patrick.net

Although the postal service must technically exist as per the constitution it does not mean that it has to be as large as what it is. If there isn't enough to validate a office then it can close.

In Mass under our state constitution every child is legally entitled to a public education. If they want a private one that's fine but this is enshrined. Of course it doesn't say how to pay for it or that it doesn't specifically have to be in a given town. In Providence town Mass they had to close the high school.

http://www.wbur.org/2010/06/11/provincetown-high-school

"But much has changed since that senior’s parents were in school here. In a building that housed hundreds just a generation ago, there are now just 56 students in grades seven through 12. That makes for an intimate school, where students say their classmates can feel more like family. But that small student body is also what’s closing the school down. The Provincetown school committee has decided there aren’t enough kids to keep the doors open."

Under theory they could simply jack up the taxes (property taxes I'm assuming..maybe excise or meals tax) and save the school. But to have just 56 students spread over six grades is pretty small. There is a economy of scale to make sure that a government program is sustainable. If you take a town and create some new housing (that isn't 55+) you can generally assume there will be more children and thus more demand for education.

But when populations shrink it runs counter to this assumption. We've been so used to creating and building more but if no one uses it then the costs can go up.

The problem with the post office is they aren't the monopoly that they once were. Once you have competition you have to compete. If you cannot compete then you end up closing. Post offices used to be centers of town but not so much anymore. Back before the internet, before the box stores, before the malls and before the highway systems there was Sears. Sears was catalog based for quite some time and made a fortune. Now Sears itself is much smaller and cannot do nearly as much (I predict it will collapse in a few years).

Then again at one point AM radio was huge..still exists but not nearly as much. FM sounds better (yes I know about AM stereo) and one can say sirius/xm has more content and of course there are also podcasts and streaming radio stations now.

It seems like our problems have just begun.

bob2356 says

For the record neither the AMA and congress have any control over the supply of doctors.

Wrong.

In his classic book Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman describes the American Medical Association (AMA) as the “strongest trade union in the United States” and documents the ways in which the AMA vigorously restricts competition. The Council on Medical Education and Hospitals of the AMA approves both medical schools and hospitals. By restricting the number of approved medical schools and the number of applicants to those schools, the AMA limits the supply of physicians.

from http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high

Friedman is a right-wing economist who is trying to defend the free market. This is an issue that both left and right should be able to agree on.

And to belabor the point without pity: the big problem is that campaign contributions are a legalized form of bribery. They are given with the expectation of influencing laws to extract extra taxes (OK, rents) from the defenseless public by law.

Even more interesting. Here is the relevant section from Friedman's the book, which was published in 1962 and has had no revisions by the way . http://www.fff.org/freedom/0194e.asp He doesn't document anything despite what wallstreetpit says. He only makes assertions without any kind of documentation or references at all except exactly one anecdotal story from the 1930's.

The Council on medical education hasn't even existed since the 1940's coinciding with Friedman's publishing date. Medical school accreditation is currently done by the LCME (Liaison Committee on Medical Education). Here is an overview http://www.lcme.org/overview.htm . If you actually read this I would like some type of explanation how campaign contributions enter into the picture. They are simply an accrediting commission. There is no, zero, none, interface with congress.

Yes to some degree accreditation could be considered restrictive, but that fails to explain why all the state medical schools (which are almost all of the 159 medical schools, I notice wallstreetpit said the number was 130. So much for their credibility. They also fail to mention there have been something like 6 new medical schools opened in the last 8 years and there are 18 new medical schools currently in the process of being accredited. Don't let pesky facts interfere with a good ideological rant) that are already accredited and operating don't simply expand their programs. How do congressional campaign contributions prevent state legislatures from simply expanding medical school budgets and allowing the programs to grow? State universities set the size of the programs by the needs of the state and the budgets allocated to them, not by congressional decree.

You are creating a circular argument. You are saying that the number of doctors is low because of government interference. Yet the vast majority of doctors go to state medical schools, which are subsidized by government (aka taxpayers). If all doctors had to go to highly expensive private medical schools the number of doctors would plummet.

