Francisco Ferrer

Any attempt to lay down regulations against lobbying will constitute a violation of First Amendment rights. Moreover, any attempt to stipulate who is big money or little money, connected or non-connected, insider or outsider could never be based on any rational criteria. Joe knows somebody who knows somebody, and because he speaks only for himself (supposedly), he'll have no trouble getting in to talk to Senator Bomb. Jill's a paid spokeswoman for the John Galt Society, but that makes her a lobbyist, and Senator Bomb's office is off limits to her. If the goal is simply to get rid of people who "get paid an enormous amount of money according to their talents as persuaders and con men," then editorial writers, talk show hosts, and TV commentators will have to be threatened with prison terms.

Yeah, that's what I said. Francisco: Lobbying is almost always done behind closed doors with the big money of special interest groups and is contrary to my opinion that the 'influence' on government decisions should be proportional to the amount of money contributed by individuals. In re-reading my response I can see how you came to the conclusion that you stated. If I was of that opinion I should be treated as a troll. Of course they shouldn't and I provided an example of citizens electing Aldermen to represent them. Each and every citizen doesn't get his views executed by the mayor. I'm not aware of any unions not requiring dues for membership. I've been a member of two unions. Sam Whether lobbying is done inside the Illuminati's Vault of Secrets or live on CSPAN, the principle of free speech is the same. You cannot stop representatives from talking to people and still call them "representatives." Prohibiting a corporation from making a $50 donation and allowing, say, George Soros the individual to fatten the Democrats' account by $50 million certainly makes for great humor. Earlier, you mentioned people "forced into joining a union." In the blue states below, no one is forced to join a union or pay its dues:

It's the intervention that needs banning, not the lobbying, which is simply a expression of free speech. It's the same distinction we make in opposing Marxism but not the sale of The Communist Manifesto.

Since government regulations of the free market are an encroachment on property rights, pro-liberty people should be in favor of giving corporations and other property owners the means to stop or short-circuit those regulations. Treating "influencing" or "lobbying" as uniformly bad requires one to ignore all context. In fact, we should celebrate as a hero anyone who successfully influences someone else to mind his own goddamned business. As for making all corporate decisions subject to unanimous approval of all stockholders, as soon as that insane proposal comes to pass, we shall see the end of the corporation in any meaningful sense. All it would take to put GM out of business is for a Ford employee to buy one share of GM and demand that "his" company cease automobile production immediately. And unions, both in theory and historical practice, do not always coerce membership.

Perhaps we should have laws prohibiting corporations from making contributions to any charity, for surely there is bound to be at least one employee or stockholder who will dissent from that donation. In fact, why not make all corporate decisions subject to the veto of a single employee or stockholder?

Copi was my college text, and there is probably not a better one.

You're wrong, Frank. I know that if you lived by the American Capitalist principle of creating wealth through useful production, you wouldn't be a complaining victim... ...because you would understand that enjoying your God given rights is your own personal responsibility... ...and you would know they do not depend on the government. Clearly, you don't. You create an arbitrary and unnecessary dichotomy between production and complaining about one's government. People have managed to do both and enjoy success in both spheres: Benjamin Franklin, Lysander Spooner, Rose Wilder Lane, and Ayn Rand, just to name a few famous examples. Yes, securing God-given (or natural) rights is our responsibility, and that is why pro-capitalist intellectuals have an important role to play in countering the big government and big media propaganda that the State should be the dominant factor in society and the economy. You call it complaining. I call it educational outreach, and it is precisely what Ayn Rand advocated: The intellectuals serve as guides, as trend-setters, as the transmission belts or middlemen between philosophy and the culture. If they adopt a philosophy of reason—if their goal is the development of man’s rational faculty and the pursuit of knowledge—they are a society’s most productive and most powerful group, because their work provides the base and the integration of all other human activities. [bold added] No, it isn't. That's certainly the stupid way. The American Capitalist way is to be personally responsible for taking decent care of your own body, and not to let it degenerate by your own useless sloth. And when you need goods and services, you simply go to other American Capitalist producers and make equitable value for value exchanges with them because they share your values. Again, this is Business 101. I'm only stating the obvious. Jeez, Frank... you just can't be actually reading what you're writing! Perhaps because of your limited background in economics, you are not familiar with the idea that when the price of a good rises, people will tend to buy less of it or or use substitutes for it. A perfect demonstration of it is the increase of roll-your-own cigarettes and the jump in sales of pipe tobacco. Calling me a lazy, good-for-nothing non-producer will not make the facts go away. That ludicrous statement just screams that you're not productive. You actually regard your own labor as a negative when it is the only way to secure your own economic freedom. If the price of a good rises because of government policy, and I have to offset that cost by increasing my own labor, then the additional labor must be regarded as a cost to me. Rather than considering one's own labor a negative, I and every person I know treat it as a precious resource. Yes, there is dignity in hard work. But when government policies, such as high taxes and inflation, increase one's need to labor more to achieve the same results, the outcome is not a net benefit. Public employees are very well paid for the services they provide. I know. I was one of them. Your view is of someone who sits of their ass... and that's why it will never change. You'll always be a complaining victim because that's what you've made out of your self. Greg As usual, you miss or evade the point. I have shown that entrepreneurs cannot pass on every tax increase without affecting their bottom line. Furthermore, wage earners, public or private, are in no position to unilaterally pass on any increase. Advising every wage earner, including the 1.3 million active duty military, to escape the welfare state by establishing his/her own business is another bedtime tale from Magic Pink Pony Land.

