Balkinization: Money in Politics: How Far Does the Egalitarian Position Go?

Comments:

I haven't as yet read your article but of course the 1st A pops into mind with regard to America. What about the impact via media in America that is not often egalitarian? I'll be reading your article on my desktop screen because of eyesight issues; this will takea while for me but the subject is interesting. What is the impact in Europe on the public relations industry? Lobbying?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:51 PM

Once you understand the objective here is to censor business political speech during elections when it threatens incumbent progressive politicians, the distinctions being made for non-campaign speech and NGO political speech all make perfect sense.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:50 PM

"As a matter of principle, what do campaign finance egalitarians believe about whether there is any reason that the egalitarian argument should not be extended to limiting spending on public debate more generally."

This is a fundamental question about the egalitarian position (the other being why equality of speech should be measured solely by money, as there are many other factors which advantage the speech of some over others).

I guess i will have to read your article to see if there is an answer.

# posted by

mls : 7:34 PM

Ok, I skimmed your article to see if there was an answer to the question. The article is fascinating, by the way, and I want to read it fully when I have the chance. But I didn't see any answer to the question you asked in the OP (and rereading the OP, you didn't say there would be). So what is the argument for equalizing speech only with regard to elections?

# posted by

mls : 7:59 PM

mls "Against the talking power of money, eloquence is of no avail" Erasmus, Adages

Or, as is otherwise said, "Money talks, bullshit walks."

Another way to think about it is, why has our legal system always focused on money (as in damages) over and above most other remedies?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:55 PM

I've never found the argument that strict campaign restrictions protect incumbents to be convincing. Whatever the rules are incumbents are going to be better at it generally, their only threat plutocrats and their pawns. A system of very strict caps and or public financing would be best in 1. Taking away the incumbents advantage in fundraising and 2. Ensuring truly populist, anti-establishment (as opposed to plutocrats and their pawns) candidates might emerge.

I've always thought it amusing the way the LP and libertarians sacrifice any potential political headway they might could make on the alter of laissez-faire fundamentalism is n this area. Being against most government they ensure little interest group financial support, being against campaign finance restrictions they then ensure their opponents will be fatly funded, snowing them under. There's a lesson there about putting ideological correctness ahead of pragmatism, for those willing or able to learn.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:07 PM

I think your sayings relate to different contexts. In politics, the power of money is mainly to amplify bullshit. And to the extent that there is a contest between bullshit and money, bullshit seems to hold its own.

# posted by

mls : 9:09 PM

The quotes are about the preeminent power of money, which might be why it's focused on.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:53 PM

Mr. W: I've always thought it amusing the way the LP and libertarians sacrifice any potential political headway they might could make on the alter of laissez-faire fundamentalism is n this area. Being against most government they ensure little interest group financial support, being against campaign finance restrictions they then ensure their opponents will be fatly funded, snowing them under. There's a lesson there about putting ideological correctness ahead of pragmatism, for those willing or able to learn.

My God. Think very long and hard about what you are saying.

Liberty is a natural and fundamental right of ALL Americans. Our freedom to speak our minds is one of the most important forms of liberty.

Americans do not forfeit their right to liberty or speech merely because they associate into a business.

Defending liberty is not ideological correctness, it is the duty of all Americans and their government.

Denying liberty is not pragmatism, but the policy of totalitarians oppressing political opponents and has no place in America.

If those of us willing to defend liberty have to stand alone against our government without financial support by the powers that be, so be it.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:10 PM

SCOTUS has recognized that spending/speech can dilute other's spending/speech in the Arizona public funding case a few years ago. They just want to shy away from that logic when it comes to defending plutocracy.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:27 PM

Watching the debate and reaction to it...Pence had a lot to defend as Kaine really commanded the minutiae of Trump's many unprofessional comments during the campaign. Kaine interrupted too much, but it's interesting to see the Trumpistas beating that drum in what's going to be their meme tomorrow when the same people had nary a complaint about Trump's dozens of interruptions and talking over Clinton at their debate. Mark the well, folks: anyone who criticizes Kaine for interrupting who did not also criticize Trump for the same is simply engaged in bad faith propaganda, not principle.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:31 PM

"bad faith propaganda, not principle"

good thing we don't have anyone like that here

How did the Bill Weld tweet debate go?

