a disqualifier then America did not practice libertarianism, either.


But not impossible. Europe didn't enjoy a clean slate like the U.S. The only time we hit a snag in trade with political baggage was during and after the Civil War. Britain was far from being done as an empire when classical liberals decided to break down trade barriers.


Not without abuse. The difference between us is you think government is the root of all evil, especially economic evil. I think man is.

I'm taking a posting sabbatical.

I guess I wear grey lenses alot- because I see the lines between all this talk very blurry, if there are any lines at all, just very, very large swaths of grey with black and white barely visible on the extreme edges

I am, above all, a pragmatist, NOT an ideologist. Ideologist smacks too much of religious fervor to me. That is what makes libertarians so whacky, Contumacious is an example of an extremist that will hold on to any shred of piece of paper that reveals his beliefs to be true, while ignoring mountains of evidence of a fault- in other words, a belief structure that, to the non-believer, appear as psychotic delusions. I feel that way when I go to church- who in the hell are these poeple talking too anyway? Ooo, and the voice inside thier head is answering back? Crazy!

And that is not meant to insult- it is to illustrate the "fringe" craziness folks bestow, often with some accuracy , on libertarians.

There are realities of life, and there is the dream of an ideology- sometimes they can work together, sometimes not.

FDR did what he had to do to make this country survive both the great depression and WW2. I don't believe he bought into any socialistic ideology- I think he wanted his country to survive.

There is a reason these poeple are called "the greatest generation"- it is because they WERE the greatest generation. The met the greatest challenges this country has ever faced, and passed the torch on to the baby boomers, who screwed it up royally.

Even the greeks recognized that some sort of welfare was neccesary for a truly free society, because someone that is starving to death really doesn't make rational choices.

If we went with 0 social programs, how much freedom would we have REALLY? Could you leave your house safely? Or would you be concerned that a desperate former veteran with some really good military training that neeeds to feed his family might take you and yours to feed his? THAT is confiscation at the barrel of a gun- and, if we were to transition to this never before tried theory of unrestrained capitalism, at the very least, in the best scenario- we would have just that happening.

Contumacious drives a mercedes, and is well fed, and I am starving, and can't find a job anywhere, I should just lay in wait to rob him, he has guns to protect himself, but he better have a fortress, because he has a job and a life, I got nuttin' but time to watch you homey, and I got nothin' to lose by taking you out and taking what you have. Starve if I don't try, jail or death if I don't, either way, my misery will be a bit shorter.

FDR didn't enact those socialist programs in a vacuum, we were very near to going communist when he stepped in and took the sting out of the great depression. Poeple didn't starve, some false economic "pay later" programs were started, and eventually, things got better.

I have to roll my eyes when libertarians say " I won't give up my ideals to get a libertarian in power"- that means they are accepting the status quo- because, without some folks getting elected- it will STILL be the demopublicans running the show, while we "stick to our ideals" until we truly ARE in a full fledged police fascist/corporatist state.

No worries. I understand the two are different, and I wasn't trying to say they were the same. Perhaps I could have done a better job of that. My understanding, however, is that their views on the meaning of freedom are more on the same side of the spectrum, opposing the libertarian socialist side of that spectrum. Both anarcho-capitalists and objectivists share the idea of capitalism as benificent and as the way to maximise what they define as freedom. My own view is that capitalism is antithetical to individual freedom by its heirarchical and authoritarian nature. But I recognize that this difference in belief is due to a difference in our beliefs of what freedom is. Many intelligent philosphers have made strongly reasoned arguments supporting both sides of this idea.

QH- libertarians would be well served to take the best workable ideas from all those ideals of "maximizing freedom" and putting together a quiltwork that, in the end, ensures we are all more free.

I am somewhere between you and CP/Leder in my definitions- mine is "when I walk out my front door, or even while in my house, am I more free to do the things I wish to do, my own freedom to fail or succeeed on my terms, without DIRECTLY harming others- than I was yesterday".

Would you agree that the founders, in junking the Articles of Confederation, were for a stronger central government? One that could actually pay it's debts, defend it's borders, not to mention handle domestic problems?




Well, pedophilia is against the law, social security isn't. Big difference there.