I would agree that you could accept friedman's assertion that no one should be licensed or accredited for anything. That would certainly increase the numbers. That was the exact situation in the US 100 years ago that wallstreetpit seems to believe is such a desirable state of affairs. That option actually still exists now. You are free to seek treatment in a variety of countries that don't actually license much of anything. Try it out next time you have a serious medical problem, let everyone know how it turns out. I will continue to go to people with MD after their names.

Bellingham Bob says

No it didn't.

1990 12.4
1991 13.1
1992 13.4
1993 13.7
1994 13.6
1995 13.7
1996 13.7
1997 13.6
1998 13.6
1999 13.6
2000 13.7

It went from 13.7 to 13.6..that is a decrease. It might not be that significant but that is a decrease.Bellingham Bob says

Subjective.

We've reached the point where per-capita health costs are just too damn high.

Unlike here, the system there, being a responsive government program, is improving.

Do you think US medical care will ever get less expensive on its own?

If it is subjective then it is subjective given the actions of the Supreme Court of Canada as that's what was considered in the Quebec case. We can disagree with court actions but generally we have to accept them.

Not everything is covered by the health care system in canada nearly a third buy supplemental insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada

This part is a bit interesting as capacity can appear to be an issue sometimes.

"In 2007, it was reported that Canada sent scores of pregnant women to the US to give birth.[76] In 2007 a woman from Calgary who was pregnant with quadruplets was sent to Great Falls, Montana to give birth. An article on this incident states there were no Canadian hospitals with enough neo-natal intensive beds to accommodate the extremely rare quadruple birth.[77]
A January 19, 2008, article in The Globe and Mail states, "More than 150 critically ill Canadians – many with life-threatening cerebral hemorrhages – have been rushed to the United States since the spring of 2006 because they could not obtain intensive-care beds here. Before patients with bleeding in or outside the brain have been whisked through U.S. operating-room doors, some have languished for as long as eight hours in Canadian emergency wards while health-care workers scrambled to locate care." [78]
In 2010, Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams traveled to the US for heart surgery."

Even Michael Moore implied that people will be willing to wait but will they really? That can be the key question here. I don't see the USA really being a patient society. Microwaves, high speed internet, on demand cable and of course fast food. I've been to France and the idea of someone taking 90-120 minutes at a cafe to eat and watch people just doesn't sell in the USA.

Another question can be if immediate access simply allows hypochondriacs to absorb more of the system. How much is actually just psychosomatic in nature?

Canada certainly has an odd set of laws where technically you can kinda run a private practice but only if you accept government funds at government rates (how is that private ?) If you accept non governmental patients in excess you get shut down (sounds like Wickard vs Filburn again)

Bob makes a good point as well. Doctors (and vets for that matter) gravitate towards what is more lucrative. Specialty care naturally can charge more for general care. Maybe a license should be more contingent on practice. What if a specialist had to carry a general patient amount for a few years...say 50/50 and it shrinks with time.

Patrick,

If you truly believe that a piece of 1st class mail can be delivered for 50 cents, then you should be cheering the removal of USPS monopoly privilege on 1st class mail . . . so that you can organize your own deliver service.

There is no need to shutdown USPS. Just let other companies, any and all companies, to deliver 1st class mail if they wish, instead of retaining the USPS monopoly . . . and if USPS loses money, the workers are welcome to work for free or no pay so long as the rent on the buildings are paid, no dragooning of taxpayers into paying for subsidizing junk mailers.

As for banning private campaign donations and allowing only "public campaign funding," isn't that what North Korea has? "The Dear Leader" always gets 99% of all votes (the "1%" is magically cooked up to make the result presentable even though nobody there is ever caught to have cast a vote for another candidate, because there is no other candidate!)

There is no such animal as "public"; there are only homo sapien individuals in human society. Some individuals bad together to monopolize violent coercive force and call themselves "government"; some individuals band together and form "corporations" under limited liability laws created by the aforementioned "government" as a tax-farming scheme.

"As for banning private campaign donations and allowing only "public campaign funding," isn't that what North Korea has?"

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle

Bellingham Bob says

technically it's a rent I think.

Yes. Historically this is what they were referred to though they're generally associated with feudal gov. systems...

Bellingham Bob says

"As for banning private campaign donations and allowing only "public campaign funding," isn't that what North Korea has?"

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle

“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

What is your idea of "Middle" in the binary choice between banning vs. not banning?

