The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Bakustra]

<snip>

Right, continue to post incoherent bullshit non-sequiturs and unjustified blanket claims all you want.

Does not apply to monopolization... conflating "could" and "would"...

Just wow.

Explain how your argument (which is about the intersection of the private sector with the public sector) applies to an individual establishing a monopoly (which is often entirely within the private sector). Explain why something that could be harmful should be treated as automatically harmful. Explain how telling people how they can spend their money is protecting their properties. Go right ahead and explain them, if you please. Explain why the primary problem with regulatory capture is the possibility of misusing eminent domain, while you're at it.

[Lord Zentei]

No, you goddamned idiot: it is your job to justify your ridiculous string of non-sequiturs so as to make attempts at debate meaningful. I'm not going to waste time on defending strawmen, or trying to explain things to someone who isn't making any fucking sense.

[Bakustra]

No, you goddamned idiot: it is your job to justify your ridiculous string of non-sequiturs so as to make attempts at debate meaningful.

My original contention is that antitrust legislation, all effective measures to prevent regulatory capture, and so on, are infringements upon the property rights of individuals. That is to say, anti-trust legislation aims to prevent individuals from using their properties in specific ways (that is, to control more than a certain share of a particular industry), preventing regulatory capture and other corruption requires similar levels of prevention (limiting them from using their property to lobby for their interests). These are infringements of property rights because they restrict people's ability to do what they want with their property.

This does not mean that such infringements are not beneficent, but that does not stop them from being infringements upon property rights in the same way that illegalizing dangerous means of speech or expression or assembly (shouting fire in a crowded theater, rioting) are not infringements, even though people agree that those are justifiable ones.

However, historically, such concepts were introduced by social democrats and socialists, who sought to replace/alter capitalism with a better system. They are concepts designed to modify capitalism, which was found to produce inhumane results, and instead direct it towards humane results. Therefore, these concepts cannot really be called "capitalist" in the same way that environmental regulations cannot be called "pro-business".

[Lord Zentei]

My original contention is that antitrust legislation, all effective measures to prevent regulatory capture, and so on, are infringements upon the property rights of individuals. That is to say, anti-trust legislation aims to prevent individuals from using their properties in specific ways (that is, to control more than a certain share of a particular industry), preventing regulatory capture and other corruption requires similar levels of prevention (limiting them from using their property to lobby for their interests). These are infringements of property rights because they restrict people's ability to do what they want with their property.

Antitrust legislation and attempts to prevent regulatory capture don't go together. Anti-trust legislation is arguably a transgression against property rights, but mechanisms to prevent regulatory capture are not. In the former case, you're actively using force to prevent people from using free competition and voluntary exchanges from gaining an edge on others, but in the latter, you're preventing them from using proxies to use such tactics for themselves against others.

This does not mean that such infringements are not beneficent, but that does not stop them from being infringements upon property rights in the same way that illegalizing dangerous means of speech or expression or assembly (shouting fire in a crowded theater, rioting) are not infringements, even though people agree that those are justifiable ones.

I think you mean that they are infringements, not that they are not infringements.

However, historically, such concepts were introduced by social democrats and socialists, who sought to replace/alter capitalism with a better system. They are concepts designed to modify capitalism, which was found to produce inhumane results, and instead direct it towards humane results. Therefore, these concepts cannot really be called "capitalist" in the same way that environmental regulations cannot be called "pro-business".

That doesn't follow. Regulatory capture makes the market less efficient, hence preventing it can be seen as pro-market. Who first implemented some form of anti-lobbying regulations doesn't change that.

[Bakustra]

My original contention is that antitrust legislation, all effective measures to prevent regulatory capture, and so on, are infringements upon the property rights of individuals. That is to say, anti-trust legislation aims to prevent individuals from using their properties in specific ways (that is, to control more than a certain share of a particular industry), preventing regulatory capture and other corruption requires similar levels of prevention (limiting them from using their property to lobby for their interests). These are infringements of property rights because they restrict people's ability to do what they want with their property.