Your interpretation is flat wrong. The constitution does provide for a standing army. Article I, section 8, as well as the Supreme Court's decision in Ex Parte vs. Miligan (1866) definitively demolishes any notion that the military is not to be permanent.

And that right there shows why Libertarians are STILL a fringe group, despite the obvious failing of the demopublicans. This really myopic, or even delusional, belief in some parts of the constitution that just don't hold up to scrutiny. When you get libertarians making public statements that there is no legal standing to have a permanent military- any educated person will roll thier eyes. the libertarians need to shuck off that belief/delusional complex and get back to real world workable ideas that have a net increase in personal freedoms.

Look a woman has an absolute right to her body - her property. As a matter of fact I support their right to abort whenever for whatever.

Why can't WalMart, AT&T and Microsoft ....et al....have the same right?!?

I'm sorry Con, but I don't get the connection.

Do Wal*Mart, AT&T and Microsoft need corporate abortions?

Do corporations enjoy the same rights as individuals? How about unions? How about neighborhood associations? How about ... ?

Um, corporations have, well equal rights as individuals, except to vote, but have more power through money. But you weren't adressing me, I know that

You are right though- the connection is pretty far out there, wherever it is.

Might need some 'splaining, for sho!

Whether or not corporations have the same rights the founders invisioned for individuals, they get their share. In fact, it can be argued that they have more power than they need.

Please note the blog entry on History.com. This story was also on MSNBC last night.



http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.js...d=1189822114649



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

I wouldn’t be crying crocodile tears over the rights of Ray Hunt and Hunt Oil - maybe a fair trial and reasonable prison facilities - if convicted.

Please note that the MSNBC transcript will not be available until Monday. There is a video with the link I provided. Good luck getting it to work.

In the mid 1800's the states authorized a monopoly in health care, so much for the bureaucrats preventing "anti-competitive trusts"

But the point is that once the bureaucrats decided to regulate businesses entrepreneurs must pay them to get the heck out of the way. In the same manner and for the same reason the paid the Italian Mafia.

Saying so, doesn't make it so, hyperlinks please.

But again I reiterate my point. You cannot have the abolition of private property and the redistribution of wealth (or justice ) without a strong centralized authority that has the coercive ability to make everyone conform to these egalitarian measures. Who is to decide whether something is a possession and whether it is being put to good use? Government? Good use is such a subjective measure that it can only be founded upon arbitrary principles. How can a person be free if all of their economic activity it decided upon by an outside force? Libertarian socialism is just socialism with an anti-statist flavor. They call for the end of all power structures but empower government to do it. Can this be explained?



Its comparable in that the Commerce Clause is involved in both. And it wasn't until under FDR that the SCOTUS began its radical reinterpretation.



You are supporting my point Lesly. The only way that monopolies can exist is through the sanction and support of government. The fact that politicians are corrupt does not hurt my argument, it hurts yours. It shows that government is a monopolizing tool when it is used to regulate economic activity. Corporations pour money into government in order to protect their dominance over the market through increased regulation. If there was no regulation, they would be subject to more competition and also there would be no reason for corporations to put money into politics.


The only people that would think that a corporation should be allowed to pollute unhindered would be the most anarchic of people. I would never advocate such a position and have used this as an example of the proper role of government in previous threads. The classical liberal recognizes that there is a role of government and one of them is ensuring that you are not using your property to negatively affect me. It is utilitarian in this regard.




Weak. Up and till very recently (1945), the US was a country that spent the majority of its existence under libertarian ideals of liberty. Three major events changed this. The Civil War, the New Deal, and World War II. Even now it is debatable about whether the US is an empire because the term is so bloated. The French pronounced a lot of lofty ideas but were very quick to hand over absolute authority to a single entity. Thus, they are not example of libertarianism in practice. My point, and it has not been refuted, is that no other country went nearly as far as the USA in its ideals of liberty. This makes libertarianism uniquely American in that regard.




Thats just the way that British are. They are very pragmatic. Still doesnt counter my point.



