[From Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1230)
Is money speech?
Should political contributions be regulated?
Does the free market apply to elections?
if so, doesn't that mean that the USA must have the best government in
the world since there are no restrictions on what can be spent on
elections?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1230)
Is money speech?
Should political contributions be regulated?
Does the free market apply to elections?
if so, doesn’t that mean that the USA must have the best government in
the world since there are no restrictions on what can be spent on
elections?
AM:
It’s a paradox. 
Libertarian anarchists are against any government, so there is no need for elections, politicians, or any that stuff. All electing you need is done by buying what you like.
Libertarian minarchist are for minimal government, they would just start some rant about how the need for one regulation breeds a need for another and agree on limitations for election campaign; or limit corporate funding but allow individual of fixed amount or something.
Best, Adam
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1500)]
RM:
Is money speech?
Should political contributions be regulated?
Does the free market apply to elections?
if so, doesn't that mean that the USA must have the best government in
the world since there are no restrictions on what can be spent on
elections?AM:
It's a paradox.
Libertarian anarchists are against any government, so there is no need for
elections, politicians, or any that stuff. All electing you need is done by
buying what you like.
Libertarian minarchist are for minimal government, they would just start
some rant about how the need for one regulation breeds a need for another
and agree on limitations for election campaign; or limit corporate funding
but allow individual of fixed amount or something.
Sounds like you prefer the anarchist approach. What does an anarchist
do about people want a government (like the founders of the USA)? I
guess July 4th is a day of morning for you guys;-)
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Adam Matic 2011.07.03 0030CET]
Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1500)
Sounds like you prefer the anarchist approach. What does an anarchist
do about people want a government (like the founders of the USA)? I
guess July 4th is a day of morning for you guys;-)
AM:
Do you say “Happy Hanukkah” to your Jewish friends? 
Best, Adam
[From Bill Powers (2011.07.03.1550 MDT)]
From Adam Matic:
AM: It's a paradox.
Libertarian anarchists are against any government, so there is no need for elections, politicians, or any that stuff. All electing you need is done by buying what you like.
BP: Here's another paradox, maybe. Do libertarian anarchists forbid people to work together to accomplish things they can't do alone? For example, suppose a group of people forms a cooperative for the purpose of protecting itself against people who have been hurting and robbing its members. What if they bargain with some of the bigger and stronger people among themselves to pay for their time and expenses in doing this protecting for the group? What if they decide that there are certain offenses, like rape or murder, that the delegated protectors can simply deal with directly without waiting for the community to approve every detail -- at least prevent the offenders from repeating the offense. Just what the limits should be would be worked out within the cooperative.
Would this cooperative be called an enemy of libertarian anarchists? And if it were, what would the anarchists do about it? I wonder how they could "forbid" anyone to do anything, and what would happen if it were done anyway.
By the way, I hope everyone has read Ursula Le Guin's "The Disposessed." It is the best sympathetic treatment I have ever seen of anarchy, showing all the difficulties of handling social problems and all the real joys of living on a pioneer world where everyone subscribes to the basic ideas of anarchy-- well, not quite everybody all the time, which makes it even more interesting. I felt a lot of resonances with Shevek, too, in his attempts to introduce Simultaneity into physics to replace the Sequency movement. Le Guin is an astonishingly good builder of plausible worlds.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1645)]
Adam Matic (2011.07.03 0030CET)--
Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1500)
Sounds like you prefer the anarchist approach. What does an anarchist
do about people want a government (like the founders of the USA)? I
guess July 4th is a day of morning for you guys;-)AM:
Do you say "Happy Hanukkah" to your Jewish friends?
Sure. The relevance of this is...?
But I'd sure like to hear from American libertarians (or free
marketers, or Austrian schoolers or right wingers or conservatives or
whatever). Do libertarian Americans believe that money is speech and
that, therefore, there should be no limits on how much anyone can
contribute to a campaign. Also, do libertarians agree that
corporations have the same rights as people (as we apparently now
believe in the US)?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 4 0030 MDT]
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1230)
Is money speech?
