4 ms·

Isn't that a systematic problem? Money should not influence politics

by TomMarius 8y ago

heavenlyblue 8y ago
Should they not?
jacobush 8y ago
Money is free speech ... :-P
radicalbyte 8y ago
Doesn't pure Capitalism require that money rules?
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Pure capitalism has no government that would suppress armed pushback
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Pure capitalism relies on government to enforce contracts. There's no capitalism without government, that would be anarchy. Whether it's big government (with welfare, education, etc) or not, is another thing. But capitalism, pure or not, requires police, army, courts, and so on, and by extension, a tax system to fund their operation. Else, it's just might that enforces anything it wants, and there are no contracts other than between people of equal power (since the more powerful can just steal whatever people with less power have).
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. It's much more complex, I recommend you to read something by Ludwig von Mises, he answers what you said on top of saying why it'd be more fair etc. And yes, pure capitalism is anarchy but that doesn't mean there would not be order. Of course these terms were redefined a lot during the last 100 years. We might simply misunderstand each other because each of us uses a different definition made by another person and taught by another school of thought as well as different university/professor. Anyways even if there was a government and law enforcement etc, in pure capitalism having more money would not help, government would be strictly neutral and the civil law minimal. If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. Doesn't make sense to have private courts since anybody with a large enough power (e.g. hired thugs) can take them over. If you mean that the individuals in such a scheme would agree to pay each to have a "private court/police" enforce their contracts etc, then that's the same as government, just one without voting (and presumably there would be some way to settle how those courts/police would operate too, which might end up as a contract itself, but people will have to agree to its terms first, so there's some voting there too). >If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is. How that makes it anything more than wishful thinking though? If the government officials pocket money to favor one company, that's fully compatible with the greed and egoism that's essential for capitalism (according to Adam Smith and co “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"). What would prevent them to do it under the table, aside from morals?
        skidd0 8y ago
        >If you mean that the individuals in such a scheme would agree to pay each to have a "private court/police" enforce their contracts etc, then that's the same as government, just one without voting Actually, there is voting. Those individuals are voting with their money. But, this is more direct market signaling rather than being relayed to a "representative" in our "republic".
        coldtea 8y ago
        >Those individuals are voting with their money. In that case, a person with more money will have more influence over that police/court etc to favor them. How's that different (except cruder) than the current scheme, where the do it through influencing government first? It just makes it more explicit and removes any counter-balances.
        TomMarius 8y ago
coldtea 8y ago
Politics are controlled by two things: (a) money (b) popular revolt (or vigilance) Without (b) there's just (a).
- sharemywin 8y ago
  There's some kind of moral value in there some where isn't there? a little shred of human decency? At least for a month or two when the politicians first get started?
  - zbentley 8y ago
    In some few specific cases? Sure. On average/over time? Effectively never.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    It's easy to adapt one's moral values to what brings in more money. "Yeah, I'm getting these paybacks from companies, but I do it to support my campaign, else this scoundrel, my opponent would have gotten elected, who would have voted for very bad policies". Besides, long term, the system self-selects against too much morality. If they can't trust you to keep your mouth shut and play the game, you wont get the support you need to get to the next level. The one willing to put up with everything and anything, either participating, or keeping their mouth shut and pretending to be above it while still allowing it to happen, becomes President.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- lez 8y ago
  Money (USD) is controlled by one thing: * The FED
  - coldtea 8y ago
    That's just an agency. He who has the money controls the FED too.

Isn't that a systematic problem? Money should not influence politics

heavenlyblue 8y ago

Should they not?

jacobush 8y ago

Money is free speech ... :-P

radicalbyte 8y ago

Doesn't pure Capitalism require that money rules?

TomMarius 8y ago
Pure capitalism has no government that would suppress armed pushback
- coldtea 8y ago
  Pure capitalism relies on government to enforce contracts. There's no capitalism without government, that would be anarchy. Whether it's big government (with welfare, education, etc) or not, is another thing. But capitalism, pure or not, requires police, army, courts, and so on, and by extension, a tax system to fund their operation. Else, it's just might that enforces anything it wants, and there are no contracts other than between people of equal power (since the more powerful can just steal whatever people with less power have).
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. It's much more complex, I recommend you to read something by Ludwig von Mises, he answers what you said on top of saying why it'd be more fair etc. And yes, pure capitalism is anarchy but that doesn't mean there would not be order. Of course these terms were redefined a lot during the last 100 years. We might simply misunderstand each other because each of us uses a different definition made by another person and taught by another school of thought as well as different university/professor. Anyways even if there was a government and law enforcement etc, in pure capitalism having more money would not help, government would be strictly neutral and the civil law minimal. If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >Pure capitalism specifically doesn't rely on government with anything - even courts and enforcement would be private. Doesn't make sense to have private courts since anybody with a large enough power (e.g. hired thugs) can take them over. If you mean that the individuals in such a scheme would agree to pay each to have a "private court/police" enforce their contracts etc, then that's the same as government, just one without voting (and presumably there would be some way to settle how those courts/police would operate too, which might end up as a contract itself, but people will have to agree to its terms first, so there's some voting there too). >If the government helps a company it's definitely not pure capitalism regardless of what the exact definition is. How that makes it anything more than wishful thinking though? If the government officials pocket money to favor one company, that's fully compatible with the greed and egoism that's essential for capitalism (according to Adam Smith and co “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"). What would prevent them to do it under the table, aside from morals?
      - skidd0 8y ago
        >If you mean that the individuals in such a scheme would agree to pay each to have a "private court/police" enforce their contracts etc, then that's the same as government, just one without voting Actually, there is voting. Those individuals are voting with their money. But, this is more direct market signaling rather than being relayed to a "representative" in our "republic".
        coldtea 8y ago
        >Those individuals are voting with their money. In that case, a person with more money will have more influence over that police/court etc to favor them. How's that different (except cruder) than the current scheme, where the do it through influencing government first? It just makes it more explicit and removes any counter-balances.
        TomMarius 8y ago

coldtea 8y ago

Politics are controlled by two things: (a) money (b) popular revolt (or vigilance) Without (b) there's just (a).

sharemywin 8y ago
There's some kind of moral value in there some where isn't there? a little shred of human decency? At least for a month or two when the politicians first get started?
- zbentley 8y ago
  In some few specific cases? Sure. On average/over time? Effectively never.
- coldtea 8y ago
  It's easy to adapt one's moral values to what brings in more money. "Yeah, I'm getting these paybacks from companies, but I do it to support my campaign, else this scoundrel, my opponent would have gotten elected, who would have voted for very bad policies". Besides, long term, the system self-selects against too much morality. If they can't trust you to keep your mouth shut and play the game, you wont get the support you need to get to the next level. The one willing to put up with everything and anything, either participating, or keeping their mouth shut and pretending to be above it while still allowing it to happen, becomes President.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
lez 8y ago
Money (USD) is controlled by one thing: * The FED
- coldtea 8y ago
  That's just an agency. He who has the money controls the FED too.