Of course there is abuse. But what would you rather have? Government abuse or corporate abuse? And you are wrong about our differences. I think man is the root of all evil which is why I do not want to empower him with the coercive power of government! If a corporation abuses its power what happens? It is exposed publicly, its stock goes down the tubes, consumers choose a competitor and the corporation tanks. The market at work. What happens if government abuses its power? What do you do? Its a little bit more difficult to change that nicely. The fact is that corporations cannot systematically suspend one's liberties. It can abuse power and it can certainly hurt people through negligence or outright maliciousness...but in no way can it perpetrate the same abuses as government. Its not possible.

Lesly, you defend the use of lethal violence (aka government force at the behest of the majority), if necessary, to appropriate someone else's property. You misread, whether inadvertently through incompetence or wilfully due to bad motives, what others have written in order to craft a response that is morally satisfying to yourself. What, you ask, did you misread? Well, aside from the absolutely critical qualifier of "don't respect property rights" with regards to disenfranchisement, you have done so with this crystal clear statement:

The various levels of government consume more than 1/3 of our GDP.

To be clear, "various levels" is more than just the Federal government.

Such blatant misreading leads me to conclude that any further engagement on my part with your arguments in this thread will be a waste of my time and that of our readers.


Nope, you don't have to explain it, because I don't think that all libertarians are amoral, sexually driven heathens, although I do wish that a few hot, hot, hotties that I'd met way back when were! Nor do you have to go over the "legal vs. moral" spiel, I've heard it a zillion times, and every time it simply confirms that the libertarians are utterly clueless (aka "naive") about the social corrosion that libertine behavior entails. That is what I mean by "libertine naivete."

How accurate do you think the above stereotype is of Libertarians?

It's a pile of trash. A load of do. A crock of peas porridge hot, nine days old. But as things go, it is an accurate stereotype, which is also an inherent contradiction. Think Zen paradox.

Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?

Obviously a fringe group. Some Libs make it into local Colorado politics, but they have to run as an R (usually) or a D (could become more common here).

I read Browne's book before the 2000 season. It's full of contradictions, or maybe illogical parings is more accurate. For example, no welfare state but a greatly reduced military too. That pretty much alienates everyone. Whatever is left over goes away with the idea to sell all public lands to clear up the national debt, which would mean selling off all national forests, BLM acres and national parks. Bye-bye Yellowstone and Yosemite. Ranchers don't like the idea of actually buying BLM grazing land. Basically, if you benefit in any way from government beyond the ultra bare minimum (little bit of defense, little bit of infrastructure), then you're likely not going to vote Lib. The stats that BoF gave reflect how this works.

New Mexico had a Lib governor a while back, Gary Johnson I think, around the late '90s early Two Grands. That didn't last, but was remarkable. Few of the remarks I heard were positive, and I guess that's why it didn't last.

Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?

Yes. It is the party with a very strange tent -- it has a right side and a left side but no middle, which means no top either. The cherry-picking I see comes from individual party members. Some like getting rid of the war on drugs, while others like getting rid of welfare (but not corporate). I have yet to hear the military-slashing idea coming from anyone but Browne. Maybe there are others, I just haven't heard them. Seems like political harry-carry (sp. intentional) to me.

What ticks me off is when a Lib gets all puffed up about being for or against something as if they own the ideas. I hear it all the time -- that this Demo or Repub has Libertarian leanings. Huh? Who gave Libs exclusive rights?

Oh, wait. They gave it to themselves.

Defenders of Freedom, you know as if that's something brand spanking new in the United States. Guess it's the condescension that gets to me, a kind of know-it-all thing. Yeah? Well I know a few things too. But of course I'm always wrong, right?

I bet they're all the oldest siblings in their families. Now there's an accurate stereotype for yah

Most libertarians take issue with the federal government's redistribution for the national welfare state. Theoretically we could repeal the national welfare state and leave it up to states to pick up the tab, even going as far as passing healthcare coverage for state residents. Redistribution wouldn't end, of course, but the general welfare clause would no longer be an issue. I shouldn't have assumed you were focused on the federal government like I was throughout my posts. I apologize for misunderstanding. I've been posting too much and that post was @ 2:30AM. From my honest although perhaps mistaken perspective, overhauling the system by including local and state governments from the getgo makes it harder than necessary. I also generally assume people participate on because want to persuade, even a little bit (although I'm not sure I do). If I was a libertarian or small government conservative I would focus on the feds.