Banning all private political campaign contribution and making government funding the only source of money for political expression literally is banning all political speech except for pronouncements by those already running the government! It takes money to buy even a megaphone; all pamphlets printing take money, so does internet hosting and even an office to run a political campaign. Should all political expression be at the mercy of government official magnanimity?

FortWayne says

without a huge scale down of this government there isn't much that can be done. IMO Only way this will get resolved if the government shrinks and we have more Democracy.

A weak scaled down government is even more ineffective at resisting the efforts of the monied interests than a strong corrupt one. This is one of the major reasons the US's first government failed and other weak governments have failed throughout history. They simply don't work. You might as well argue to live in a utopia.

All that power has to go somewhere if the government doesn't or can't use it after all and others will use it to their purposes.

We don't necessarily need a weak small gov. What we need are ethical and competent representatives and presidents who are willing to enforce the laws for everyone and to write good laws.

PolishKnight says

Now regarding the USPS versus UPS/Fedex: Keep in mind the PO is more efficient because they make daily deliveries and aggregate mail. So if they were taken out of the picture, the private companies would work similar to cable companies which are sometimes competing with each other to lower prices. Think Cox is charging you too much? Call them and say you're switching to FIOS.

In addition, nothing like competition to help curb those huge union pension demands.

So I would guess that if Fedex and UPS were making more trips to different neighborhoods, that their overhead would shrink. In addition, they can do what the USPS has suggested: Go on different delivery days. Indeed... imagine this: UPS delivers on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and Fedex on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. Don't like the price of one? Go to the other!

This is all wrong. All of it. It smacks of ideological nonsense, ridiculously far right "private enterprise is always more efficient and can do no wrong" BS. Anyone who has dealt with the cable companies knows they enforce local monopolies and make it difficult to impossible to switch and UPS and FedEx would do the same.

Anyone with passing familiarity with the issue of funding the USPS knows that UPS and FedEx rely on the USPS to make lots of deliveries and to some extent vice versa since the private delivery companies just won't service many areas. If the USPS is eliminated then FedEx and UPS will drive their prices through the roof and their service quality will still be worse since anyways.

But then the whole funding crisis is manufactured to begin with. USPS's retirement fund is already paid up 30 or 40 years into the future but congress wanted them to full pre fund it. If that law hadn't been passed, which was heavily lobbied for by both UPS and FedEx, then there wouldn't be a funding issue for the USPS at all.

tts says

A weak scaled down government is even more ineffective at resisting the efforts of the monied interests than a strong corrupt one. This is one of the major reasons the US's first government failed and other weak governments have failed throughout history. They simply don't work. You might as well argue to live in a utopia.

The first US government did not fail due to inability to defend itself. The Shayes Rebellion did not even seek to overthrow it. They were simply going after a few corrupt judges. The erroneous report agitated the politicians into acting and putting together a "stronger" government while men like Jefferson happened to be overseas on ambassadorial assignments. That's why there had to be the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendaments) shortly after the counter-revolutionary original Constitution without the 10 Amendaments was put together.

All that power has to go somewhere if the government doesn't or can't use it after all and others will use it to their purposes.

What power would that be? Government is the device through which the people are enslaved. Without government fugitive return laws (and its modern day equivalent, immigration control laws arresting people without papers), it would be prohibitively expensive for employers/slavers to track down slaves and keep them as slaves except for on-board an isolated ship on the high sea.

We don't necessarily need a weak small gov. What we need are ethical and competent representatives and presidents who are willing to enforce the laws for everyone and to write good laws.

Haha, you still believe in keeping the Ring to Rule All Rings for good. The real answer is not utopian hopes for those wielding absolute power. Power corrupts therefore power has to be limited and checked . . . i.e. a weak small government that can barely defend itself against more virulent versions of itself.

Reality says

Should all political expression be at the mercy of government official magnanimity?

If the choice is between being ruled by corporate overlords via campaign donations or government officials via the same method then I'll take the government any time.

Of course this is a false dichotomy. Depending on how government sponsored campaigns are set up this need not be an issue. You wouldn't have an official picking and choosing the winners and losers. You just have a series of funding thresholds that kick in based on what office is being ran for. You run for office "x" you and everyone else running for that office gets funding "y" to run and that is it. A level playing field for the most part.

tts says

If the USPS is eliminated then FedEx and UPS will drive their prices through the roof and their service quality will still be worse since anyways.