# posted by

Joe : 11:54 PM

America is a country which is, facially at least, devoted to the idea of *individual* rights. That being the case, radical egalitarians have to watch how far they push their cause, lest the public notice that it is actually incompatible with strong individual rights, and reject it. At least until they've successfully eroded Americans' devotion to individual rights. That's on a theoretical level.

On a practical level, the truth is that the goal here isn't actually egalitarian. It's just advancing one side in the political fight. If the "right" (Meaning the left.) side has more resources, egalitarianism ceases to be important. Just like early voting is a hugely important civil rights fight in North Carolina, but 'voting rights activists' are utterly uninterested in the fact that New York has no early voting at all. It's not about voting rights, it's about electing Democrats.

The activists here are from one side of the political spectrum, and the actual goal is advancing their side's political power. Everything else is just a pretext.

"Mark the well, folks: anyone who criticizes Kaine for interrupting who did not also criticize Trump for the same is simply engaged in bad faith propaganda, not principle."

I believe the first thing I said about the first debate, (Albeit not here.) was that Trump had "poor mic discipline", and that my personal ideal debate format would be the candidates being locked in sound proof booths, with their microphones turned on and off by a timer.

I haven't seen the VP debate yet, but I gather from Democrats' reactions that Pence did rather better than Trump.

# posted by

Brett : 6:01 AM

"are utterly uninterested in the fact that New York has no early voting at all. It's not about voting rights, it's about electing Democrats."

One problem with that theory is that the NY Senate, one half of the legislature there, is currently and has for a while now controlled by Republicans.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:54 AM

And do you think early voting would change that? That's the relevant question.

Voting rights activists clearly believe that a reduction in early voting in NC would harm the Democratic party. They say as much.

But if a small reduction in extensive early voting in NC is a voting rights violation, how can not having any early voting at all in NY be perfectly fine?

It can be perfectly fine because Democrats don't think adding early voting in NY would help them.

# posted by

Brett : 8:36 AM

The Democratic controlled lower house in NY passes increased voting access bills which die in the GOP controlled Senate. I'm not sure what else they are supposed to do. If you're asking why there are protests in NC over something that's a problem in NY too I'd bet it has to do with the different histories (civil rights) and racially polarized voting in the two states. I mean, surely you're not suggesting the Democrats wouldn't love to capture the NY Senate?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:03 AM

" I'm not sure what else they are supposed to do."

Seriously? Here's a clue: Are the people demanding NC not reduce it's early voting limiting their efforts to the legislature, and accepting defeat there gracefully?

No, I think you know what they'd be doing.

I'm sure Democrats would love to capture the NY Senate. I just don't think they believe early voting would do much to further that.

Anyway, this is a diversion. I'm saying that radical egalitarians are limiting their demands to the political realm for now, because they're really just concerned about aiding their side in prevailing in elections. And because they realize that the public would reject their cause anyway, should it's implications become too clear.

# posted by

Brett : 9:15 AM

Why would early voting be good for NC Democrats but not their NY counterparts.

I mean, c'mon, if you want to explain apparently different levels of activism in two states looking at the history of activism around that issue would be the first logical place to look. Core Dem constituencies are much more sensitive to voting issues in NC given their history of suppression there, and activism pushing back.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:34 AM

America is a country which is, facially at least, devoted to the idea of *individual* rights

Like terms like "liberty," this sort of thing needs detail to provide much meaning. In this country, we have "republican government" (little kids swear allegiance to a flag for which it stands) that is not merely about atomistic individuals. This includes setting up an electoral system that is protected from certain selective forces, monetary or otherwise. Those who support campaign finance laws (see, e.g., Zephyr Teachout) has shown how history backs them up here. This can be done without threatening "individual rights" as we understand them.

one side in the political fight. If the "right" (Meaning the left.)

Brett has an atypical view of things and it influences him to see things in a skewered way. Thus, again, "the left" means a broad range of people like John McCain who one might be surprised to find there. There is a broad support for certain campaign finance laws & they do not benefit "the left" in a range of cases. Public funding of campaigns or any number of things in various cases will benefit those not on the left. When it suits, "the right" appeals to populist appeals.