Should political contributions be regulated?
Does the free market apply to elections?
if so, doesn't that mean that the USA must have the best government in
the world since there are no restrictions on what can be spent on
elections?
How so? Laws aren't the only thing that can limit what can be spend on elections. Spending is generally limited by the funds that can be raised or borrowed. Laws currently limit what can be contributed in federal elections.
The free market does not currently apply to elections, because politicians are allowed to promise spending of tax money on things like pork barrel and increases in entitlements in an effort to purchase votes and incentivise contributions. Incumbants also get franking privileges. The two major parties restrict ballot access to third parties, etc.
Martin L
On 7/3/2011 1:33 PM, Richard Marken wrote:
Best
Rick
[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 4, 0040 MDT]
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1645)]
Adam Matic (2011.07.03 0030CET)--
Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1500)
Sounds like you prefer the anarchist approach. What does an anarchist
do about people want a government (like the founders of the USA)? I
guess July 4th is a day of morning for you guys;-)AM:
Do you say "Happy Hanukkah" to your Jewish friends?Sure. The relevance of this is...?
But I'd sure like to hear from American libertarians (or free
marketers, or Austrian schoolers or right wingers or conservatives or
whatever). Do libertarian Americans believe that money is speech and
that, therefore, there should be no limits on how much anyone can
contribute to a campaign. Also, do libertarians agree that
corporations have the same rights as people (as we apparently now
believe in the US)?
No, libertarians don't agree that corporations have the same rights as people. It is a divisive issue. Many don't believe in limited liability, or in special rights for any collective, i.e., all rights are individual. The constitutionalist libertarians probably believe it is a matter for congress. Generally libertarians are supportive of commercial speech, not just political speech.
-- Martin L
On 7/3/2011 5:45 PM, Richard Marken wrote:
Best
Rick
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.02.0910)]
Martin Lewitt (2011 July 4 0030 MDT)–
RM:Is money speech?
Should political contributions be regulated?
Does the free market apply to elections?
if so, doesn’t that mean that the USA must have the best government in
the world since there are no restrictions on what can be spent on
elections?
ML: How so? Laws aren’t the only thing that can limit what can be spend on elections. Spending is generally limited by the funds that can be raised or borrowed. Laws currently limit what can be contributed in federal elections.
So money is speech? And laws that limit spending are no good because they limit political discourse?
ML: The free market does not currently apply to elections, because politicians are allowed to promise spending of tax money on things like pork barrel and increases in entitlements in an effort to purchase votes and incentivise contributions.
They can also promise tax breaks for the people who support them with money. Seems like a free market to me; the product (government largesse of various kinds) goes to the highest bidder. What’s the problem?
ML: Incumbants also get franking privileges.
Well, there’s a problem. Incumbents have a postal advantage over non-incumbents. But if we get rid of franking privileges, that would be a regulation, and we can’t have that, can we? If someone doesn’t follow it we might have to use (dare I say it) coercion to prevent violation of the regulation.
ML: The two major parties restrict ballot access to third parties, etc.
But they should be free to do that, shouldn’t they? Like franking privileges, you can’t regulate it because that would be taking away someone’s freedom.
Best
Rick
[From Adam Matic 2011.07.04. 1900 CET]:
Bill Powers (2011.07.03.1550 MDT)
BP: Here’s another paradox, maybe. Do libertarian anarchists forbid people to work together to accomplish things they can’t do alone? For example, suppose a group of people forms a cooperative for the purpose of protecting itself against people who have been hurting and robbing its members. What if they bargain with some of the bigger and stronger people among themselves to pay for their time and expenses in doing this protecting for the group? What if they decide that there are certain offenses, like rape or murder, that the delegated protectors can simply deal with directly without waiting for the community to approve every detail – at least prevent the offenders from repeating the offense. Just what the limits should be would be worked out within the cooperative.Would this cooperative be called an enemy of libertarian anarchists? And if it were, what would the anarchists do about it? I wonder how they could “forbid” anyone to do anything, and what would happen if it were done anyway.
