Is Politics Just an Extension of the Market?

[Trotsky]

If a simple definition of rights is completely incomprehensible to a devout communist, then that means that the definition is spot on.

Thanks for your help!

Even if that were "a simple definition of rights," which it isn't, it still wouldn't make any sense. It was words thrown together in a way that you thought would make you sound smart. But smart people reading it realized it made no sense.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Your argument fails on two fronts:

Your post failed to demonstrate that.

1) It relies on the libertarian axiom “taxation is theft.”

Fixed it for you friend.

Libertarians say “Taxation is theft,” but the necessary implication is that “Policy is tyranny”: since, without taxes, there is no enforceable policy.

That implication would be a correct one.

I'm glad to see that you're so close to the truth, yet I'm saddened to see that your ideology is preventing you from fully processing it.

2) Many wealthy people use the levers of political policy to do a good bit more than preserve their current wealth.

Is the assumption that the wealthy will only "use the levers of political policy" in a negative or somehow malevolent way?

Why would that be your automatic assumption?

Rights ARE granted and created by the government.

Governments don't grant the necessary conditions of ones proper existence.

Some governments simply infringe on those conditions less than others.

In saying that the level of individual rights that you currently enjoy is the NATURAL level, you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence of history.

What "overwhelming evidence of history" are you referring to? Please, be as specific as possible.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Even if that were "a simple definition of rights," which it isn't, it still wouldn't make any sense. It was words thrown together in a way that you thought would make you sound smart. But smart people reading it realized it made no sense.

No, it just made no sense to you.

Perhaps you have less in common with actual smart people than you originally assumed.

 

[luckyshot]

The bootstraps argument is not inconsistent with reality. Its inconsistent with how lazy people want to live their lives. There are millions of something from nothing stories. The resources are there for those who want them.

We've just made it easier to be dependent.

You are equivocating is/ought, which is the slight of hand that the whole scam rests on.

Some people have been able to “bootstrap.” That’s an “is,” a fact.

From there you’ve accepted the position that everyone “ought” to be able to bootstrap, or at least “ought” to be inclined to try to do so rather than desiring a more equitable society.

“Ought” from “is” is a basic philosophical error.

Example:
MILLIONS of people all across the world can slam dunk a basketball. Some can dunk from the foul line. Hell, a few can damn near 360 dunk from the foul line.

Therefore everyone ought to be able to at least do a simple pussy-like flush.

See? That’s stupid.

 

[luckyshot]

What "overwhelming evidence of history" are you referring to? Please, be as specific as possible.

Every society in human history before 1776.

The vast majority of societies before 1900.

The majority of societies even today.

You truly live in a dream world when you advocate for a “natural rights” recognizing anarchy, a form of “government” that has simply never existed.

St. Thomas Moore coined the term Utopia. It means “nowhere.”

Anarchy, when it has existed, has produced only misery. So have many forms of authoritarianism, true. So the correct path must lie in the middle. Having to actually point this out feels a lot like having to argue that the Earth isn’t flat.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Every society in human history before 1776.

What's your evidence for this assertion?

This is just fantasy on your part. You have absolutely no way of knowing this, yet you're asserting it with absolute certainty.

 

[Trotsky]

No, it just made no sense to you.

Perhaps you have less in common with actual smart people than you originally assumed.

Then why do you keep deflecting your philosophy to "necessary conditions of one's proper existence" while intentionally failing to qualify that as a non sequitur?

"Proper existence" isn't a philosophical term, or at least a commonly used one: it's just some random phrase you chose to use, while apparently ignorant to the reality that "proper" is in inherently normative term in direct contradiction to the objective implication of "necessary."

You can't define the abstract by tying it to whether it's fundamental to a normative concept, you fucking idiot.

 

[Seano]

You are equivocating is/ought, which is the slight of hand that the whole scam rests on.

Some people have been able to “bootstrap.” That’s an “is,” a fact.

From there you’ve accepted the position that everyone “ought” to be able to bootstrap, or at least “ought” to be inclined to try to do so rather than desiring a more equitable society.

“Ought” from “is” is a basic philosophical error.

Example:
MILLIONS of people all across the world can slam dunk a basketball. Some can dunk from the foul line. Hell, a few can damn near 360 dunk from the foul line.

Therefore everyone ought to be able to at least do a simple pussy-like flush.

See? That’s stupid.

So you're equating hard work and education with the chances of being a pro ball player? Seems like a stretch to me.

 

[luckyshot]

What's your evidence for this assertion?

This is just fantasy on your part. You have absolutely no way of knowing this, yet you're asserting it with absolute certainty.

What do I have no way of knowing?

That the vast majority of humans for the vast majority of history did not have a western, post-Enlightenment conception of individual rights (or a Lockean conception of property)?

How about the fact that the vast majority of humans for the vast majority of history lived before the Enlightenment and in non-western societies?

So you're equating hard work and education with the chances of being a pro ball player? Seems like a stretch to me.

Lol.

The point was that you cannot automatically draw an “ought” from an “is.”

Do you at least now see and concede that point?