An excellent, freshman-level introduction to the subject is Ruby and Yarber's The Art of Making Sense (which I acquired 40 years ago from an Objectivist who was selling off his large library in order to become a mercenary).

Why not read works on ethics by some of the men I listed? A number are available online at the Liberty Fund's Library of Liberty. See, for example: Wilhelm von Humboldt, "Of the Individual Man" John Locke, The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Ethics, 2 vols.

Of course you don't. I do. Move on. Stimson's full answer revealed that he had no reason not to anticipate an attack on an American territory. Beard's thesis that FDR worked secretly to get the U.S. involved in the war stands intact.

I don't see the problem. Stimson's full answer is: "Well, I was not surprised, in one sense, in any attack that would be made; but I was watching, with considerably more care, because I knew more about it, the attack that was framing up in the southwestern Pacific. And I knew also that there was a concentration in the mandated islands -- I know now, because I was shown by General Arnold the letter about the telegram, and an order; so that that was an additional threat, and that might fall on either Hawaii or Panama." Thus, Stimson was alert to the possibility of an attack that might fall on either Hawaii or Panama. On the same page Beard goes on to provide reasons why Stimson and other members of the Roosevelt administration would not have been surprised by the Pearl Harbor attack: "Secretary Hull told Secretary Stimson and Secretary Knox as early as November 27 that relations with Japan were at an end and that the matter was in the hands of the Army and the Navy. Secretary Knox received intercepts of secret Japanese messages which revealed to him the war designs of the Japanese Government. He was a member of the War Cabinet and present on November 25, l 941, when the problem of maneuvering the Japanese into firing the first shot was discussed."

You can't because you don't produce anything useful... but I can because I do. My clients are other successful American Capitalist producers, all of whom price their products and services to reflect the cost of government just as I do. Since I produce more than I consume, what is a problem for you is not a problem for me. You have exactly zero knowledge about how much I produce or how useful it is. (shrug)So what? The American Capitalist way to rise above that is to produce your own home at a fraction of the cost of buying a new one from someone else who produces it for you. Then you get to enjoy the windfall profits of your own labor. This idea of becoming your own producer is totally foreign to you isn't it? And haven't you noticed yet? For every problem you have complained about I have offered a real world practical solution. But not just empty intellectual theory, but rather things I actually do myself. That's how I know they work. If you tried getting up off your ass, they might work for you, too. Greg Cost of heart surgery too high for you? Perform a by-pass on yourself for a fraction of the cost! It's the American Capitalist way! When government actions cause the price of a good to be so high that one must compensate by performing the labor oneself, then one's own labor is a cost one is not shifting forward but absorbing. Think of the savings that could be realized by building a four-door luxury sedan (or a two engine airplane) in your own garage on nights and weekends. Since nights and weekends have zero value for Americans, they'll be getting a brand new car (or plane or submarine) for less than factory cost! Capitalism arose out of the division of labor, not out of absolute autarky. You appear to be as well informed about economics as about the personal lives of your debate opponents. What is your "real world practical solution" to the cost of the welfare state? Have every soldier, firefighter and police officer unilaterally raise the price he charges to the consumer?

You could say that 98% of the population gives not a hoot about "the ethical/moral underpinings of their politics." Ayn Rand does not have a monopoly on formulating the ethics of liberty. John Locke, Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Andrew Galambos, and Robert LeFevre have all addressed the ethical dimension.

Trust you to come up with a disgraced progressive historian who was a marxist class based interpreter. His Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, which I read close to half a century ago, was laughable. And of course supports your hatred of the Founders and this country. You sound just like our President. A... Calling Charles A. Beard a "Marxist" does not prove that he was one, nor does it disprove anything contained in his writings. As for being disgraced, if being insufficiently pro-war and pro-Roosevelt makes Beard disgraced, he was in excellent company. Regarding his Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, Beard showed that the founders had economic motives just like everyone else. The respected conservative historian Forrest McDonald has also taken a economics-based, albeit more nuanced view in his work We The People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution. I am not aware that returning the United States to a weak central government like that at the time of the Articles of Confederation puts me in the same company as Barack Obama. Perhaps you could cite a reference. I also am eager to hear your specific criticisms of the work I cited that bears on the topic of this thread, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War.