Are the Libertarians a fringe group or a viable third party?

I think that Libertarians are a more viable option now in terms of ideas than before (see below).

Are the Libertarians more closely aligned with the Left or the Right or a cherry-picking of the two?

All depends of your definition of left and right:



This buys into the belief that the current 'Right' is fiscally conservative or against government economic expansion, which they aren't. The US government spent more money in the first 5 years of Bush's term (with a Republican Congress) than all 8 of the Clinton years. I do agree that most libertarians are more interested in the economic side of Libertarianism than the social side. With no real small government party left between the big 2, Libertarians have an opportunity to gain some ground if they can stay on that message.

I see what you're saying, but that same issue is one of the sticking points for all forms of libertarianism. In your version, for example, who decides what is private property? Who keeps one agent from infringing on another? Is my house only "my" house if I have enough firepower to defend it? And if I have more firepower and greater resolve than you, what stops me from taking "your" stuff?

As far as your last bit. Let me ask you: if we were to suddenly become a true libertarian state, what would happen? Wouldn't those people and entities with the most wealth and power now, gain even more? What would allow Joe Blow garbage collector to have an equal standing? Libertarian socialism recognizes that in order for a society to consist of agents with equal bargaining power, extensive egalitarian measures must first be taken. It would be disingenious to initiate an anarcho-capitalist state (yes I realize that's sort of an oxymoron, but you know what I mean) and assume that at that point we are all equal agents, whether economically or socially. Of course we wouldn't be. In fact, for many of us, our real freedoms would diminish. Of course this was explained very well by Marx. Communism was the natural end-product of true socialism.

I also take exception to another point you made in that post:



I disagree completely. Even a cursory study of history can put this claim to rest. I'll just point out that the Supreme Court in the 1880s changed the nature of corporations, giving them the status of individuals. Even before that corporate charters were being given to entities of a nature that would have had Adam Smith rolling in his grave. And protectionism played a huge part in our economy right from the get-go. And of course, civilly your argument here fails on every level. "Libertarian ideals of liberty" would never have included slavery, limited suffrage, or anything of the sort.

You are ascribing the corrupt act on government, not the entity that is doing the actual corrupting, which is, the corporation. Is a person who is robbed at gunpoint the one who commited the crime? That is what you are doing in completly overlooking the act of the agressor in any corruption case regarding industry influence, sought through bribes, favors, and other shenanigans. You are correct to an extent, though it's why we need government with a bigger stick than what private corporations have. It shows the wiley nature of corporations who try to unduly influence legislation for their benefit, not that the government inherently sets out to try and create monopolies. The favoritism of which you speak doesn't occur if there isn't an industry friendly lackey in the cabinet somewhere. The government needs to be an attack dog, not a lap dog. Monopolies in the railroad industry occured before the passing of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Elkins Act, not after it. Standard Oil and the American Tobacco Company were monopolies before the passing of the Sherman Antitrust Act, not after it. I'll grant you that progress wasn't an overnight thing, but sometimes, change is something that occurs after you chip away at something over a period of years.

What's the point? The point is this-the libertarian platform is wholly inadequate to resolving the issue of unchecked private power in society. Left alone, some, not all corporations, will squeeze the government on important things to consumers like workplace safety, benefits, product safety, not to mention affordability. Most people appreciate inspected food and safe toys without lead. Any "blips" regarding unsafe food and lead toys occurs when government regulation is relaxed, not because government inspection inherently lets business off the hook. Appoint Ralph Nader to the consumer products safety commission, get more attack dogs, and the problem is solved. Until the libertarian mindset can adequately detail how a Standard Oil would be brought to it's knees, or how a railroad will be brought to it's knees when engaged in predatory pricing towards farmers and price fixing, then perhaps the libertarian platform will have more success.




This is a rather problematic and it's a further symptom as to why the libertarian party doesn't have far-reaching success in our day and age. Unsafe food and unregulated food production occured before the Pure Food and Drug Act of 906, not after it. The toy industry is ironically asking for more regulation, not less in light of lead painted toys entering the U.S. from China. When it comes to promoting the environment, industry supported voluntary programs fails repeatedly. A voluntary effort regarding cell phones ended just as dismally.