 

[luckyshot]

To me here I don't think the concept of natural rights adds anything. What is important though is whether or not laws and enforcement would still exist in absence of a market. Do hunter/gatherer tribes have rules and punishments? Are making rules for the group/society "politics"? If so, then politics would not be an extension of the market, although they would overlap. It seems more accurate to say the market is an extension of politics.

Food for thought, but I think it’s ultimately potato/potatoe.

Which existed first, markets or laws?

Probably depends on how you define markets and how you define laws. I think it’s pretty clear that they have both existed, in some form, ever since anything we would call “society,” and that they have co-evolved closely.

I’d be interested in anthropological cases here, out of curiosity. I’d imagine there are cultures where legal complexity outstripes market complexity and vice versa, although in most they are roughly similar.

 

[Viva]

If your political ideals are solely based on economic musings, then you should honestly reevaluate your beliefs.

 

[Bamboozled]

This is a philosophical question, but one with important consequences.

Conservatives often tout the free market as the best solution to problems. Conservatives on the SCOTUS seem to be of the opinion that this is also the case in politics; that is an unavoidable implication of Citizen’s United: money—> “speech” —> policy.

While some conservatives, social conservatives mostly, see money in politics, in the form of campaign financing/ lobbying, as a problem, many (most?) conservatives accept it as an established truth that when wealthy corporations and individuals seek to use wealth to influence policy, they are just “following nature” in basically the way that the capitalistic free market is “supposed” to work.

However, many of the individuals who see nothing inherently wrong or particularly immoral about the above scenario also feel that things like progressive tax structures are immoral. This comes in a variety of flavors, from flat tax proponents to full blown “taxation is theft” libertarian/anarchists.

So, if it is morally defensible, and a just a function of our capitalistic system for the wealthy to seek to “buy policy,” why is it any less moral for the non-wealthy to vote for policies, such as progressive taxes and robust social services, that will benefit them? Aren’t both equally rational “market driven” decisions— assuming capitalism expects selfishness to be a virtue (to use Ayn Rand’s phrase), why is selfishness on the part of lower classes suddenly non-virtuous?

There’s obviously an is/ought dimension to this problem, and I’ve noticed that in politics people tend to be very lax on that distinction; many people want to argue policy until their policy argument is defeated, and then the next word out of their mouth is morality.

I have no problem arguing the morality or the reality, but let’s remember that what’s good for those goose is good for the gander: expecting one side to act according to an “is,” but simultaneously expecting the other side to act according to an “ought” is logically inconsistent and unfair.

This is a “cheat” that conservatives employ constantly, imho, and why most “bootstrap” arguments are inconsistent with our current political reality.

Do you know how that case actually worked out? That is oversimplifying Citizens United.

 

[Chappi]

Its quite obvious that ultimately majority votes with their own interest in mind, and there is nothing wrong with that.

If this were true, wouldnt that mean that about half the people of the US should be white billionaires ?
Otherwise Trump would not be president.
The fact that he is makes it clear that a great many don't have a clue what their own interests are,probably because most are uninformed voters, because they all got conned by Trump.

 

[luckyshot]

If your political ideals are solely based on economic musings, then you should honestly reevaluate your beliefs.

The two are intrinsically related.

The word “politic” comes from the same root as the Greek word “polis” or city. The “agora,” the open marketplace, was the heart and defining characteristic of a Greek city, as many classical authors attest. The market is what brings people together in the critical masses needed to facilitate political systems.

Interestingly enough, to be “civilized” comes from the same root as “citizen” and, of course, “city.”

The implication is clear: the market brings people together in such a way that they must learn to be civil— to recognize that their concerns often overlap AND conflict in a variety of ways, and to mediate those concerns fairly and amicably.

Apparently the founders of our country and builders of our cities thought the Greeks were important:

 

[Jack V Savage]

All libertarians are arguing, whether wittingly or not, for anarchy in the long run.

Left-wing libertarians are arguing for anarchy. Right-wing libertarians like Farmer are arguing for authoritarianism because they still argue either for a state that defends property claims with force against the public and does nothing else (essentially a military dictatorship) or they want private military forces to keep the public in line.

 

[Higus]

Random thoughts:
The primary purpose of a congressman should be to understand the needs of their constituents and pass legislature that represents said needs
In reality, the primary purpose of a congressman is fundraising their campaigns. To this point, a politician who cannot raise funds is effectively considered as or more incompetent as a politician who cannot understand the law.

An aspiring politician has a couple of strategies to fund raise:
1. Come from wealthy circles so they can ask family, friends, and associates for campaign contributions
2. Seek contributions from a few very wealthy individuals and industry lobbyists
3. Seek a large quantity of smaller donations from their constituency
However a candidate chooses to fund raise, they are beholden to their donors.

In an ideal system, congressmen would focus on the needs of constituents and not have to take ANY campaign donations as to preserve their ability to remain free from conflicts of interest. They would make the best decision for the people they represent.

In the current system, since funding is so important and time consuming, the most efficient ways to secure money are to either come from resourceful circles or have corporate friends with deep pockets. If you are middle class apolitical person, imagine the effort it would take for your local representative to get just $20 from you, and then have to do that thousands and thousands of times to fund an entire campaign.

The game is stacked against a party with left leaning economic policies. Connect the dots and you can see why this system has lead to the democrats being moved further and further to the right economically for the last couple of generations.