AM:
Not really, nothing against cooperatives. From today’s perspective, it’s like private security companies, bouncers or the neighborhood watch. What matters is that there are more of them, and that people hire them, so that they are directly chosen. There would be opposition if someone would try to become a ruler.
People would also need arbiters who would decide on who gets to do what in a conflict, and they also could be hired or subscribed to.
The Xeer law in Somalia is somewhat similar to that, there are no jails, and for every crime a price is payed according to tradition, usually in goats. If the person can’t pay, his family pays for him and they keep him in check later on.
R.A. Heinlen’s “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress” depicts a free society close to anarchy. I rather liked the book.
By the way, I hope everyone has read Ursula Le Guin’s “The Disposessed.” It is the best sympathetic treatment I have ever seen of anarchy, showing all the difficulties of handling social problems and all the real joys of living on a pioneer world where everyone subscribes to the basic ideas of anarchy-- well, not quite everybody all the time, which makes it even more interesting. I felt a lot of resonances with Shevek, too, in his attempts to introduce Simultaneity into physics to replace the Sequency movement. Le Guin is an astonishingly good builder of plausible worlds.
AM:
I keep hearing Le Guin is great. Thank you for the suggestion, I know what I’ll be reading in a few days.
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1645)]
Sure. The relevance of this is…?
AM: It’s a joke
Happy 4th of July all.
Best, Adam
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.04.1040)]
Adam Matic 2011.07.04. 1900 CET]:
RM: Sure. The relevance of this is…?
AM: It’s a joke
Now I know why we don’t hear a lot about Croatian comedians;-)
It might have worked if you had told it in Yiddish, though. I used to fall on the floor laughing when my grandparents spoke Yiddish – even when they were arguing. That is one funny language. A heck of a lot funnier than its parent, German (which is still just scary to me).
By the way, your English is astoundingly good. Heck of a lot better than my Croatian (or Yiddish, for that matter).
Best
Rick
[From Mike Acree (2011.07.04.2143 PDT)]
Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1500)--
RM: What does an anarchist do about people want a government (like the founders of the USA)? I guess July 4th is a day of morning for you guys;-)
MA: Perhaps this is the quote you had in mind:
What a glorious morning for America!
- Samuel Adams, Upon hearing the gunfire at Lexington [April 19, 1775]
July 4th was not the date of the founding of a government, but of seceding from one. There was no federal government to speak of until 1787, and none at all until 1783. Some libertarians celebrate December 15, Bill of Rights Day, but not commonly the ratification of the Constitution, whenever that was.
Mike
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.04.1010)]
Mike Acree (2011.07.04.2143 PDT)–
Rick Marken (2011.07.03.1500)–
RM: What does an anarchist do about people want a government (like the founders of the USA)? I guess July 4th is a day of morning for you guys;-)
MA: Perhaps this is the quote you had in mind:
What a glorious morning for America!
- Samuel Adams, Upon hearing the gunfire at Lexington [April 19, 1775]
July 4th was not the date of the founding of a government, but of seceding from one. There was no federal government to speak of until 1787, and none at all until 1783.
So it’s really just federal governments that you guys don’t like. State governments are OK? I guess you are also disappointed about the results of the civil war. Is that true?
Some libertarians celebrate December 15, Bill of Rights Day, but not commonly the ratification of the Constitution, whenever that was.
So is money speech?
Of the two major parties in the USA, which do you are a libertarian see as the one that is closest to your beliefs? Or are they equally bad?
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 4 2324 MDT]
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.02.0910)]
Martin Lewitt (2011 July 4 0030 MDT)–
RM:Is money speech?