That is the sort of thing referenced by the OP generally. Brett focuses on things like early voting that might benefit one side in a specific instance. I am inclined to agree that in various cases advancing the vote as compared to voter suppression tactics will benefit one side. This side in the end is republican democracy. Perhaps, eventually, Republicans in those areas will be strong enough more voters will not be a threat. In other areas, get out the vote efforts help Republicans. See, e.g., how the right in the 1980s got control of various school boards etc.

Likewise, the NEED for certain things like early voting is more in some areas. We here in my part of NY don't have people waiting on lines for hours to vote.

# posted by

Joe : 10:04 AM

ETA: History of discrimination as Mr. W. notes factors in (note though the Voting Rights Act did cover NY somewhat, particularly rights of Spanish speakers) and each state has specific situations and laws factored in. This is one reason why (up to a point) it makes sense to give states some local discretion in voting laws.

# posted by

Joe : 10:08 AM

Has the battleground against elites run its course and now the battleground is radical egalitarians? Can we expect anarcho libertarians to be up in arms over traditional libertarians? Does Trump's base consist of non-radical egalitarians?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:11 AM

I love Shag's post. It's fun to watch movement conservatives veer from anti-elitism to anti-egalitarianism.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:49 AM

Such veering seems to occur regularly. Watch out on the roads.

# posted by

Joe : 11:25 AM

I have never been an egalitarian, and I have always been an egalitarian.

Which is to say, I am a *rights* egalitarian. Everyone has the same *rights*.

Outcome egalitarians, which is usually what you're talking about when egalitarianism comes up, inherently must oppose equal rights. Because they don't lead to equal outcomes...

# posted by

Brett : 12:42 PM

Brett: Which is to say, I am a *rights* egalitarian. Everyone has the same *rights*.

As the term is understood in a classical liberal society, egalitarianism means we all enjoy the same rights or liberties. The Declaration of Independence established that the primary purpose of government is protect our rights. With this principle in mind, the Constitution guarantees "equal protection under the law" and not "equal infringement under the law." Thus, there is nothing egalitarian about the laws which impose blanket infringements upon the people's right to speak their minds.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:55 PM

You never are going to get complete "equal outcomes" -- it's a matter of degree. There are understandings of some basic things (such as if you are hit by a car, some basic amount of medical care) everyone gets.

If you get that, you have a "right" to that. "Rights" mean various things, including (per state constitutions especially) positive benefits. Such as a "right" to civil juries and judges and so forth instead of having to settle disputes privately.

"Outcome egalitarians" do not "inherently must oppose equal rights" -- they might oppose a certain sort of right dynamic. But, that is different. For instance, if a blind person gets certain benefits than a seeing person does not, it doesn't necessarily mean "everyone" doesn't have the "same rights." The blind person otherwise would not be able to do things, which in practice means less rights. For instance, the "right to vote" might require certain help.

To return to NY v. NC, maybe, local conditions mean that early voting will in practice lead to less voting. In the process, this means less right to vote in practice. But, extending hours doesn't necessarily reduce any rights. Everyone has the same right to vote early from what I can tell.

# posted by

Joe : 12:57 PM

It's equally true that reducing early voting doesn't deny anybody any rights, or deny them equal treatment. As everybody is still equal under the lesser number of early voting days. It's not actually "discrimination" unless people are treated differently.

I'm personally opposed to early voting, because it screws up the way campaigns work. You have people casting votes a month in advance of the election, before the debates, before the coverage gets serious and most of the ads have run. Ideally we should all vote at the same time, so we all have access to the same information.

# posted by

Brett : 1:10 PM

If same day voting results in long lines at the polls (especially at times where certain groups of people can go without special burdens given work/family obligations), the net result is that certain people will have an easier time voting. Some will in fact either not be able to vote or have a special burden, a sort of tax, on voting. This is not "equal" in practice by a sensible use of words.