What's to prevent another company entering the field? Ever heard of DHL? If any one of them charge too much and don't deliver, the consumers have the right to refuse to do business with them . . . ergo it's out of business. USPS however gets money robbed from taxpayers regardless what they do or not do.

tts says

If the choice is between being ruled by corporate overlords via campaign donations or government officials via the same method then I'll take the government any time.

Then you deserve to live under a totalitarian regime. The difference between corporation vs. government is that you at least have some choice the next time you open your wallet when dealing with corporations; even more choices if the corporation does not enjoy government-granted monopoly. Government is where you don't get choice at all (or at least not until the next election year if you are lucky).

Of course this is a false dichotomy. Depending on how government sponsored campaigns are set up this need not be an issue. You wouldn't have an official picking and choosing the winners and losers. You just have a series of funding thresholds that kick in based on what office is being ran for. You run for office "x" you and everyone else running for that office gets funding "y" to run and that is it. A level playing field for the most part.

Are people really so short-sighted that they can't see beyond their own noses? If you have a system like you are proposing, what's to prevent 100,000 people from announcing their candidacy to be the mayor in a single city? It's the cost of election campaign that keep many egotistical individuals from running. If running for an office automatically means you get money to hand out to yourself, your family and your friends, why wouldn't almost everyone run for office? How long do you think the election commission and "public funds" would last in that case before people demanding government officials "pre-qualifying"? i.e. government officials deciding who gets to run who doesn't. Since all private funding is banned in the proposal, there is no early performance to speak of before public funding allocation.

Reality says

The first US government did not fail due to inability to defend itself.

Shayes rebellion had nothing to do with the failure of the Confederation. It was simply one more problem amongst many. Almost nothing worked at all since all the states competed so vigorously and viciously against eachother.

Reality says

What power would that be?

Any powers normally given to a strong government, which in this case is litterally most anything. The right to sell food in a given store, the right to use the street without paying a tax, etc. Anything and everything.

Reality says

Government is the device through which the people are enslaved.

If you want to take this route then fine but you're effectively arguing for anarchy since by this view point any and all governments enslave their people. If you want anarchy or as close to it as you can get it go live in Somalia or something.

Reality says

The real answer is not utopian hopes for those wielding absolute power. Power corrupts therefore power has to be limited and checked

All power corrupts eventually but then that is why we have a system in place to make it possible to replace our representatives. And up until the last 20 years or so it worked pretty well for the most part. If more people would vote and educate themselves about who and what to vote for and if necessary do large determined protests a la the Arab Spring here then we would see some real change. If people don't do this then yes we're fucked for the next few decades, but then would be our fault as a people for not standing up for our rights.

Reality says

What's to prevent another company entering the field?

Lobbying and the typical dirty tricks that all corporations use to curb competition. Nationwide delivery is a big business that needs huge amounts of capital to get set up, you're not going to see Mom n' Pop delivery services competing on the national or even much less state or city level. Maaaaaaybe in city delivery but that is nothing, small potatoes.

Reality says

The difference between corporation vs. government is that you at least have some choice the next time you open your wallet when dealing with corporations

No. Corporations strive for monopoly. Realistically you might have a oligopoly so choice would be restricted between 1 or 2 or even perhaps 3 of the same people/goods/services every time who would all essentially make the same choices and act the same way to maintain the status quo. Which BTW is not so far away from what we have now with our 2 party FPTP voting system which makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party to become viable. This is made possible via careful control over campaign contributions and other dirty tricks like gerrymandering.

Reality says

If you have a system like you are proposing, what's to prevent 100,000 people from announcing their candidacy to be the mayor in a single city?

You have a petition signing req. (ie. 100 people say they would vote for such and such) and you restrict for age (ie. 20 and over) and limit the number of reps that could be voted on total (ie. no more than 30) and you document the spending and limit and regulate what the money can be spent on. None of this is all that contentious or hard to imagine. To some extent most of these rules already exist if you want to run for office and take donations.

tts says

Shayes rebellion had nothing to do with the failure of the Confederation. It was simply one more problem amongst many. Almost nothing worked at all since all the states competed so vigorously and viciously against eachother.

