The Political Ideology of Small Government

[Datepalm]

DP,

:)

I do think it's a legitimate criticism. How much regulation is too much?

The point where it starts having its own interests. If thats still not enough, something is wrong with the thing they're supposed to be regulating: its probably actively resisting regulation, and should no longer be regulated but instead tried.

Also, see my edit to my last post.

eta -

Sure, i'm definitely all for exposing corporations to the consequences of their actions, but remember that the shareholders only purpose in being shareholders is to make a profit. If a corporation can no longer efficiently make a profit - for example, becuase its become too scrupulous to bribe regulatory officials like the other corporations - they'll become shareholders someplace that is making a profit and the good corporation dies.

(Though if it were up to me i'd make employment illegal. Co-op or bust. )

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

The point where it starts having its own interests. If thats still not enough, something is wrong with the thing they're supposed to be regulating: its probably actively resisting regulation, and should no longer be regulated but instead tried.

Also, see my edit to my last post.

See my edit addressing your edit. ;)

[Datepalm]

DP,

See my edit addressing your edit. ;)

Right, so we agree. Profit seeking entities should be limited in power and held responsible for their actions by impartial agencies representing via an agreed upon set of laws the best interests of all the citizens.

:commie:

[Galactus]

As to your edit. That's why I suggest restricting limited liability is a good way to reign them in. If the individuals who own the corporation (shareholders) face joint and several liability for the corporations bad acts perhaps they will be more interested in non-profit making aspects of the corporations activities.

Eh, no? Why would increasing the costs of an investment make them MORE likely to care about things other than profit? If anything the reverse incentive would seem to apply: To recoup your investment as quickly as possible and then get the hell out of dodge before something goes wrong and you lose everything.

[Shryke]

Galactus,

Which brings us to the cost benefit analysis. If you acknowledge regulation can't proactively prevent what it's trying to prevent you must ask if the cost it imposes upon the system is worth the benefit realized from imposing the regulation. That's not an easy question to answer. Hence, my example of the proactive murder prevention regulation agency.

Except regulation CAN proactively prevent what it's trying to prevent. So long as the people doing the regulating actually do the regulating. Which can be difficult in the US where one half of the political parties believes fully and completely in dismantling and neutering regulation at every turn.

And, once again, what's your alternative to regulation?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

Right, so we agree. Profit seeking entities should be limited in power and held responsible for their actions by impartial agencies representing via an agreed upon set of laws the best interests of all the citizens.

:commie:

That's an intreging idea. However, I see significant practical difficulties. For example, if I want to hire Bob to do home repairs I don't know how to do does that mean I'd have to give him an ownership stake in my home? After all if he's a sole proprietor of his handyman business I'm employing him.

Eh, no? Why would increasing the costs of an investment make them MORE likely to care about things other than profit? If anything the reverse incentive would seem to apply: To recoup your investment as quickly as possible and then get the hell out of dodge before something goes wrong and you lose everything.

That only works so many times. People who know what their doing don't invest short term and make much money. It's long term investments that pay off most effectively. Therefore, if these individuals have to factor in possible liability from bad corporate practices where they put their money will be at least as effective a method of controling corporate bad practices as regulation.

Except regulation CAN proactively prevent what it's trying to prevent. So long as the people doing the regulating actually do the regulating. Which can be difficult in the US where one half of the political parties believes fully and completely in dismantling and neutering regulation at every turn.

And, once again, what's your alternative to regulation?

See my response to Galactus. I see restricting limited liability as a retroactive remedy that is likely to have significant proactive effects.

[sologdin]

force companies to care about externalities

nonono. feelings don't matter; screw sentiment. they can pump as much PR dross as they want about their good intentions. fuck 'em: we want the externality internalized by its originator. if it bankrupts them or harelips everyone on bear creek, too bad.

[Raskolnikov]

Oooh politics :grouphug:

Has anyone mentioned the US military yet? It's part of the government, takes it's orders from the commander-in-chief, and it's freakishly huge with near-worldwide presence, not to mention a taxpayer money black hole. But it would be surprising to find a small government advocate to suggest a downsizing of the huge military bureaucracy, or for a fiscal conservative to consider slashing the bloated "defense" budget.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Raskolnikov,

Oooh politics :grouphug:

Has anyone mentioned the US military yet? It's part of the government, takes it's orders from the commander-in-chief, and it's freakishly huge with near-worldwide presence, not to mention a taxpayer money black hole. But it would be surprising to find a small government advocate to suggest a downsizing of the huge military bureaucracy, or for a fiscal conservative to consider slashing the bloated "defense" budget.

I've suggested across the board cuts, including the military budget (and NASA which is my geekboy cash cow), for quite some time. I'm a small government advocate.

[Raskolnikov]

But it would be surprising to find a small government advocate to suggest a downsizing of the huge military bureaucracy, or for a fiscal conservative to consider slashing the bloated "defense" budget.

Raskolnikov,

I've suggested across the board cuts, including the military budget (and NASA which is my geekboy cash cow), for quite some time. I'm a small government advocate.

Consider me surprised :ohmy:

[sologdin]

don't be too surprised. small gubmint guys will likely be annoyed by the significant amount of economic management that is performed by the pentagon in the US. it's essentially a means to stabilize the anarchy of production under capitalism. it has some progressive potential, considering that the pentagon can insist that its suppliers use union labor, adhere to certain additional regulations by contract, and so on. it's not quite centralized planning like the USSR, but it's like 10% of centralized planning.

[Serious Callers Only]

It should be noted that there are libertarian ideas for dealing with this: Mainly abolishing commons.