Not giving free medical care when someone is hit by a car is on some level "treating people the same" but the net result is that certain people have more rights. Call it what you want, but on some basic level, the average person realizes this is unfair at least in some cases. "Equality" here means getting basic care. If you don't have the means, like the blind person who needs help, you lack it.

The net pragmatic value of a specific thing -- e.g., some accommodation -- is another question. I'm wary of early voting myself (though we allow absentee in various cases) but would need to balance the needs and length (such as having voting over a span of a week or something). And, then, when a specific thing is opposed, would have to see questions of good faith etc.

# posted by

Joe : 2:00 PM

So, according to Brett's 12:42 PM comment, the battleground is between "rights" egalitarians" and "outcome" egalitarians? Do "right" egalitarians have obligations with respect to egalitarians in need of outcomes assistance, or is that a matter for the free market/laissez faire philosophy of governance? A Christian view that came about long before the DOI and the Constitution continues to prevail for many "rights" egalitarians to provide decent outcomes for needy egalitarians, many of whom did not win the vagina lottery. The concept of human rights provides for outcomes assistance. Apparently Brett is of the view that such interferes with his clain as a "rights" egalitarian.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 2:53 PM

"As everybody is still equal under the lesser number of early voting days. It's not actually "discrimination" unless people are treated differently."

The poor and the rich are equally forbidden to sleep under bridges...

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 4:29 PM

Shag: Do "right" egalitarians have obligations with respect to egalitarians in need of outcomes assistance, or is that a matter for the free market/laissez faire philosophy of governance?

Unless we are discussing those unable to help themselves, the answer is no.

A Christian view that came about long before the DOI and the Constitution continues to prevail for many "rights" egalitarians...

The voluntary individual choice to provide charity to the poor is not at all analogous to the government threatening the use of force to take wealth from a minority it disfavors to give to those it deems to need "outcomes assistance" - generally its voters and wealthy benefactors.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:41 PM

Is SPAM I AM! suggesting that representative government cannot provide for such a Christian view under the Constitution? Perhaps both Brett and SPAM I AM! as "rights" egalitarians would object to such.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 4:57 PM

Can government rightly draft into military or militia service to defend its citizens from threat? If so I can't see why it can't 'draft' citizen wealth to deal with the threat of privation to some...

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 5:11 PM

Founding Christians weren't in charge of government and so didn't speak in terms of laws in their recognition of duties. However their duties were downright communistic within the communities they controlled (see Acts). And the Old Testament, where God's people did have a government under their control, is replete with laws violating Bart's political economy (see the jubilee in Leviticus as one example).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 5:18 PM

Shag: A Christian view that came about long before the DOI and the Constitution continues to prevail for many "rights" egalitarians...

BD: The voluntary individual choice to provide charity to the poor is not at all analogous to the government threatening the use of force to take wealth from a minority it disfavors to give to those it deems to need "outcomes assistance" - generally its voters and wealthy benefactors.

Shag: Is SPAM I AM! suggesting that representative government cannot provide for such a Christian view under the Constitution?

I have no problem with making payment of taxes to support the welfare state a voluntary individual choice. I suspect you would have a problem, though.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:56 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:02 PM

Mr. W: Can government rightly draft into military or militia service to defend its citizens from threat? If so I can't see why it can't 'draft' citizen wealth to deal with the threat of privation to some...

The only moral reason for a military draft is to protect our freedoms, including our right to property, from enemies foreign and domestic who would to take them.

A government which takes from Peter to give to its preferred Pauls, for reasons which generally have very little to do with preventing privation, is arguably one of those enemies.

Founding Christians weren't in charge of government and so didn't speak in terms of laws in their recognition of duties. However their duties were downright communistic within the communities they controlled (see Acts). And the Old Testament, where God's people did have a government under their control, is replete with laws violating Bart's political economy (see the jubilee in Leviticus as one example).

Good argument in favor of free will and against men attempting to impose the laws of God on other men.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:03 PM

Can government rightly draft into military or militia service to defend its citizens from threat? If so I can't see why it can't 'draft' citizen wealth to deal with the threat of privation to some...

