Quote Originally Posted by CoccoBill View Post
Also, decentralization and unregulation are not principles of free markets.
They are, which suggests you're defining them differently. In political contexts, when we say regulation and centralization, we mean things that arise from outside forces, meaning laws are passed and the market is changed regardless of the goings on in that market. Structures and standards are natural in markets.

The party tasked with oversight duties. It's much better to have limited oversight than no oversight.
Continue with this logic. When you wish to put a check on power, how is this accomplished by using a more powerful power with no checks?

I've said this a few times before, there was nothing egalitarian about communism. It was pure oligarchical tyranny masquerading as socialism.
Note that I said "theoretically egalitarian." Part of the theory behind communism was that it would empower the masses by using strict regulatory oversight. The results showed that the theory was wrong.

It's hard to find theoretical distinctions between communism and socialism. Marx noted that fully enacted socialism would be communism.

A society will always have its elite, those with more power than others. Human greed and self-preservation will take care of that.
A lesson of economics that people don't wanna hear is that greed is good. Greed is why society has food abundance, central heating, cars, smart phones, you name it. It is when greed has government power that it is not good. I can further explain if you don't see the connection.

Wealth tends to concentrate through oligarchy, meritocracy and plutocracy. If a society does not have an elected government, one will be provided for them by the powerful. The only known solution that even tries to ensure the "government" acts in the best interest of it's members, is a democratically elected government. To guarantee the government does not step into the territory you describe above, it needs to have some sort of collectively agreed contract to not do so. A citizen's way to affect the government is by voting, each person has one vote.
Is your vote more powerful when it's vague and provided once every two years or when it's specific and provided many times daily? Claiming democracy is a good is not a rebuttal to my argument since I'm miles beyond that point already by promoting democracy on steroids.

On top of that the Kochs of the world can throw millions into lobbying. I'm sure you would agree that's hell of a lot more powerful than one vote? I would call that much more direct power than a single senator or congressman has, since it can swing several votes.
Why does this mean that the solution must be to make those with power less influenced by those without power? Kochs having lobbying power does not show a problem with them; it shows a problem with the government. Citizens should be able to influence their situation with their capital. You do it, I do it, it's about as normal as it gets. Us doing this, especially when rich people do it, is integral to societal prosperity. It's when the government steps in and gives special favors that this stops being the case.

Fortunately money equals speech only in the US and some other rampantly corrupt societies.
What are these other societies where money is speech?

Optimally voting should be the way to affect the government, not bribery.
First off, lobbying and bribery are two totally different things. Lobbying is an incredibly good thing; the problem is when government has power over things it shouldn't. The solution isn't to take away the lobbying.

There's too much double standard going on. Average citizens have tremendous lobbying power. A member of the NRA pays a tiny fraction of his income for a lobbying juggernaut.



Money (or what ever currency there would be without governments) can buy favors, goods, violence etc. The person with the most currency will have the most power. Without a government maybe Kochs would have less than now, I don't know, but someone would have more than others, with no government to keep them in check.
So, you're afraid of the Kochs having too much power so you wish to create an entity with tremendously greater power? Why? Because you get the vote? But you had a much more effective vote back before you constructed the tremendously greater power in the first place. Color me confused.

Absolutely not. Decisions should be based on objective scientific data.
Most of the time, this is not available. Which means that typically the most familiar with an issue are those most affected by it. This is not always the case, but this reality is why economics teaches it.