Where did you learn your history? At Hamilton's Wall Street Empire School? The debtors' rebellion was the official reason for convening the constitutional convention. As for "nothing worked at all," that would be quite some news for people who lived under the Confederation for over a decade. What's wrong with vigorous competition? You are showing your truly color as a monopolist.

If you want to take this route then fine but you're effectively arguing for anarchy since by this view point any and all governments enslave their people.

Ever heard of the expression "necessary evil"? As in the core belief among the founders of this Republic? In other words, all governments are indeed "evil." Some are just necessary to keep out even worse ones.

If you want anarchy or as close to it as you can get it go live in Somalia or something.

Not sure why the advocates of imperialism keep citing the one place on earth that worked better under a brief period of anarchy in the 1990's than under any of the "governments" before or since.

All power corrupts eventually but then that is why we have a system in place to make it possible to replace our representatives. And up until the last 20 years or so it worked pretty well for the most part. If more people would vote and educate themselves about who and what to vote for and if necessary do large determined protests a la the Arab Spring here then we would see some real change. If people don't do this then yes we're fucked for the next few decades, but then would be our fault as a people for not standing up for our rights.

I applaud you for turning around 180 degrees. It should be quite obvious that any "Arab Spring" style revolution would be quite self-defeating if they replace the previous concentration of power with a new and more forceful concentration of power (a la Russian October Revolution). True salvation is through individual rights, not collectivist coercion.

tts says

Lobbying and the typical dirty tricks that all corporations use to curb competition. Nationwide delivery is a big business that needs huge amounts of capital to get set up, you're not going to see Mom n' Pop delivery services competing on the national or even much less state or city level. Maaaaaaybe in city delivery but that is nothing, small potatoes.

The very emergence of FedEX, UPS, DHL, and numerous grocery delivery services prove you wrong. The idea that all parts of the country, regardless how remote, has to have the same level of delivery service, is utterly non-sensical . . . and can only be borne of the the terminally bureaucratical mind. Infrastructures are of course more developed in more developed area. People taking to rural areas take their own chances and figure out their own means of transportation. What's next, should there be taxpayer funded sidewalks all along Ted Turner's millions acres ranch too?

tts says

No. Corporations strive for monopoly.

Somehow the government doesn't? Being a monopoly is the very definition of government. Corporations can archive monopoly status most often via government endorsement.

Realistically you might have a oligopoly so choice would be restricted between 1 or 2 or even perhaps 3 of the same people/goods/services every time who would all essentially make the same choices and act the same way to maintain the status quo.

Only if you have a very static view of how the economy works. Yes, if the economy stagnates and nothing new is ever developed (i.e. in a socialist/communist utopia/distopia), consolidation would take over greater and greater part of the economy, with more and more jobs lost. However, in a real economy less hampered by government intervention, new ways of doing things more efficiently are constantly discovered, and making big wannabe monopolists obsolete before they ever achieve monopoly.

Which BTW is not so far away from what we have now with our 2 party FPTP voting system which makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party to become viable. This is made possible via careful control over campaign contributions and other dirty tricks like gerrymandering.

And the very first-past-poll system. That's the nature of political process: concentrating more power into those already have an edge via top-down management. That's exactly the opposite of the natural market competitive process driven by consumer choice from bottom up. That's why the big-government imperialists want to subvert the market economy and replace market competition with government political management instead: in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the masses. That's why wealth polarization has been dramatically increased after decades of big-government policies under both political parties.

tts says

You have a petition signing req. (ie. 100 people say they would vote for such and such) and you restrict for age (ie. 20 and over) and limit the number of reps that could be voted on total (ie. no more than 30) and you document the spending and limit and regulate what the money can be spent on. None of this is all that contentious or hard to imagine. To some extent most of these rules already exist if you want to run for office and take donations.

How would you even have the funds to conduct signature drives for major offices (say one that requires 50,000+ signatures to be on the ballot) without allowing private campaign funding? You are not seriously suggesting people running for the President of the US only requires 500 signatures to be on the ballot and get $100,000,000 "public money," are you? What's to prevent 500, or even 5000 friends banding together and get the money to pay each other salaries watching porn all day? Before you suggest having more regulators to prevent that, getting paid salaries to watch porn all day is already what quite a few regulators do!

