Republicans have made it clear, no legislation, no laws, no governace will happen

Get politics out of money and money won't be spent on politics.

 

money flows to influence power

make the state less powerful, less money will be spent trying to influence it

 

Commodore you seem like a fairly intelligent individual, but that is a pretty dumb thing to say.

You cannot privatize everything, because not all goods and services work in a free market model.

 

What, specifically, do you mean by that? Like, if we stop regulating corporations, they won't have to buy congressmen to fight off regulations? In what areas would you limit the government's power such that corporations and super-wealthy individuals would stop trying to influence politicians?

I'm all for reducing spending on things like new weapons systems, but I don't know if that counts as making the state "less powerful".

 

Of course, once you do something like that....since people need to well, make a living at the end of the day, you restrict politics to only those people who already have enough money that they can spend their time doing political stuff - Washington originally wasn't going to be paid a salary when he became President, but he demanded one for that very reason. You also massively open up the door for corruption, because a guy making 30 K a year is far more susceptible to being bribed than a guy making 200 K, as pretty much all the 3rd world countries prove.

 

Politics is simply who gets what, when, where, and how...easy to see the money association.

 

It's dumb to say people will spend money to influence power?

Never said you could.

Regulations are a part of it, companies and special interests want the rules written to benefit them and punish their competitors. They will pay lots of money to make that happen. Also tax credits/penalties that work the same way.

Big corporations actually like more regulation because it makes it harder for smaller competitors and new businesses to comply with lawyers/accountants, creating a barrier to entry that entrenches the power of the large corporation.

Also the trillions the government hands out in corporate welfare, subsidies, guaranteed loans, bailouts. Companies spend money to elect politicians who give them those things.

Make the state powerless to influence a corporation's bottom line, and they won't waste money trying to influence politics.

 

Um no.

The state needs the ability to step in when the free market cannot effectively regulate itself.

The system you are suggesting would devour itself and our society would collapse.

You don't take away corporations desire to influence governance, you take away its tools to do so.

 

The left, always with the apocalyptic hyperbole. Meltdown, abyss, collapse, etc. You have to scare people if you want to deny them free will.

Self-ownership, voluntary consent, non-aggression. Let these principles guide you when considering any issue.

 

What you are suggesting isn't Constituionally possible. Therefore, it would require numerous amendments to the Constitution. It is highly unlikely that the support exists to pass any amendments.

As for no monetary incentive, that is simply naive. Being a member of Congress is a year round, full time job. It is simply impossible to do that job with any degree of competency on a part time basis and hold down another job with which to earn your living. If you think that nothing gets done now, it would be far worse with a Congress full of legislative hobbyists.

 

The democrats have won the popular vote 20 out of the last 24 years.

And I think someone is this thread said the 4 years the repubs won were bush with 50.7 %

Sooooo I think it is safe to say the dems should get some type of mandate. But instead they get filibuster records set against them.

 

I am a moderate, not from the left, nor am I denying anyone of free will.

I don't need ideals to guide my thought process. I use logic.

Its becoming more and more clear that the Constitution is horribly outdated. We should look for what the founders intended rather than what is binding. But you are right, the support will not exist. It will take a revolution for such change.

Politicians can earn salaries, but the whole kickback system needs to go.

 

Prove it. Link me to at least two of your posts that are even somewhat moderate or not from the left.

Clear? I understand you disagree with the ideas of our fore fathers but you could at least fake it like most Demos.

 

The Constitution has a mechanism for updating itself.

Absolutely, but by very small majorities (or no majority). The country is divided about how to solve its problems, and there is little common ground. And so little gets done. As it should be until a greater consensus can be achieved by one side. the system works as intended.

Obama had two years of total control and failed to achieve that greater electoral consensus.

Areas of supposed common ground are reforming entitlements and simplifying the tax code. Obama has paid lip service to both of these things but offers no proposals. When he campaigned he talked about going line by line through the government to eliminate wasteful spending, but he hasn't done that at all other than perhaps the military.

 

I don't mean any offense, but this is a really extreme viewpoint. No economist worth his salt would argue that the government should adopt a totally laissez-faire approach to corporations.

Free markets are good at finding equilibrium prices, but you can't totally ignore the effects of all the different kinds of market failure.

 

so? Appeals to the popularity of your viewpoint (or unpopularity of your opponents') signifies a weakness in your ability to make the argument on its own merits. There is no strength in numbers or conventional wisdom when it comes to the right and wrong of things.

You keep ascribing no exception viewpoints to me that I haven't advocated. "Totally" this and "totally" that are totally straw men.

 

Just pointing out that it would be really hard to find an economist who would agree with you that the government should be "powerless to influence a corporation's bottom line." And I did go on to explain why.

Then you should be more specific. Otherwise I have to infer what you mean by "make the state powerless to influence a corporation's bottom line," and frankly I can't think of any reasonable interpretation of that statement that could be supported by economic arguments.

 

....and sometimes arguments are unpopular because they are ridiculous. As you said, the popularity of a belief is no indication to its veracity. And I have yet to see you make actual arguments - you refer vaguely to some moral code that I don't believe you have a full understanding of yourself. Of course, you need to protect your viewpoint (because of what it does for your sense of self), and stating it unambiguously makes it possible for others to take it apart. Have you ever noticed how much time you spend correcting people about your viewpoint? Why do you think that is?

One of the ways that Commodore, and others of his ideological bent, maintain the self-delusion that they hold "rational" viewpoints is by never ever clearly and unambiguously describing their ideology.

Simply put, it's because they don't really understand it themselves - and they don't understand it because it's based on the same things all other faith-based ideologies are based on.

 

How about, "limit/reduce the state's power to influence a corporation's bottom line"?

It is a truism that power corrupts, and that money will flow to influence power.

The economic argument is that regulations/taxes/subsides distort markets and create waste and inefficiency.

This is patently false, I listed specific areas where state power to influence corporations should be limited. Regulations, taxes, subsidies, guaranteed loans, bailouts.

If anything it is you that is so anxious to make blanket declarations that my beliefs are "ridiculous", "faith based" and therefore not worthy of discussion. It's a lazy man's way of clearing the field and ending debate, of trying to win an argument by default.

It's a tired political tactic, attempt to marginalize one's opponents by declaring them extreme and illegitimate. Obama is the master. Every speech he gives he bemoans how the other side is selfish and acting in bad faith and shouldn't be listened to.