Is Politics Just an Extension of the Market?

[luckyshot]

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.

 

[Pupi]

Politics is war by other means and economics is just a weapon in the war.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

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

 

[uncommon]

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?

good question

if i can frame the argument that the individual takes priority over the collective, then in general what side of the policy maximizes the priority of the individual?

i would say BOTH sides can detriment the individual:

(buy side can equal monopoly)
(vote side can equal tyranny of the majority)

and depending on the specific policy:

buy side can purchase individual protection (ownership/property rights)

and vote side can force individual opportunity (interstate/road system)
...

so basically you need to take political policy on a case by case basis, cant make a macro judgement

 

[panamaican]

It's a good question but I don't think the issue is a dichotomy in the balance between the wealthy seeking to “buy policy,” and the non-wealthy seeking to vote for policies, such as progressive taxes and robust social services, that will benefit them.

The real issue is the weaponization of morality by an increasingly amoral, if not immoral, society. This is particularly true on the right where evangelical Christians have married their moral positions with the amoral capital goals of the upper class. This has led, imo, the Christian right to actually abandon their morality to protect their political alliances and given the capital class a moral shield for actions that have no moral basis in the first place. The end resuld being that the definition of morality itself has been sacrificed for political expediency.

The left's relationship with morality is compromised as well but not as blatantly or so deeply because they have not staked their political souls on an immutable definition of morality as ordained by organized religion. Accordingly, they don't have to twist their sense of right/wrong as much to advocate their political goals.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Addressing your thread title more than your post, are we separating law from politics? Seems rules and enforcement would still exist outside of the marketplace. Are property rights first and foremost law, with a market later springing up to exchange goods and services?

As for Republicans having a disconnect between their religious views and political policy support, I'll say. Not sure why they think unbridled commerce and environmental damage trump Jesus on one hand, then on the other they claim to be bound by the commands of God when it comes to gays.

 

[Trotsky]

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

There is if that majority doesn't sufficiently understand their own interests, and if their perception of their "interests" is promulgated down to them through exercises of wealth and power by persons with interests diametrical to theirs.

 

[KILL KILL]

Politics is war by other means and economics is just a weapon in the war.

I would say it's the other way around. Businesses use politics as weapons to create economicly favorable conditions. Politicians are their pawns to reach the desired result.

 

[ndwolfwood]

'Tics is a numbers game. You need to have enough x for y. Enough y for z. Enough z for x. And enough y for x. And also enough x for z.

 

[luckyshot]

Addressing your thread title more than your post, are we separating law from politics? Seems rules and enforcement would still exist outside of the marketplace. Are property rights first and foremost law, with a market later springing up to exchange goods and services?

.

To some extent, policy creates laws and politics determines enforcement.

This is really clear when you look at something like bank regulations, for example. Or how Trump has recently decided not to reimpose sanctions of Russia, even though Congress voted overwhelmingly for them.

You might say that there is a distinction between “nautural rights” and policy, and that the former cannot be bought and bartered for in the same way as the later.

I would reply that, given the entire scope of human history, I find “natural rights” to be a optimistic concept at best. Going back to the is/ought dilemma, I may agree that we ought to have them, but it’s also clear that many or most people have not had them— or at least haven’t recognized them or had them recognized— in any way approximating our post-Enlightenment ideal.

If a “right” can lay dormant for long stretches of time, or if it can change and evolve, how intrinsic can it be? We have rights because we have a government and common law tradition, but I hardly think those rights are static or guaranteed— or beyond the reach of changing political winds.

Most Americans are unconsciously Lockean because of our founding principles. The difference is the Founders knew that they was a paradigm that they were choosing; Americans today just assume that’s the way “it” is. Most of the world knows better.

Edit: Look at @Farmer Br0wn ’s post (#12). He illustrates my point perfectly. He thinks individuals have rights outside the government. Why? Because we have a government that recognizes individual rights. See that circularity?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

when they say 'trust the free market' or whatever that means one of two things. If they have money/wealth, they say that b/c it allows them to not only keep the status quo (as clearly it's benefiting them) but perhaps increase their share. If they don't, they say it b/c at least that means others won't get free shit i.e. government intervention. Misery loves company

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

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.

A wealthy person is free to do with their wealth as they choose, so long as no one else is physically harmed or defrauded.

A non-wealthy person (as you put it) doesn't have any right to the properties of another person. Attempting to vote someone's property away from them is an immoral, lazy, and cowardly way to try and enrich oneself.

In this situation, you have one group of people trying to protect their own property, and you have another group of people trying to steal that property, and you're wondering who has the moral high ground?