The trouble with Brook's (and Rand's) idea that the government could be financed through fees to support enforcement of contracts is that it arbitrarily distinguishes between contract-breakers and other violators of property rights. Let's examine two cases involving jewelers. In the first case Jeweler A invites Customer B into his shop to examine a $12,000 diamond necklace. While A's back is turned, B snatches the necklace from the counter and disappears into the crowd on the street outside. In the second case, Jeweler B invites Customer C into his shop to examine a diamond necklace, and, after some negotiation, the two reach an agreement whereby the customer will take the necklace with her and pay the jeweler $12,000 at the rate of $500/month for the next 24 months. However, after two months, C refuses to make any further payments and also refuses to return the necklace.Now, under Rand's contract-enforcement fee plan, in the second case Jeweler B cannot use the power of government to recover his property unless he has previously purchased a contract-enforcement stamp. The government will not protect his property rights in a particular sales transaction or loan unless he has already "insured" those rights with government. Yet in the first case, Rand and Brook would, presumably, call for the government to enforce laws against theft and use its police force to track down the necklace thief, make her return the merchandise or appropriately compensate the rightful owner, and perhaps also serve a prison term. Furthermore, Rand and Brook would call for these justice-providing services to be rendered to Jeweler A at no cost to him. The expense of investigating, solving and adjudicating robberies would be covered by the fees that financial institutions and merchants such as Jeweler B must pay to have their contracts enforced. But surely it is completely arbitrary to demand payment to protect a citizen against one form of theft, while rendering justice to another victim of equal or greater theft at no charge. Rand might as well have argued that everyone in society must pay a fee in advance to have any of their property rights enforced. We won't track down the thief/vandal/rapist/murderer unless your contract fees are paid in advance. Such a position would be no less moral than the one she put forth in "Government Financing in a Free Society."

Thanks, I tried it and now I'm in. . . I'm back. Bah, a waste of time. Read the original instead.

If Grandma does not own a car and can travel only by common carrier, why should we suppose that the rise in the cost of a bus ticket from Dubuque to Chicago will have no influence on her decision to make a trip? Just this week I made the decision not to fly to a relative's funeral because the flight was about 25% higher than what I expected and was willing to pay.

Actually, there is excellent data to support the conclusion that gasoline tax rates do have an impact on consumption of fuel. The economic shorthand that the more you tax something, the less you get of it does hold true in this case. The Moralist assumes, wrongly, that a) taxation has no effect because the producer can always shift it forward with no impact on the bottom line, or b) if the looting cannot be shifted forward, one somehow "deserves" to be hit with that theft.

Revisionism, i.e. questioning of U.S. policies and motives vis-à-vis Japan, was already underway in the 1940's. See in particular Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War (1948).

It's only fallacious for you, Frank. This is because you don't know the first thing about being a Capitalist producer. Everything you purchase has the complete cost of the government bureaucracy already included in it. Now this is a problem... but only for failures who don't produce anything useful. Produce something useful in your own Capitalist business and people throw money at you... especially when they're other Capitalist businessmen. The only way to enjoy your God given rights is to live a life deserving of them. And as long as you don't... ...you never will. Greg You evade the point: one cannot "immunize" himself from the welfare state simply by raising prices. High taxes converted to higher prices result in lower sales volume and thus lower profits. The federal excise tax nearly crippled the U.S. yacht industry in the early 1990's. The same is happening now to Europe's chemical industries as a result of "green" taxes. As for the question of usefulness, is a new home not "useful"? Yet new home sales are directly affected by the price of materials, which in turn are affected by taxation. Is a bus trip to see the grandchildren not "useful"? Yet high gasoline taxes can make travel unaffordable for many. When Congress raises the gas tax, is it acting on orders from God to keep Grandma from taking a trip she does not "deserve"?

"The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism" by Steve Sniegoski

You have made this claim before, and I have already shown why it is fallacious. Taxes cannot be shifted forward to the consumer through a raise in the price of a good without affecting demand for that good and consequently revenues. Suppose, for example, that under our current version of "American Capitalism," the legislature doubles or triples the gasoline tax. Not a problem, you say. All the entrepreneur has to do raise his prices accordingly. But if the price of lumber (produced by the use of gasoline-powered motors) goes up, will as many homes be built? If the price of bus travel (produced by the use of gasoline-powered motors) goes up, will as many tickets be purchased? The effects of taxation are real and involuntary. This is not Magic Pink Pony Land.

Log in required. How about a quick summary?

Maximizing private savings and investment and decreasing government looting (to pay off the debt) is the consequence that those who value capitalism and individual liberty should prefer. Shuddering at the prospect of moving in that direction won't get us there.

You can't be there if you don't get there.