Benjamin Franklin:

"The accumulation … of property … and its security to individuals in every society must be an effect of the protection afforded to it by the joint strength of the society in the execution of its laws. Private property is therefore a creature of society, and is subject to the calls of that society, even to its last farthing; its contributions therefore to the public exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a benefit on the public, entitling the contributors to the distinctions of honor and power, but as the return of an obligation… The important ends of civil society, and the personal securities of life and liberty, these remain the same in every member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal claim to them with the most opulent…."

# posted by

Mark Field : 6:40 PM

Off topic to Mark Field:

Listening to a discussion of George Mason & it was referenced that he supported an executive council to be set up in the Constitution. When they were present in the states at the time, did there have to be an agreement for the governor/executive to operate or were they more advisory alone? Or, there might have been a range.

https://juliesilverbrook.com/2016/10/05/video-national-constitution-center-event-on-george-mason-and-constitution/

# posted by

Joe : 6:45 PM

There was a range, though often the Governor couldn't act without the consent of his Council. Even if he could so act theoretically, it was likely impractical because the Council generally consisted of influential men whose opposition would make it difficult to succeed.

Mason's support of a Council was rather quirky (though he wasn't the only one to support one) because VA had already abolished theirs in favor of a bicameral legislature.

# posted by

Mark Field : 7:20 PM

Bart, I don't see why compelling my time and person to protect you and your property from pirates is any more justified than compelling you to share your property with an unfortunate.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 7:59 PM

SPAM I AM! ducks responding to the constitutional question I raised. SPAM I AM! has a Trumpian heart.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:01 PM

Mark:

Your Ben Franklin quote is from an essay where he argued against limiting the franchise for choosing an upper house of the Congress to men of property. Ben was not arguing for a redistribution of wealth through a welfare state.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch12s25.html

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:52 PM

Mr. W: Bart, I don't see why compelling my time and person to protect you and your property from pirates is any more justified than compelling you to share your property with an unfortunate.

In the former case, the military draftee is protecting the citizenry's freedom and property from enemy pirates. In extraordinary cases of existential threat to the Republic, we require service to defend our freedoms. This is a public good.

In the latter case, you turn our government into the pirates.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:58 PM

Franklin was talking about a lot in that bit--one portion being the necessity to not favor the rich in government. The notion that the private property of the rich is maintained through a greater social contract with all citizens and therefore subject to distribution to the other parties to that contract (a movement that he explicitly says should not be characterized as a benefit but as a repayment of debt) is another portion.

# posted by

PMS_Chicago : 10:31 PM

Declaration of Independence notes that government is place to secure our rights. That property is secured by laws and efforts of the community as a whole.

"to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

# posted by

Joe : 11:27 PM

"to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

Which is a nice sentiment, but about as accurate as, "to keep something from happening to this nice place you've got here, protection rackets are instituted among Men".

Governments are protection rackets. That's all. Ideally the Don actually bothers providing some protection, to look good and keep the people from getting restive, but the real service he's being paid for is not attacking them himself. Much. Really, the best thing he does, if you're lucky, is to keep some other worse gang from moving in.

Things get really ugly when this is forgotten, and people start thinking that government is actually a benign institution, and could do great good if you just unchained it. The founding fathers knew better; "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

From a controlling government standpoint, letting the government run the schools was probably a huge mistake, as it isn't in the government's interest that people grow up having a realistic view of government. Rather, it's in the government's interest that people adopt really stupid ideas, like everything we have being thanks to the government, and thus the government's to take anytime it feels like taking it.

# posted by

Brett : 6:12 AM

I notice Brett at 6:12 AM has reverted full blast to his anarcho libertarian roots.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 6:36 AM

"
In the former case, the military draftee is protecting the citizenry's freedom and property from enemy pirates. In extraordinary cases of existential threat to the Republic, we require service to defend our freedoms. This is a public good.

In the latter case, you turn our government into the pirates."

This is just to give ipse dixit labels, both laden with moral import, to two very similar things. In both cases the government takes something from me by force to use for what's seen as the general welfare. The only real difference is you think the first example of kidnapping is in the general welfare and the latter example of robbery is not. Heck if anything the latter example strikes me as more defensible since, as Franklin says, property is a creation of the government in a way my person and time isn't.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:53 AM

"to keep something from happening to this nice place you've got here, protection rackets are instituted among Men".