Should political contributions be regulated? Does the free market apply to elections? if so, doesn't that mean that the USA must have the bestgovernment in
the world since there are no restrictions on what can bespent on
elections?
ML: How so? Laws aren't the only thing that can limit whatcan be spend on elections. Spending is generally limited by
the funds that can be raised or borrowed. Laws currently
limit what can be contributed in federal elections.So money is speech? And laws that limit spending are no goodbecause they limit political discourse?
There is no reason to confuse money with speech. Laws that limit
spending are coercion, whether the spending would be for speech or
not.
ML: The free market does not currently apply to elections,because politicians are allowed to promise spending of tax
money on things like pork barrel and increases in entitlements
in an effort to purchase votes and incentivise contributions.They can also promise tax breaks for the people who supportthem with money. Seems like a free market to me; the product
(government largesse of various kinds) goes to the highest
bidder. What’s the problem?
Special breaks would be a form of corruption of the electorial
process. The problem is the government’s monopoly on coercion
should be limited, and subject to checks and balances and standards.
ML: Incumbants also get frankingprivileges.
Well, there's a problem. Incumbents have a postal advantageover non-incumbents. But if we get rid of franking
privileges, that would be a regulation, and we can’t have
that, can we? If someone doesn’t follow it we might have to
use (dare I say it) coercion to prevent violation of the
regulation.
Regulation of the use of coercion is not coercion.
ML: The two major parties restrict ballotaccess to third parties, etc.
But they should be free to do that, shouldn't they? Like frankingprivileges, you can’t regulate it because that would be taking
away someone’s freedom.
No, you are taking away someone's coercion. There is no right to
oppress.
-- Martin L
On 7/4/2011 10:12 AM, Richard Marken wrote:
Best Rick -- Richard S. Marken PhD rsmarken@gmail.com [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)
[From Bill Powers (2011.07.05.0330 MDT)]
Martin Lewitt 2011 July 4 2324 MDT –
ML: There is no reason to
confuse money with speech. Laws that limit spending are coercion,
whether the spending would be for speech or not.
But when is the coercion justified? Is it OK with you that someone who
has acquired a great deal of money can use that money to influence voters
and legislators by fair means or foul, and thus gain power equivalent to
that of a government? Shouldn’t there be limits set on one person’s
ability to control other people?
Best,
Bill P.
[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 5 0708 MDT]
[From Bill Powers (2011.07.05.0330 MDT)]
Martin Lewitt 2011 July 4 2324 MDT --
ML: There is no reason to confuse money with speech. Laws that limit spending are coercion, whether the spending would be for speech or not.
But when is the coercion justified? Is it OK with you that someone who has acquired a great deal of money can use that money to influence voters and legislators by fair means or foul, and thus gain power equivalent to that of a government? Shouldn't there be limits set on one person's ability to control other people?
Fair means are OK, foul means are not. It is the legislators and voters duty not to be influenced by money when it comes to electing the government or passing legislation. Money should only purchase a means to get a message across. There definitely should be a limit on one person's ability to coerce other people. What other types of "control" of other people are there? Are you concerned about ownership of a media monopoly shutting out information shutting out other candidates? I can see a role for anti-trust laws, especially in cases where government has granted monopolies through licensing, such as of the airwaves or through assisting cable and telephony through eminent domain.
Martin L
On 7/5/2011 3:37 AM, Bill Powers wrote:
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.05.0800)]
Martin Lewitt (2011 July 5 0708 MDT)–
I can see a role for anti-trust laws, especially in cases where government has granted monopolies through licensing, such as of the airwaves or through assisting cable and telephony through eminent domain.
My god, only a day after July 4th and you are already trying to take away my freedom to form monopolies.
Best
Rick
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.05.0810)]
Martin Lewitt (2011 July 4 2324 MDT)–
Regulation of the use of coercion is not coercion.
And don’t hate nothin’ at all except hatred.
No, you are taking away someone's coercion. There is no right tooppress.