Reality says

The debtors' rebellion was the official reason for convening the constitutional convention.

It was the straw that broke the camel's back. There were ongoing problems with the Confederation since it was set up, mostly involving interstate trade and the economy in general. All of that was tied to the "strong state/weak federation" mindset of the Confederation. The Confederation would've been dissolved irregardless of the Rebellion at some point.

Reality says

Ever heard of the expression "necessary evil"? As in the core belief among the founders of this Republic? In other words, all governments are indeed "evil." Some are just necessary to keep out even worse ones.

OK so if gov. are all evil and enslave their people just some slightly less so then others then what is the point of even trying to pick one or another? I mean you're enslaved already, being under the power of a government, and that institution is evil and the one that would follow it would be evil and enslave you too. So there is no point trying to reason with the system or change it at all.

Reality says

Not sure why the advocates of imperialism keep citing the one place on earth that worked better under a brief period of anarchy in the 1990's than under any of the "governments" before or since.

Any quick and dirty googles on the history of Somalia show that to be wrong. You have litterally just made stuff up.

Reality says

True salvation is through individual rights, not collectivist coercion.

False dichotomy again. You need a strong political entity to enforce individual rights for everyone, individuals can't do that.

Reality says

If any one of them charge too much and don't deliver, the consumers have the right to refuse to do business with them . . . ergo it's out of business.

In theory yes, in reality NO!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/well-i-guess-ill-just-take-my-business-to-another,21357/

"Well, I Guess I'll Just Take My Business To Another Soulless Multinational Corporation"

The whole point of this thread is that the THE FREE MARKET IS DYING because you just have to bribe Congress and they will happily kill your competition and limit the customer's choices.

If you really love the free market, you should be absolutely for publicly financed campaigns and a ban on private campaign contributions.

If you're not for those, can you think of a better fix?

Reality says

You are not seriously suggesting people running for the President of the US only requires 500 signatures to be on the ballot and get $100,000,000 "public money," are you?

Why not? I already mentioned limiting the number of possible candidates too BTW. As well as limiting and regulating what the money can be spent on. You don't need some vast new office to do this. The CBO or IRS would work just fine. Abuses like spending the money on cars for the family and watching porn would result in prison time and the rest of the cash revoked.

Reality says

The very emergence of FedEX, UPS, DHL, and numerous grocery delivery services prove you wrong.

So 3 major corp. delivery companies and some small potatoes grocery delivery services prove me wrong how? How is a oligopoly of private enterprises working for profit supposed to meet or beat the service and value of the USPS which provides at cost service?

Sure, if you limit the field to the 10 candidates with the most verified signatures, then that's $1B to run a presidential election.

That's actually about what gets spent now anyway:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/dec/20/20061220-121843-2600r/

And it's a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things, for a vastly more honest election.

tts says

Why not? I already mentioned limiting the number of possible candidates too

How would you do that? By lottery? Remember, you are proposing all private campaign funding being banned, so nobody can do much to distinguish themselves from the rest of the population.

BTW. As well as limiting and regulating what the money can be spent on. You don't need some vast new office to do this. The CBO or IRS would work just fine. Abuses like spending the money on cars for the family and watching porn would result in prison time and the rest of the cash revoked.

The regulators already watch porn during office hours themselves! Prison time? Don't make me laugh. The prison wardens watch porn too, if not making them. Buying a car for the family is unnecessary when the family member is hired as a campaign manager with car paid for by the campaign. Hundreds of thousands of, if not millions of, Social workers already use "public" credit card for all sorts of personal purchases and free lunches . . . how many of them are in jail? The socialist mind simply fails to grasp how the normal human mind works when spending someone else' money.

Sure, if you limit the field to the 10 candidates with the most verified signatures, then that's $1B to run a presidential election.

The party last night must have been great. Many are still suffering from hangovers on Sunday afternoon. In order to be one of the top 10 in terms of signature count in this country of about 200,000,000 eligible voters, one presumably would have to gather tens of millions of signatures. How would the person do that without private funding paying workers to gather signatures to begin with? That's what you are proposing to ban.

Reality says

Somehow the government doesn't?

You want a monopoly of government by said government, competing government agencies is a waste of resources. Monopoly in the economic sense is what is bad.

Reality says

Only if you have a very static view of how the economy works.