It's closer to you and your neighbors deciding to set up a community watch or neighborhood association.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 6:56 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:18 AM

Mr. W:

Under a properly conducted military draft, all who are qualified are subject to service and the draftees protect the liberty and property of the entire citizenry, including their own. This service is provided to the public at large and is a public good.

Under a progressive tax system and welfare state, the government takes the wealth from those who create it and provides it to those it favors. This is legalized theft, government as mafia and is in no way a public good.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:19 AM

You're just restating your conclusions, not defending them.

In a draft one subset of people-young men (and now recently women) are forced to give their time and perhaps their lives to fight for a cause they may or may not believe in or think necessary. Being young, they'll have less property, if any to defend than those whom don't fight and whom they defend.

This situation is morally less defensible than where a government which creates and maintains a property system rearranges said property to combat want and inequality.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:31 AM

"It's closer to you and your neighbors deciding to set up a community watch or neighborhood association."

Bah. My neighborhood has a community watch. They've never thrown a brick through my window because I didn't pony up. Nice way to elide what makes the government a protection racket: If you don't pay them, they attack you.

# posted by

Brett : 8:44 AM

My position on the draft and redistribution is more prudent/pragmatic and less absolutist. While I don't see any a priori justification for why A is ok and B is never ok, I do think that for utilitarian reasons both may be nessecary bit should be used sparingly, both because of the negative consequences following overuse (especially regarding redistribution) and the unfairness involved (especially the draft).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:52 AM

Brett, if you move into a neighborhood with a homeowners association then they'll 'attack you' if you don't follow their rules.

If you don't like your parents homeowners association you can always move to another (emigration from the U.S. Is not difficult).

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 8:55 AM

Mr. W: My position on the draft and redistribution is more prudent/pragmatic and less absolutist. While I don't see any a priori justification for why A is ok and B is never ok

Neither a military draft (involuntary servitude) or redistribution of wealth (theft) is OK.

However, a military draft is sometimes necessary for the government to perform its duty to protect our liberties and property from an existential military threat. This is similar to compelling jury service, witness testimony and the production of evidence to allow the government to provide us with due process.

Government redistribution of wealth is not necessary to protect our liberties and property. It is nothing more than theft and is thus malum in se.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:10 AM

Again, it's just a matter of assumed premises not shown to be true.

However, a redistribution is sometimes necessary for the government to perform its duty to protect equality and citizens from want and plutocracy.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:15 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:37 AM

Mr. W: However, a redistribution is sometimes necessary for the government to perform its duty to protect equality and citizens from want and plutocracy.

None of these are duties of government nor are they the goals of redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution of wealth has little to do with equality or relieving want. Progressive political parties primarily provide this money to their largely middle class voters and politically connected businesses.

A plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. The wealthy cannot rule through a democratic government constitutionally barred from directing the economy. In a free market, you can only become and stay wealthy if consumers voluntarily buy your goods and services.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:40 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 9:58 AM

"None of these are duties of government nor are they the goals of redistribution of wealth."

Sure they are. They're as likely involved in the general welfare and domestic tranquility as anything you might assert.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 9:59 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Joe : 10:10 AM

BD: None of these are duties of government nor are they the goals of redistribution of wealth.

Mr. W: Sure they are. They're as likely involved in the general welfare and domestic tranquility as anything you might assert.

Government theft from one group of people to another does not serve the general welfare of all the people.

Government has no duty to steal to avoid violence by those who wish to benefit from the theft.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:14 AM

"Brett, if you move into a neighborhood with a homeowners association then they'll 'attack you' if you don't follow their rules."

That's quite true. HOAs are little embryonic governments, and often nasty ones, too.

That is the tragedy of anarchism, IMO. We correctly identify government as a horror, but have never come up with a way of abolishing it. Get rid of one government, another takes its place. The only currently known defense against horrific government is subjecting yourself to hopefully less horrific government. Thinking this is somehow a solved problem, and we just need to get rid of government and everything will be peachy, is idiotic.