Sure there is. According to you there is a right to oppress oppressors.
Best
Rick
[From Bill Powers (2011.07.05.0752At 07:22 AM 7/5/2011 -0600, you wrote:
[Martin Lewitt 2011 July 5 0708 MDT]
ML earlier: There is no reason to confuse money with speech. Laws that limit spending are coercion, whether the spending would be for speech or not.
BP earlier: But when is the coercion justified? Is it OK with you that someone who has acquired a great deal of money can use that money to influence voters and legislators by fair means or foul, and thus gain power equivalent to that of a government? Shouldn't there be limits set on one person's ability to control other people?
ML: Fair means are OK, foul means are not. It is the legislators and voters duty not to be influenced by money when it comes to electing the government or passing legislation. Money should only purchase a means to get a message across. There definitely should be a limit on one person's ability to coerce other people. What other types of "control" of other people are there? Are you concerned about ownership of a media monopoly shutting out information shutting out other candidates? I can see a role for anti-trust laws, especially in cases where government has granted monopolies through licensing, such as of the airwaves or through assisting cable and telephony through eminent domain.
The whole debate is about what is fair and what is foul. I think we can work that out with PCT, or at least start to work it out.
People can control each other's behavior bidirectionally or unidirectionally, openly or surreptitiously, and consensually or arbitrarily. The easiest way is bidirectionally, openly and with consent, as in sexual relationships or economic transactions: If you will behave so as to control this perception of mine that I want controlled, I will behave so as to control that perception of yours that you want controlled. The most violent and destructive kind of behavioral control occurs unidirectionally, openly, and without consent: I will cause errors in you, increasing them until either you control the perception of mine that I want controlled or you die.
I don't think libertarians or others object to bidirectional, open, and consensual control of behavior. Practically everyone objects to unidirectional, non-consensual control whether open or surreptitious. Surreptitious control can be carried out by introducing carefully adjusted disturbances that a person can resist only by acting in the way the controller wants to perceive -- but in such a way that the controlled person can't see what is causing the perturbation of the controlled perceptual variable. Open control works the same way except that there is no need for concealment.
Why would it be necessary to use surreptitious control? Simple: the other person might, at a higher level, object to being controlled no matter what the goal is, even the good of that person. People are reluctant to agree that anyone else knows what is good for them. And of course arbitrary control doesn't even concern what is good for them; the point is, what is good for the controller?
The case of a lobbyist bribing a legislator is not as simple to evaluate as this. One can easily argue that both the lobbyist and the legislator consent to letting the other control his behavior: if you will give me money, I will give you a vote for a Fair Trade law. There is nothing objectionable about that on PCT grounds. But the legislator has to be bribed, one would guess, because his vote is essential for passing a law that is not wanted by others, and he might be quite willing to vote against it if someone would give him a better deal. This implies that there are probably lobbyists on the other side, or other agents at least, who want the legislator to vote against the law. Now we begin to see a conflict starting up in the overall system, pitting one set of lobbyists against another, or against popular wishes.
One resolution of this conflict would be to pass laws forbidding legislators to accept money or anything else of value from anyone but the government treasury. But there the anarchists run into problems, because they don't like laws, and especially not law enforcement. The only solution, it would seem, is for people to do their own enforcement -- carry guns and shoot anyone who coerces people? Or just don't have any legislators. Every man for himself. I'm glad I don't have to live that way.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Rick Marken (2011.07.05.0945)]
Bill Powers (2011.07.05.0752)
One resolution of this conflict would be to pass laws forbidding legislators to accept money or anything else of value from anyone but the government treasury. But there the anarchists run into problems, because they don’t like laws, and especially not law enforcement. The only solution, it would seem, is for people to do their own enforcement – carry guns and shoot anyone who coerces people? Or just don’t have any legislators. Every man for himself. I’m glad I don’t have to live that way.
Not yet!
Best
Rick
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com