How I view the economy doesn't matter and isn't the point. My point is that you end up with monopoly or oligopoly eventually with any corporation, once they get to that point they start using their wealth to become self perpetuating by corrupting the government. The history of Laissez Faire economic policies shows this to be true time in and time out throughout history. It also undermines the "weak gov." ideology too. "Political capital" is the parlance used right now, openly too.

Reality says

That's why the big-government imperialists

There are no big gov. imperialists. Only pro FIRE corporatist.

Reality says

so nobody can do much to distinguish themselves from the rest of the population.

Uh what about competency, political history, goals, ideas, etc? I'd rather the politicans compete based on those things then who can spend the most to bombard low info. voters with ads and TV commercials.

Reality says

The regulators already watch porn during office hours themselves!

Uh huh. If you're going to argue that every regulator and government offical ever is going to be corrupt and not do his job then there is no point at all talking about any sort of reform at all. Go live in anarchist paradise Somalia.

Reality says

How would the person do that without private funding paying workers to gather signatures to begin with?

Campaign volunteers are already widely used by everyone and have been for decades.

Nice ad hom too BTW. Quoting this for posterity:

Reality says

The party last night must have been great. Many are still suffering from hangovers on Sunday afternoon.

tts says

You want a monopoly of government by said government, competing government agencies is a waste of resources. Monopoly in the economic sense is what is bad.

If you have actually studied how bureaucracy works, you'd know that competing agencies are the result of the debilitating decline of old monopolistic agencies. e.g. State Department's role gradually taken over by National Security Advisor. Bureaucracies tend to grow in size and get less and less done due to the nature of monopoly. So new agencies have to be founded every few decades.

How I view the economy doesn't matter and isn't the point.

The basic understanding of static economy vs. dynamic economy is crucial to the issue. If an economy is static, then government officials can know everything in advance while industry consolidation is the only profit-improving way, then yes government officials working to prevent industry from consolidating would make some sense (even then, the officials would run the monopoly in the name of the "people," with all attendant inefficiencies of a monopoly.) However, in reality real economies are dynamic (before the government kills the dynamism anyway), economy monopolies are constantly challenged by new ways of doing things. Government intervention actually serves to stifle innovation and preserve monopolistic market power.

My point is that you end up with monopoly or oligopoly eventually with any corporation, once they get to that point they start using their wealth to become self perpetuating by corrupting the government.

First of all, monopolies and oligopolies do not reach that eventuality before their core competence is rendered obsolete in a competitive market place. Just think how Ford, the maker of more cars than the rest of the world combined (not just the rest of the US) in the early 1920's came perilously close to bankruptcy a decade later.

The history of Laissez Faire economic policies shows this to be true time in and time out throughout history. It also undermines the "weak gov." ideology too. "Political capital" is the parlance used right now, openly

Real historical monopolies almost always involved government enforcement. The government is the only one that can actually enforce economic monopoly by preventing others from entering.

tts says

Campaign volunteers are already widely used by everyone and have been for decades.

Campaign volunteers hours times minimum wage (or more) is considered private political contribution. That's why one can only work a limited number of hours for any political campaign before having to be paid.

tts says

Uh what about competency, political history, goals, ideas, etc? I'd rather the politicans compete based on those things then who can spend the most to bombard low info. voters with ads and TV commercials.

You can't even buy a megaphone to pronounce your goals or ideas without some kind of funding. As for competency and political history, then yes you are talking about keeping political power in the hands of incumbents. No new challengers can ever enter because they can not spend any money to get their message out.

Uh huh. If you're going to argue that every regulator and government offical ever is going to be corrupt and not do his job then there is no point at all talking about any sort of reform at all.

First of all, every single official is potentially corruptible . . . simply because s/he has to eat, clothe, shelter, and has family and friends. Government bureaucrats are not Gods. More importantly, even that is besides the point. The topic at hand is your assertion that somehow there would be a mechanism for hauling all porn watchers on public dime into jails. Well, guess what, not even the appointed officials watching porn during office hours are even in jail now . . . what's to prevent someone's brother-in-law / campaign manager waste his time twiddling thumbs just to collect a salary from public campaign funding? There are not enough layers of regulations or enough watchers in the world to watch all the watchers and regulators.

