Spill here, spill now

[boutons_deux]

"If I have to choose between corporations and the Federal government then I pick the feds each and every time."

You don't have such a choice, even in theory.

There is no difference between what the corps/capitalists want and what the Feds enforce (or let pass). $$$ have captured the legislative and regulatory processes. America is a corporatocracy, not a democracy.

[RandomGuy]

Decentralization of power sounds great until you factor in that its not going to the people when you remove it from the state but rather to the corporations.

If I have to choose between corporations and the Federal government then I pick the feds each and every time.

That actually brings up some rather important factors (among many) that were never figured/predicted in the deliberations of the FF.

1. Mega-corporations
2. Organized crime

I have made this point before here, and have had little acknowledgement on the part of people who tend to be all about "the cons ution" or "states' rights.

Neither of the above two organizations (large drug cartels, or corporations) really existed to any appreciable degree in the 1700's, with the rather glaring exception of the East India Tea Company.

The East India company's primacy in British politics was the driving forces behind a lot of the monarchy's actions concerning that particular commodity.

A weak federal government that abdicated a lot of authority/responsiblity to the states would leave the smaller states greatly vulnerable to very very narrow interests of those two types of organization.

If a billion dollar drug cartel could throw enough money at say, Wyoming, to completely corrupt that state governments' police force, that would provide a ready-made shipping point for drugs and whatever else to just about any other neighboring state.

How then would a collection of states without an FBI combat this?

[DarrinS]

Decentralization of power sounds great until you factor in that its not going to the people when you remove it from the state but rather to the corporations.

If I have to choose between corporations and the Federal government then I pick the feds each and every time.

Thanks for that endorsement, Manny.

[mogrovejo]

The Framers didn't care much about corporations because of the unique feature the government possess that makes it such a threat to liberty - the ability to exercise coercive power over the individuals.

There were plenty of big corporations around during the American revolution - heck, Robert Morris was an extremely wealthy man and was the most important financer of the revolution. But there were many others extremely wealthy speculators + merchants among the FFs.

Corporations aren't a threat to liberty because they lack that ability to coerce people, no matter how big they are. The State's nature lies exactly in the coercive power, in the monopoly on violence, the Gewaltmonopol des Staates.

Every interaction between corporations (who are nothing more than an assembly of individuals) and individuals (or other corporations) is voluntary - meaning it fully respects the liberty of conduct. A corporation can't just say "do this or you'll be sent to jail and your liberty will be taken away from you", "give me that or I'll take away your life" or anything of that kind. They depend on the willingness of the other agent to deal with them.

Corporations can threaten one's liberty by capturing the government (a political party is a corporation), but that's exactly why the government is so dangerous and the FF were so preoccupied with ways of keeping it under control. The East India Company is an excellent example of this - if they weren't under the protection of the English government, they wouldn't have been a threat to anyone's liberty. By itself, the Eeast India Company would never be able to impose a monopoly - that's why they needed the government to promulgate the Tea Act. If a monopoly isn't impose but results from the voluntary decisions (say, if a company would decide to sell unlimited internet access for a $1 per decade fee) it doesn't interfere with anyone's liberty - it would run with the other ISP out of business but there's no such thing as the "liberty to have a sustainable business".

Corporations may affect other values like, for instance, equality, but they can't affect liberty. One if free when one cannot be prevented from acting on his will; possessing the resources to carry out one's will is nice when happens but goes beyond the concept of liberty and freedom. It's about possibility, not ability.

Criminals are a threat to the liberty - and the reason why the state needs to exist. The state is needed to protect individuals from aggression, fraud, breach of contracts - to impose the rule of law by the monopoly on violence. But that's exactly what makes it so dangerous for the cause of liberty - because it has the instruments to curb it.

[boutons_deux]

"Corporations aren't a threat to liberty because they lack that ability to coerce people, no matter how big they are."

"corporations aren't a threat?" you're a duped shill for corporate power.

Coercion isn't the only power or influence. Corporations and the oligarchy are much more subtle, more sophisticated than to use brute coercive force to enrich and empower themselves.

What emetic bull you spew.

[mogrovejo]

A weak federal government that abdicated a lot of authority/responsiblity to the states would leave the smaller states greatly vulnerable to very very narrow interests of those two types of organization.

If a billion dollar drug cartel could throw enough money at say, Wyoming, to completely corrupt that state governments' police force, that would provide a ready-made shipping point for drugs and whatever else to just about any other neighboring state.

How then would a collection of states without an FBI combat this?