And the government's refusal to do anything about them. Please tell me you don't think monopolyzing is impossible without the help of government. There's an economic revionism underworks for the Great Depression. Has there already been one for robber barons, or should I make a distinction for some robber barons because they "didn't enrich themselves and their political cohorts through government subsidies, protective tariffs and government-enforced cartels"?

When economists say the markets aren't fair, just efficient, it applies to sellers as much as buyers. This is usually the case when no seller can influence market prices. This is almost never the case, with or without the aid of government. Our political economy has always been skewed.


The commerce clause deals with interstate commerce. Monopolies were affecting interstate commerce. Farmers couldn't get their produce to market because of the exorbitant prices railroad companies charged. SCOTUS struck down legislation because it was the first or second time in history Congress passed a law dealing with the commerce clause. The Supreme Court was so worried about infringing on the rights of free contracts it neutered the Sherman Act. A lot of good that did. The New Deal was ruled constitutional anyway.

Early on in the evolution of society, your description of property fits nicely. To adequately describe the evolution of private property as a concept would take more time than I think we should spend on it (also because there is a topic from a few weeks ago touching on this subject). But as we evolved from the state of nature into a civil society governed by the rule of law, what constitutes private property is clearly posited into law. People can look it up and know that they can own a car. The state then acts as an arbiter between individuals. If i give you money for a good or service, then you have to reciprocate with that good or service. If not, the state may mediate our affairs. Under the libertarian socialist ideal, the state is not a mediator. The state is the instrument by which property is redistributed. It requires not the rule of law, but the rule of man because each piece of property (or possession as you would have it called) is different. Some things can be possessions to one person if used 'correctly' while the same thing can be taken away if not used 'correctly'. Its completely arbitrary and needs to be free of the confines of law in order to function properly.




So Marx theorized. But history has proven much of it to be false. A true libertarian state would not turn into the dystopia as long as individual rights are enforced. When discussing the economic implications of libertarianism (i advocate a classical liberalism but for the purposes of this debate i will use libertarianism), we must not forget about the legalistic implications for they are intertwined. One's rights can be violated under capitalism if there is no respect for individualism. One in conjunction with the other is necessary. So in a libertarian state, the material wealth of the two individuals would be different, but the legal and political rights would be the same - this is what we think of when we think egalitarianism. Many would call this bordering on utopia and I do not necessarily disagree with that criticism, but how should it be addressed and how should we go about remedying it is where we would part. Libertarianism recognizes that there will be material inequality, but what is important is how that occurs. Does it occur because one person has a bright idea or invention and profits it off of the free choice of consumers? As long as everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, then that material acquisition is justified. Now you would argue that this runs counter to reality. People will never have equal opportunity. And i can agree with this point but again diverge on how it should be addressed. I do not think that the state should impose measures to ensure economic equality but should rather address the aspects of policy preventing equal opportunity.



I am a big enough man to concede when I have overstepped my point. You are right in that slavery and limited suffrage were not the shining examples of libertarian ideals in US history. However, my point was more to the extent at which the ideas were American. While slavery and limited suffrage and similar things prevented the US from being a true libertarian state, I still stand by my remark that no other country in history implemented libertarianism to the extent of the US. This leaves room for a greater extension of those ideals.



Apples and oranges. No politician was ever held at gunpoint, to my knowledge, when taking bribes. Furthermore, bribery (a practice as old as politics) is one of the reasons that I want limited government! If the government has less power over economic activity, then there is less reason to bribe. The more involvement the government has in economic affairs, the more likely corporations will be to bribe them in order to influence policy.


The government has always had a bigger stick and always will. But how is that stick used?



But how can a corporation influence legislation to their benefit if the government decides not to interfere in their industry in the first place? Simple question: would a given corporation lobby government if the state had no rules or regulations regarding that corporation's industry? What reason would they have to give money to government if government promises not to do anything for them?


Railroads were a natural monopoly that were supported by government subsidies in the nineteenth century, particularly in the West. Once the ICC was formed, it gave the Railroad industry the power it needed to maintain its monopoly on shipping.