Go live in anarchist paradise Somalia.

What's with the fascination with the one place in the world where a brief period of anarchy worked better than all the governments before or since at that same place?

Reality says

If you have actually studied how bureaucracy works, you'd know that competing agencies are the result of the debilitating decline of old monopolistic agencies

No. That is the result of incompetent or corrupted regulators or politicians.

Reality says

Government intervention actually serves to stifle innovation and preserve monopolistic market power.

A corrupt or incompetent gov. does this. A competent one interested in doing its job will stop the collusion and rule breaking by the big corps to encourage more competition. Big corps don't like this, cuts into profits, which is why they always end up corrupting the government over time.

Reality says

Just think how Ford, the maker of more cars than the rest of the world combined (not just the rest of the US) in the early 1920's came perilously close to bankruptcy a decade later.

They try to perpetuate themselves but if idiocy is allowed then yes its still possible for them to fail, but very difficult even then. As you note Ford didn't go bankrupt, they should've but didn't, and they still exist to this day nearly a century later.

Reality says

Real historical monopolies almost always involved government enforcement. The government is the only one that can actually enforce economic monopoly by preventing others from entering.

The gov. gets involved at the behest of these corps though. You're totally ignoring or downplaying the corrupting influence they have on the government.

Reality says

Campaign volunteers hours times minimum wage (or more) is considered private political contribution.

For accounting purposes sure but most of these people get paid nothing for their time and that has been true for decades.

Reality says

My point is that you end up with monopoly or oligopoly eventually with any corporation, once they get to that point they start using their wealth to become self perpetuating by corrupting the government.

First of all, monopolies and oligopolies do not reach that eventuality before their core competence is rendered obsolete in a competitive market place.

What? Are you in America? Right now most of the major industries in the US are oligopolies that heavily lobby the government to prevent the free market from working.

Cellular: 4 carriers, massive lobbying spending, higher prices than in most other countries.

Medical insurance: just 3 or 4 insurers in each state, massive lobbying spending, exemption from anti-trust law, and higher prices than in most other countries

Internet access: http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/09/29/paying-too-much-for-broadband-revolt/100973/?source=patrick.net

Retail: Walmart (note they number 90 on the list of biggest campaign donors)

Banking: Just a few large banks left

All of it cause by massive campaign "contributions" which everyone knows are simply bribes to spin the laws in favor of the briber.

I say elimination of that bribery is the answer.

If you say that the answer is not to eliminate the bribery, then what is the answer?

If you say that the answer is not to eliminate the bribery, then what is the answer?

Learn German, French, Swedish, and/or Norwegian.

I'd say Japanese, but they're deeper in the hole than us.

There's also Canada, Australia, NZ, Ireland, and the UK, but the first two are rather bubbly in the nice areas due to supply difficulties, and the latter two are as poled as we are, debt-wise.

Moving to NZ is like moving to an offworld colony almost, but it can be nice.

Reality says

You can't even buy a megaphone to pronounce your goals or ideas without some kind of funding.

That was already addressed (ie. petitions) for the penniless.

Reality says

First of all, every single official is potentially corruptible . . . simply because s/he has to eat, clothe, shelter, and has family and friends.

Of course, but then that is why we have a system in place to replace them if they get corrupted. Which is the best that you can reasonably do when you consider that everyone can get corrupted over time. However not everyone starts out that way.

You refuse to consider it possible that any government regulator or official can do his or her job either competently or ethically and refuse to consider it possible to have a good government and in fact believe they're all evil and enslave people. If you believe this to be true there is nothing to talk about WRT government reform since its all pointless anyways or at least schizophrenic.

Reality says

What's with the fascination with the one place in the world where a brief period of anarchy worked better than all the governments before or since at that same place?

What is with this fascination with a unsustainable brief period in time in a place that has known almost nothing but war and brutal poverty before and after? If for a second you are happy in a place that is at all other times hell would you call it heaven too?

If you say that the answer is not to eliminate the bribery, then what is the answer?

He sees the lacky being bribed (government officials) as the problem and not the briber (corps). The reality is you have to address both problems but you can't start addressing one side without first solving the other. Its kind've a chicken and the egg scenario right now and it has me quite pessimistic to be honest but you have to at least try to fix things. The alternative is unconscionable.