In the papers I recommended this is addressed. The Federalist/anti-Federalist debate is pretty much about this. I have no idea what to say if you believe you "have had little acknowledgement on the part of people who tend to be all about "the cons ution" or "states' rights". These issues have been discussed for centuries and rarely in such a careful and enlightening way like the American Framers did.

That's exactly the reason why you don't want all the power concentrated in a single political body. Men aren't angels, as Madison would say. Factions will always exist - including ill-intentioned factions. Concentrating the entire power in a single political body is just tempting a faction to usurp it - with the obvious disastrous consequences.

That's why the "double security" (federal-state and legislative-executive-judiciary separations) Madison talks about in 51 is so important - it guards government from usurpations.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

[RandomGuy]

Corporations aren't a threat to liberty because they lack that ability to coerce people, no matter how big they are. The State's nature lies exactly in the coercive power, in the monopoly on violence, the Gewaltmonopol des Staates.

Tell that to the people who died at the hand of private corporate security during anti-union "actions".

Do you really think a corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on legal cases, local bribes, and yes, even modern "security" doesn't have "coercive" power?

[RandomGuy]

Corporations aren't a threat to liberty because they lack that ability to coerce people, no matter how big they are. The State's nature lies exactly in the coercive power, in the monopoly on violence, the Gewaltmonopol des Staates.

...

Corporations can threaten one's liberty by capturing the government (a political party is a corporation), but that's exactly why the government is so dangerous and the FF were so preoccupied with ways of keeping it under control. The East India Company is an excellent example of this - if they weren't under the protection of the English government, they wouldn't have been a threat to anyone's liberty. By itself, the Eeast India Company would never be able to impose a monopoly - that's why they needed the government to promulgate the Tea Act. If a monopoly isn't impose but results from the voluntary decisions (say, if a company would decide to sell unlimited internet access for a $1 per decade fee) it doesn't interfere with anyone's liberty - it would run with the other ISP out of business but there's no such thing as the "liberty to have a sustainable business".

That is kind of my point.

We have today corporations that make a lot of smaller US state governments look rather small. The thing is that these days, the size of a corporation is not really limited. A state goverment is limited geographically, and a modern corporation isn't. Global trade is leading to some real behemoths, and this trend will continue.

Devolve power too much, and you have little recourse when a state goverment starts acting too much in the interests of that corporation over the public good.

I am all for some tension between state/federal levels and states retaining a good chunk of autonomy.

BUT

Scrapping all federal power in favor of some mythical utopia based on one particular interpetation of the Cons ution, seems to me to be rather foolhardy.

[mogrovejo]

Tell that to the people who died at the hand of private corporate security during anti-union "actions".

Do you really think a corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on legal cases, local bribes, and yes, even modern "security" doesn't have "coercive" power?

You're confused. That's like saying that I possess coercive power because I can load a pistol, pull the trigger and shoot someone down.

As I've said, criminals are a threat to the liberty - and the reason why the state needs to exist. The state is needed to protect individuals from aggression, fraud, breach of contracts - to impose the rule of law by the monopoly on violence.

A corporation (or an individual alike) can only coerce persons if, and only if, it's being protected by the government - like the East India Company. Otherwise they can exercise the coercive power the same way I can.

[mogrovejo]

That is kind of my point.

We have today corporations that make a lot of smaller US state governments look rather small. The thing is that these days, the size of a corporation is not really limited. A state goverment is limited geographically, and a modern corporation isn't. Global trade is leading to some real behemoths, and this trend will continue.

Devolve power too much, and you have little recourse when a state goverment starts acting too much in the interests of that corporation over the public good.

I am all for some tension between state/federal levels and states retaining a good chunk of autonomy.

BUT

Scrapping all federal power in favor of some mythical utopia based on one particular interpetation of the Cons ution, seems to me to be rather foolhardy.

Like who?

Anyway, you're putting too much emphasis on the dimension aspect. By that reasoning, we probably need a world government.

George Clinton was actually the one right in this aspect. Lots of republics way smaller than most American states are doing perfectly fine. It's about the ins utional mechanisms, not the size.

[EVAY]

Actually, american revolutionaries such as the southern planters, (Washington, etc.) were in fact more upset about the power of the East Indies Company, and the unwillingness of the British government to intercede on behalf of the colonists against the Company, than they were about the monarchy itself. Infact, much of the language of not being 'slaves' to the mother country anymore was a reference to the economic hold that the East India company had over the southern agrarians who were in a 'Company Store' position relative to said company, and the proverbial miner of another era and his indebtedness to the 'company store'. The American colonial farmers were forced to buy their equipment from and through the East India Company and sell their produce to and through the same company, etc. etc.