Ah, Standard Oil Trust, the classic example of monopoly..or is it? History lesson maybe? Rockefeller had a strong company no doubt. It held on to a large part of the market, but it never cornered it. At one point its market share was 88%. This is when the claims of monopoly were first made. By 1911 when it was finally broken up, its market share was 64%. How did this happen prior to the enforcement of the Sherman Anti-trust act? If you said competition, then you win a prize.


Its all been pointed out for you. Expose them to competition. Put no hindrances on small and medium businesses from competing. When the ICC was created, the railroad industry prevented the trucking industry from gaining much market share. I will try to say this loud and clear. Regulations do not hurt corporations, they make them strong. Regulations hurt small and medium ranged businesses by making it more difficult to compete.




Monopolization is possible through the sanction and support of government. Private collusion of a few individuals may lead to a monopoly but it would only last for a short time without government help. You can list as many large corporations as you want and present them as an example of monopoly. But if you look at the actual history of most of them, there is government intervention in the form of tarriffs or subsidies, etc... Some large corporations are just freely chosen by consumers and there is nothing wrong with that.



Railroads were a big (if not the biggest) industry for government subsidies.



Ha. Surely you do not need to be reminded of FDR's actions in regard to this statement. Would you approve Bush using similar measures to pass his own agenda?

We've moved from "monopolies are impossible without government sanction" to "monopolies without government sanctions don't last". That's progress. Did you click on the Wiki link in my last post, perhaps?


When antitrust laws regulating the media were relaxed in the 80s and again in the 90s we shrank from 50 media owners (that used to be a lot) to 6. How did the consumer participate in limiting his/her choices? What impute did consumers have on corporate buyouts leading to horizontal mergers and vertical integration to slash production and advertising costs, making private competition in this market virtually nonexistent?


McChesney goes on to describe how foreign films went from being shown at 10% of U.S. theaters in the 70s to just .5% by the late 90s through acquisitions and exclusive cross-promotion as an example of supply driving demand:


Look, I've argued against agricultural subsidies for several reasons. First of all if voters continue supporting a federal welfare state along with recent cutbacks made to welfare assistance programs then this reduced level of assistance is as good for the midwestern farmer as a single mother living in the Bronx. Your occupation does not entitle you to extra safety nets. Agricultural subsidies in the U.S. and Europe pass on a huge cost to consumers and dismantle foreign markets, driving foreign nations further into debt and increasing their chances of political and social upheaval. The U.S. and other Paris Club members will of course offer more loans and make the economic viability of foreign states even more reliant upon the West's economic performance and interests.

I also have no problem with phasing out the government's deal with Amtrak and eliminating any sort of tariff. If Western states pressure foreign countries to open their markets through the WTO and other economic institutions then we have to be as competitive as developing nations are by eliminating the artificial advantage the federal government provides corporations, an advantage relatively poor governments simply can't afford to counter.

In regards to U.S. media conglomerates their hierarchal structure is a direct result of deregulating ownership rules. They are as monopolistic and anti-competitive as Archer Daniels Midland is without government assistance because ownership rules have been relaxed and everything else follows. The highest bidder with the most capital can secure a slice of the market's pie chart for himself and reduce his risk by producing and promoting commercially safe content.


Threatening to pack the courts? I would not have approved, but at least this measure would have been legal by constitutional, instead of executive, decree. SCOTUS simply made the wrong call on federal anti-trust legislation. The hitherto pro-free market Court had fubared other decisions in relation to government legislation before. Making the wrong call never required a presidential threat.

I haven't moved anywhere. Monopolies cannot exist except through the sanction and support of government. If private collusion produces a monopoly, it will only last if it is supported. In due time, the monopoly is regulated by the market.



First:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ownership



Just wanted to point out another example of regulation helping large corporations.

Ok. You are right when you say that deregulation of the industry has led to less competition as corporations have combined. But only if you forget that traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers) are now in competition with new media (blogs, internet news sites). When taking a look at the media in this manner, there are many owners of media with the potential for any individual entering into the industry. And this occurred not because of a rationally planned decision to extend what media was, but because of market forces - the thirst for information and knowledge. People were dissatisfied with what they got from traditional media so they filled the void with new methods.