Which sounds rather impractical, but whatever.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh god stupid dumbfucks.

[Datepalm]

Raskolnikov,

I've suggested across the board cuts, including the military budget (and NASA which is my geekboy cash cow), for quite some time. I'm a small government advocate.

I still don't know what you mean when you say small government. Its like 3 pages never happened. Is it measured by "spheres in which government has influence" or "amount of money/employees/economic clout it has"?

re - Bob the Handyman - Bob isn't an employee, he's a contractor, since presumably he has other clients. If he is in fact soley reliant on you, then for intents and practices he is your employee and you would have to arrive at some agreement in which Bob has both a stake and responsibility in whatever your source of profit is. Why, yes, that would make having cheap personal servants somewhat tricky.

(The loophole that could allow Bob to be a one man business dedicated to one client rather than an employee might be whether Bobs business has significant capital owned by Bobs business rather than by client. Say, expensive tools or even specialized accreditation which mean Bob has a certain labour mobility and independent fallback no matter what and so his relashionship to client isn't really of employee.

This isn't completely crazy commie fantasy land stuff btw - there was a case in Israel where a trcuk driver was contracted by a factory to deliver their products. The factory was his only client, he worked there for 30 years, was the only person with the specialized knowledge of how to handle the factorys particular product, went to company parties, etc, etc. When he retired, he sued the factory for a pension. I think it settled in the end, but the crux was that the driver was more of an employee than a contractor becuase usually a truck driver brings in significant capital to the client-contractor relashionship - a truck. In this case however, the truck was an ancient clunker that had only cost like 8000NIS, so the guy was in practice deemed an employee.)

it has some progressive potential, considering that the pentagon can insist that its suppliers use union labor, adhere to certain additional regulations by contract

Does it?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

To answer your question I see "limited government" primarily as government being limited in the spheres of influence where it can engage the private sector. For example the U.S.'s "interstate commerce clause" has been stretched and expanded to mean so much more than it originally did. "Interstate" means things that are moving between more than one state. "Commerce" means something that is being sold by one person to another. In Wickard v. Filburn (yes, Sologdin, that case still chapps my ass) the Supremes read the Commerce clause to mean the Government could regulated an individual who grew wheat for fodder for horses on his farm. This is despite the fact the wheat was never sold to anyone else and never left his farm, much less his state of residence. They reasoned that when he chose to grow the wheat rather than to buy it. His choice not to buy "affected interstate commerce" even if he didn't engage in it directly. Thus, turning the nominal limits of the power of Congress under the clause upside down.

I don't care for their logic because it means Congress has the power to tell me what I may and may not plant on my own private property because when I do and eat from my garden rather than buying the same stuff from the grocery store I'm affecting interstate commerce. What do you think the U.S. Congress is going to use to attempt to Justify health insurance mandates when it is put to the test in a few months or years?

I see your point about Bob the Handyman. Individual contractors are okay but "employees" are not. As I said, it's an intreging idea. Does each individuals share in the co-op need to be equal? Given that I'm an attorney should my share of compensation from a law firm be the same as the person who transfers phone calls?

[Noontidal]

"Interstate" means things that are moving between more than one state. "Commerce" means something that is being sold by one person to another. In Wickard v. Filburn (yes, Sologdin, that case still chapps my ass) the Supremes read the Commerce clause to mean the Government could regulated an individual who grew wheat for fodder for horses on his farm. This is despite the fact the wheat was never sold to anyone else and never left his farm, much less his state of residence. They reasoned that when he chose to grow the wheat rather than to buy it. His choice not to buy "affected interstate commerce" even if he didn't engage in it directly. Thus, turning the nominal limits of the power of Congress under the clause upside down.

Remind me to moon the Supremes, should I ever happen to meet them.

[Datepalm]

I don't care for their logic because it means Congress has the power to tell me what I may and may not plant on my own private property because when I do and eat from my garden rather than buying the same stuff from the grocery store I'm affecting interstate commerce.

Ok, thats kind of funny. Its wierd though, and would seem to me to be properly outside of the scope of government alltogether. This isn't big government for the collective citizenry against the freedom of the individual, its big government for a narrow class of of individuals who reap the profits of interstate commerce against both the individual and the collective citizenry.

Congrats, I do believe you have the very worst of both worlds!

I see your point about Bob the Handyman. Individual contractors are okay but "employees" are not. As I said, it's an intreging idea. Does each individuals share in the co-op need to be equal? Given that I'm an attorney should my share of compensation from a law firm be the same as the person who transfers phone calls?

However you work it out. (I heard someplace our giant labour union/employer/state-within-a-state here had people being paid based on how many children they have in the 50s, IIRC. Yes, the janitor really did make more than the president.) But secretaries might have a union agreement that their compensation will not be less than, say, 1/3rd of the highest compensated person. Or that if anyones percentage comes out to less than minimum wage but someone else is making more, it all has to be reshuffled.OTOH, that might encourage companies to outsource as much of the work as possible. On the third hand, they do that anyway.

[The Iceman of the North]

Remind me to moon the Supremes, should I ever happen to meet them.

At times I wonder at the veneration some Americans put into a lousy Motown group.

[BloodRider]

At times I wonder at the veneration some Americans put into a lousy Motown group.

Lousy! This will not serve, sir.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

*grumble*

You guys always have the fun threads without me.

[TerraPrime]

*grumble*

You guys always have the fun threads without me.

Oh come on. You're here in spirit. We all know pretty much where you'll come in on for these issues. :D