So, while it is true that there developed a lot of language and ideas regarding the proper role of state and citizen, it is worthwhile to note that a primary motivator in the revolution itself was a desire to get out from under the corporation.

Just sayin...

[mogrovejo]

The East India Company is an excellent example of this - if they weren't under the protection of the English government, they wouldn't have been a threat to anyone's liberty. By itself, the Eeast India Company would never be able to impose a monopoly - that's why they needed the government to promulgate the Tea Act.

The only reason the East India Company was a threat to the liberties - and hence seen as dangerous by the colonialists - was because of the government protection (of which the Tea Act is emblematic). Otherwise, the East India Company would simply cease to exist and a corporation that doesnt' exist obviously doesn't cons ute a threat. Or in the unlikely scenario that it could survive without the de facto monopoly and the tax exemption, it'd be just a company among many others that nobody would see as a threat.

[EVAY]

The East India Company is an excellent example of this - if they weren't under the protection of the English government, they wouldn't have been a threat to anyone's liberty. By itself, the Eeast India Company would never be able to impose a monopoly - that's why they needed the government to promulgate the Tea Act.

The only reason the East India Company was a threat to the liberties - and hence seen as dangerous by the colonialists - was because of the government protection (of which the Tea Act is emblematic). Otherwise, the East India Company would simply cease to exist and a corporation that doesnt' exist obviously doesn't cons ute a threat. Or in the unlikely scenario that it could survive without the de facto monopoly and the tax exemption, it'd be just a company among many others that nobody would see as a threat.

Yes, I had noticed your reference to it in passing in your earlier comments. I think the point that some are trying to make herein, however, is that in today's society, governments and corporations are much more linked in ways that increase the power of corporations far more than was the case in the
19th or even the early 20th centuries. Thus, they have a much greater likelihood of being able to impact the liberties and livelihoods of people with whom they have no visible relationship than they did when the federalist papers were authored.

Moreover, the recent SCOTUS decision has the potential for increasing the power of corporations vis-a-vis governments, thus increasing the ability of corporations to influence us in ways in which we cannot help. It does not make people happy.

[mogrovejo]

Yes, I had noticed your reference to it in passing in your earlier comments. I think the point that some are trying to make herein, however, is that in today's society, governments and corporations are much more linked in ways that increase the power of corporations far more than was the case in the
19th or even the early 20th centuries.

I'm not sure about that at all. The power of state-sponsored corporations like the East India Company was massive in the 18th century - they dominated a share of the global economy in a scale that no contemporary corporation can even come close to. Heck, they basically ruled over an entire sub-continent for decades. Or the power of the Medicis banking family, for example - they were able to basically buy a political state for themselves. These days, wealth is way more democratized.

Still, the problem lies in the government. The only reason why corporations (be it political factions, business companies, moral groups, etc), have so much interest in capturing the government is because of the enormous power of the government. What motivates those factions is using the government power in their own benefit. Limit the power of the government and corporations would have nothing to gain from capturing it - and they wouldn't. It wouldn't pay off.

[MannyIsGod]

The Framers didn't care much about corporations because of the unique feature the government possess that makes it such a threat to liberty - the ability to exercise coercive power over the individuals.

How am I supposed to continue reading when your entire premise is so damn flawed? You come off soooooooooooooooooo damn smug 99% of the time and you have the audacity to make THIS your foundation?

[Winehole23]

The only reason why corporations (be it political factions, business companies, moral groups, etc), have so much interest in capturing the government is because of the enormous power of the government. What motivates those factions is using the government power in their own benefit. Limit the power of the government and corporations would have nothing to gain from capturing it - and they wouldn't. It wouldn't pay off.

In the counterfactual scenario, affairs would be more harmoniously arranged. Seamless, Profe. Bravo.

Is that somehow germane to the oligarchic combination of wealth and political power in the USA? Is it possible for special interests to coopt the very process of political accommodation, as well as elections themselves? Has cooption already occurred to some extent?

Profe: Consider it understood that in the counterfactual case, the problem would never have arisen in the first place. In the present one, however, it is palpably present. The size and luster of the pearl tempt the scheming and the venal in both camps.

[mogrovejo]

How am I supposed to continue reading when your entire premise is so damn flawed? You come off soooooooooooooooooo damn smug 99% of the time and you have the audacity to make THIS your foundation?