It was fascist in nature. Something that we would no doubt decry if any modern leader did. The SCOTUS caved to FDR to prevent this from happening. Its insignificant whether you think that FDR was right or wrong with his proposals. Unless you think the ends justify the means.

Is it against the rules to emote? ::heaves a sigh!::


More Wiki fun here: The [Federal Radio] Commission also had little power over networks; in fact, the Radio Act of 1927 made almost no mention of the radio networks (notably NBC and, a bit later CBS) that were in the process of dominating radio. Too bad neither section is sourced.

I've got no problem with the Communications Act. Amateur broadcasters were just that, amateurish, not entrepreneurial. They didn't have to worry about production costs and they didn't have to deal with payrolls. The teevee was a new and rare commodity back then. Someone relatively well off enough could grab a signal with an antenna and charge neighbors for a "show". We're moving into copyright laws and royalties territory which recently has gone out of control. Hollywood was founded because Thomas Edison and other industry thugs, I mean, entrepreneurs, formed a trust that enforced their own consequences in regards to "fair" use of their patents. A court eventually broke up the trust, but not before filmmakers packed their equipment and moved west.

Here's a real example of business groups using the power of the government to abuse the public trust. It's up to Congress to promote science and the arts first and foremost for the public benefit by providing individuals with an economic incentive to invent. That was the idea until recently. New legislation, including the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, radically reduces the incentive by giving original copyright holders and their estates unlimited opportunity to reapply for and extend their copyrights. Then there's the question of whether an algorithm is in fact an expression of an idea among many, many other dubious copyrights the federal government has the express authority to regulate.


Leder, come on. Like anyone else newspapers are migrating to the internet as well. They're not going die off. They're going to take advantage of a new medium like any business startup except they have a lot more capital.


The most a new market entrant can look forward to nowadays is being purchased by one of the 6. S/he can't break the gentleman's club. S/he can only be consumed by it.


Presidents, with the consent of Congress, can increase SCOTUS and impeach judges. I guess the Constitution supports fascism.

Edit: Good grief, hopefully this is my final edit. I looked for info on the Communication Act's licensing fees and couldn't find anything. Much of the information centers on revisions made to the Act (The Telecommunications Act of 1996). I came up empty up but came across the Democrats' oh-no-you-don't letter to Disney. Specifically this: The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Also, I checked the Wiki article I linked about economist DiLorenzo's defense of pork-free robber barons. Here it is: The Truth About 'Robber Barons'. I trusted the Wiki quote cuz DiLorenzo is a member of the Ludwing von Mises Institute.

Really? This is news to me.



How does giving the inventors of new goods extended copyrights reduce the incentive to invent?



Newspaper readership is down. People are watching less television and are spending more time on the internet. The difference is now the NYTimes not only has to compete with the WSJ or WaPo, but it has to compete with joe schmoe in his suburban home. There is no regulation meaning that substance and not capital will determine who wins out.


But you are looking it at from a now outdated perspective of the media. I am saying look, the internet has opened up possibilities for thousands of people to engage in media activity and many have been quite successful. Look at the Daily Kos blog which had a convention that was attended by several prominent politicians. Look at the YouTube debates. Look at the NYTImes not being free online. Traditional media is trying to catch up with what the rest of the world already knew.

I think the issue of media consolidation is really taking us off topic and should maybe be saved for another debate.



I am well aware of the DiLorenzo article for I referenced it in an earlier debate on the robber-baron issue. Did you get a chance to read the whole thing?

Lesly:


Lederuvdepac:


Lesly's right, it's in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Not exactly.



This has more to do with what would become Intellectual Property. It's not so much the Congress giving monies to inventors as it is allowing them to exclusively market/sell their inventions. This would be in contrast to a government that would own any invention made on its soil. This sort of thing is clearly good, see also Thomas Edison. However, it's not exactly what Lesly made it out to be.

Who said anything about Congress giving monies to inventors?


I credit the eccentric Muybridge with discovering the persistence of vision and Edison with abusing patents.


What did I make it out to be?

No Lesly is right, I misread what she wrote and thought she meant something else. My fault.