 

[Headkicktoleg]

There is a psychology theory that says some people are more likely to blame themselves than others for their actions and visa versa. I believe this is the great divide in republicans and democrats.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

There is if that majority doesn't sufficiently understand their own interests, and if their perception of their "interests" is promulgated down to them through exercises of wealth and power by persons with interests diametrical to theirs.

The masses just don't know what's best for them?

Yet @Trotsky knows exactly what's best for everyone!

Your statement is the very definition of arrogance.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

If a “right” can lay dormant for long stretches of time, or if it can change and evolve, how intrinsic can it be? We have rights because we have a government and common law tradition, but I hardly think those rights are static or guaranteed— or beyond the reach of changing political winds.

Most Americans are unconsciously Lockean because of our founding principles. The difference is the Founders knew that they was a paradigm they were choosing; Americans today just assume that’s the way “it” is. Most of the world knows better.

Edit: Look at @Farmer Br0wn ’s post (#12). He illustrates my point perfectly. He thinks individuals have rights outside the government. Why? Because we have a government that recognizes individual rights. See that circularity? Ask someone in the Gulag about his “natural” rights.

Rights are nothing more than the necessary conditions of ones proper existence.

A right being violated does not change its necessity towards a proper existence.

This is fairly simple to understand, when you understand that rights aren't granted.

 

[luckyshot]

A wealthy person is free to do with their wealth as they choose, so long as no one else is physically harmed or defrauded.

A non-wealthy person (as you put it) doesn't have any right to the properties of another person. Attempting to vote someone's property away from them is an immoral, lazy, and cowardly way to try and enrich oneself.

In this situation, you have one group of people trying to protect their own property, and you have another group of people trying to steal that property, and you're wondering who has the moral high ground?

Your argument fails on two fronts:

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

As I often point out to libertarians, if you want to see real theft, stop paying taxes. Then cops will stop showing up to work.

The truth is that taxation, far from BEING theft, actually enables an administrative state which creates and enforces such niceties as property rights.

You probably think you, the inviolable individual have some “natural” rights. Talk to someone in NK— of a Black person in 19th century America— about that.

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

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

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

Rights are nothing more than the necessary conditions of ones proper existence.

A right being violated does not change its necessity towards a proper existence.

This is fairly simple to understand, when you understand that rights aren't granted.

This is a Pollyanna dream world.

Talk to anyone whose rights are being violated about whether they feel that they, in fact, currently have those rights.

Rights ARE granted and created by the government. This is why people living under an ancient Chinese emperor, a Medieval European Prince, a African Tribal warlord, and a modern constitutional democracy all recognize and exercise VASTLY different sets of rights.

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

Also, your assumption that there is a universally defined and agreed upon standard known as “proper existence” is... how should I put this politely... incorrect.

 

[Trotsky]

Rights are nothing more than the necessary conditions of ones proper existence.

A right being violated does not change its necessity towards a proper existence.

This is fairly simple to understand, when you understand that rights aren't granted.

This is incoherent. Please don't try to philosophize.

As far as your stunted view of public policy development, you're free to bask in your own reductive bliss, but don't suppose that others will dumb themselves down to embrace it.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

This is incoherent. Please don't try to philosophize.

As far as your stunted view of public policy development, you're free to bask in your own reductive bliss, but don't suppose that others will dumb themselves down to embrace it.

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!

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

To some extent, policy creates laws and politics determines enforcement.

This is really clear when you look at something like bank regulations, for example. Or how Trump has recently decided not to reimpose sanctions of Russia, even though Congress voted overwhelmingly for them.

You might say that there is a distinction between “nautural rights” and policy, and that the former cannot be bought and bartered for in the same way as the later.

I would reply that, given the entire scope of human history, I find “natural rights” to be a optimistic concept at best. Going back to the is/ought dilemma, I may agree that we ought to have them, but it’s also clear that many or most people have not had them— or at least haven’t recognized them or had them recognized— in any way approximating our post-Enlightenment ideal.

If a “right” can lay dormant for long stretches of time, or if it can change and evolve, how intrinsic can it be? We have rights because we have a government and common law tradition, but I hardly think those rights are static or guaranteed— or beyond the reach of changing political winds.

Most Americans are unconsciously Lockean because of our founding principles. The difference is the Founders knew that they was a paradigm they were choosing; Americans today just assume that’s the way “it” is. Most of the world knows better.

Edit: Look at @Farmer Br0wn ’s post (#12). He illustrates my point perfectly. He thinks individuals have rights outside the government. Why? Because we have a government that recognizes individual rights. See that circularity? Ask someone in the Gulag about his “natural” rights.

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.

 

[Seano]

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.

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.