You think it's flawed? I'm surprised, if there's an overwhelming consensual point in political science, something that pretty much everybody agrees from left to right, it's the state's monopoly on violence, at least since Weber. It's been an extremely dominant view for more than 100 years; I'd never imagine that part of my post would be a subject of polemic. Deeply surprised.

Why do you think it's flawed?

[LnGrrrR]

Hmm Im really enjoying this thread.

Mogro, a question. What mechanism do you think is designed to stop corporations from buying off representatives, and convincing them to write legislation favorable to them?

Would you say that they relied on the trustworthiness of Congress? Of the President to veto? Or some other mechanism?

[LnGrrrR]

Also, regarding the states monopoly on violence, I wonder if one could take an aggressive libertarian stance and argue that theft, fraud and the like could be moderated by private parties. Perhaps an anarchic society? I believe Spain had a successful one set up at one time.

[Yonivore]

Hmm Im really enjoying this thread.

Mogro, a question. What mechanism do you think is designed to stop corporations from buying off representatives, and convincing them to write legislation favorable to them?

Would you say that they relied on the trustworthiness of Congress? Of the President to veto? Or some other mechanism?

I think they relied on an informed electorate, recognizing the corruption and voting them out of office.

Corporation buy power...only politicians can buy votes. And, they can't do that with an informed electorate with integrity.

[Winehole23]

I'm surprised, if there's an overwhelming consensual point in political science

Too wordy. Just say consensus.

...something that pretty much everybody agrees from left to right, it's the state's monopoly on violence, at least since Weber. It's been an extremely dominant view for more than 100 years; I'd never imagine that part of my post would be a subject of polemic. Deeply surprised.

I'm deeply surprised to find out you find polemical responses surprising.

[Winehole23]

People are liable to have a variety of complaints you never thought of before, mogrovejo.

[mogrovejo]

Hmm Im really enjoying this thread.

Mogro, a question. What mechanism do you think is designed to stop corporations from buying off representatives, and convincing them to write legislation favorable to them?

Would you say that they relied on the trustworthiness of Congress? Of the President to veto? Or some other mechanism?

In the US? The Framers relied on:

- the principle of a government of enumerated powers (the reasoning being that corporations don't have much of a reason to buy off representatives if they can't write legislation favourable to them because they aren't allowed to legislate about those issues)

- the check and balances system. I don't think it makes much sense to look for single mechanisms for every cir stance. For example, in this case, there's the judicial review of federal legislation (by an independent judiciary branch), another legislative chamber whose members aren't subject to the democratic favours (well, they weren't) and whose power was derived from the states, Article I, the power of the states, the assumption that with many different political factions represented in the parliament it's hard for a single sect to buy off the entire chamber, the democratic control, etc.

The trustworthiness of the Congressman was certainly not a factor. The American Founding Fathers, especially those more involved in the design of the cons utional apparatus, didn't have many illusions about the human nature. They trusted in ins utional mechanisms, not in the hypothetical moral for ude of the politicians.

[mogrovejo]

Also, regarding the states monopoly on violence, I wonder if one could take an aggressive libertarian stance and argue that theft, fraud and the like could be moderated by private parties. Perhaps an anarchic society?

Sure, that's the point of view of anarcho-capitalists. From that perspective, the state simply wouldn't exist at all.

I believe Spain had a successful one set up at one time.

An anarcho-capitalist society? Never happened. Anarchists (especially the anarcho-syndicalists - who were basically a type of communists - based in Catalunya) were very influential in the pre-civil war years (and during the war itself), but they were never in the government.

[mogrovejo]

I think they relied on an informed electorate, recognizing the corruption and voting them out of office.

Corporation buy power...only politicians can buy votes. And, they can't do that with an informed electorate with integrity

That was a piece of the puzzle, but not a particularly important one. The Framers were very su ious of democracy - they wanted to protect some political bodies from the democratic pressure (something that progressively has been lost, with the primaries and the election of Senators). "Democracy" was basically a pejorative term for them, their model of government was a Republic.

Plus, how do you guarantee an "informed electorate with integrity"? If you could guarantee that, you could pretty throw away all the trouble with the check-and-balances system and just go for a direct democracy. The reason why they didn't do that is because the fortunes of liberty can't depend on the existence of an informed electorate with integrity (a notion most Founders would find contemptible) or in the integrity and good faith of their elected representatives - they understood that in such a scenario, they'd quickly revert to the kind of despotic government they had just overturned.