But, government is still a horror. And if you forget that, and get to thinking it is a benign institution, you won't keep up the defenses that that keep it from devolving into something worse.

Government is only as good as you can force it to be, and it is always searching for ways to escape its chains and become the predator it inherently is. Don't help it escape control by pretending the ravening wolf is a cute little puppy.

# posted by

Brett : 10:24 AM

As to education, the alternatives to public education also at times have incentives to not have a "realistic" view -- e.g., Brett from past reading is an atheist, as I recall. Public schools aren't allowed to teach religious belief (at least in its basic form). Religious schools can. I take he thinks multiple religious beliefs are far from "realistic." Homeschooling can also teach a lot of unrealistic stuff.

Public education won't be the only education -- people will also be taught by parents, religious institutions and so forth. Other types of education can be more of a united whole there. Government also has an interest to educate realistic citizens, who are informed about certain basic things. Anyway, public education brings together a diverse range of groups ideally, more ideas, more chance for realism. It is less able to block out "bad ideas" even if it might in various cases favor certain ones.

Public education finally is a creation of government. "We the People" get various ways there, unlike the average protection racket, to influence the process, including voting in people on school boards and those who write the lesson plans. Current doctrine even gives religious institutions more immunity from litigation.

# posted by

Joe : 10:30 AM

A "protection racket" like the mob doesn't have the various things the government have. We don't, e.g., elect the mob. We don't get to take them to court with our fellow citizens on juries. They don't have three branches. etc.

Countries without workable governments actually have "protection rackets" in their stead. They know the difference & are the sort of negative alternative people like Hobbes and Locke cited to show why our society, including its government, is a better alternative. Thanks to an organized society, with basic things like roads, power, prisons etc. in place, people can say such things with a straight face though.

And, "everything we have being thanks to the government" is confused. That is not being said. What is being said is the government -- WE THE PEOPLE (voting, juries etc.) -- are providing basic things necessary for security and in return it is just to warrant certain things in return such as taxes, jury service and in certain cases perhaps more (such as militia service or even the draft).

Of course, "the government" is not the only thing. That is why we have religion, press, family, friends and so forth.

===

Anyway, I read the book based on this article recently. It's pretty interesting and provides a good counterpoint in a fashion to this sort of rhetoric.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/how-gun-rights-harm-the-rule-of-law/389288/

# posted by

Joe : 10:33 AM

"Government theft from one group of people to another does not serve the general welfare of all the people.

Government has no duty to steal to avoid violence by those who wish to benefit from the theft."

Again, you're just saying 'no' to other's axioms while affirming yours in an ipse dixit fashion.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:43 AM

"government is still a horror."

Brett, lots of people *choose* HOAs. So it's not plain they're 'horrors.' Government can provide real goods, and yes, it provides them in part via coercion. I imagine you're just fine with some of that coercion (protecting property or enforcing contract promises), it's just that people disagree over what other coercions serve the public good.

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:46 AM

I think of government as I think of guns.

Both can be used for terrible things or necessary things.

I mean, really. Whenever some libertarian tells me that governments have perpetuated most of the worst recent atrocities I reply that most recent atrocities have also been perpetuated at gun point. Does that make guns and government inherently bad?

# posted by

Mista Whiskas : 10:47 AM

I now see a few more comments in recent threads (see the tax and NAFTA posts).

The comment moderation kicked in after 48 hours but some were let thru after that.

# posted by

Joe : 1:07 PM

Mr. W: I think of government as I think of guns. Both can be used for terrible things or necessary things...Does that make guns and government inherently bad?

Pretty fair analogy.

Both are necessities, but ones which can be abused. This is why we have laws preventing the misuse of firearms and constitutions preventing the misuse of government. Both should be scrupulously enforced.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:12 PM

Government, like marriage and descent, has always been organized around the control and movement of property of some kind, whether it is access rights or an extreme notion of individual rights to own land and goods. Of course, value and ownership are social constructs that evolve over time, leading us to the unusual point where we seem to think individuals have a natural right to property by dint of their effort in accruing it. But prosperity is a shared effort and the clamor for autonomy (and the claim of theft) flies in the face of our interdependence.

# posted by

PMS_Chicago : 11:49 PM