Antitrust legislation and attempts to prevent regulatory capture don't go together. Anti-trust legislation is arguably a transgression against property rights, but mechanisms to prevent regulatory capture are not. In the former case, you're actively using force to prevent people from using free competition and voluntary exchanges from gaining an edge on others, but in the latter, you're preventing them from using proxies to use such tactics for themselves against others.

Yes, and in the process you are infringing upon their right to use their property as they see fit! This is a good thing, but that, again, does not make it an infringement! Instituting measures to allow people to express unpopular opinions requires stopping people from expressing themselves by shutting them up. That is at the core of how we understand the right to freedom of speech, but in order to protect the freedom of speech of a minority, we must infringe upon the expression of a majority. It's small, but a very important distinction.

While we're pointing out errors, the second "from" in your third sentence should probably be a "to".

This does not mean that such infringements are not beneficent, but that does not stop them from being infringements upon property rights in the same way that illegalizing dangerous means of speech or expression or assembly (shouting fire in a crowded theater, rioting) are not infringements, even though people agree that those are justifiable ones.

I think you mean that they are infringements, not that they are not infringements.

Thank you.

However, historically, such concepts were introduced by social democrats and socialists, who sought to replace/alter capitalism with a better system. They are concepts designed to modify capitalism, which was found to produce inhumane results, and instead direct it towards humane results. Therefore, these concepts cannot really be called "capitalist" in the same way that environmental regulations cannot be called "pro-business".

That doesn't follow. Regulatory capture makes the market less efficient, hence preventing it can be seen as pro-market. Who first implemented some form of anti-lobbying regulations doesn't change that.

Why does it inherently make the market less efficient? For example, a company using its influence to end environmental regulations makes companies far more efficient, because they no longer have to institute controls and expend time and money in doing so and maintaining them. Does that not therefore make the market more efficient, because its constituent parts have become more efficient?

[Big Orange]

I suspect that the kind of people you talk about, at least those of them who aren't too emotionally invested in the status quo, would be be as willing if not more so to take part in such actions were it not for circumstances. A lot of those worst hit by the excesses of capitalism simply won't have the time or the energy for activism - they have dependents to look after, job opportunities to chase, and so on. Students (among others) tend to have fewer such constraints and thus can spend more of their time and energy on what they percieve as the wider problems of society. Of course, they are rewarded for their public spirit by being completely ignored by the establishment and by being labelled spoiled layabouts by reactionary turds.

And the dramatic August riots in the UK had its roots partially in the excesses of three or so decades of Neoliberal Capitalism, but parts of the public showing their discontent in the streets of the economically destroyed urban areas was very unfocused and very inarticulate, so the street demonstrations quickly degenerated into opportunistic looting and wanton vandalism (with a handful killed as a result).

With allegedly one in three street properties empty in the UK and chief executives on average earning 236 times more than the majority of employees in a typical FTSE company (also in the UK), there's been a grand economic implosion in the West, excerbated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, India modernising and the West doing business with East Asian quasi/pseudo Communists in the 90s and the 00s, spelling disaster for indigenous Western workers who have been priced out by the flood of cheap labour from the somewhat poorer but developed enough parts of Eurasia that were more remote during the Cold War.

Its seems that economy in large parts of the United States, UK/Commonwealth, and EU in recent years is chronically piss poor at generating reasonably paid fulltime work and providing affordable housing for the young adults and youth (who should also completely forget about the comparatively generous retirement plans their parents and grand parents enjoyed). The business elites will saw away the tree branch they're pearched on . I wouldn't be surprised if the ongoing economic implosion will eventually end in a political explosion, with the UK August riots on hindsight seen as just a practice run...

[K. A. Pital]

I must concur with Bakustra; regulatory capture does not automatically make markets "less efficient". It depends strictly on the nature and character of the regulatory capture.

To make the point clear, imagine a market where a suboptimal productive state exists due to regulations that are aimed to "soften" some side effects (distributory regulations, environmental regulations, whatever). Imagine a round of lobbying that repeals this regulation and the market achieves productive efficiency, the point representing the new state standing firmly on the PE curve.

How the hell is that "making markets less efficient" if in fact it the effect is the exact opposite?

The only argument against lobbying can be a moral one (i.e. "for the inherent dangers that lobbying MAY create a non-efficient market/adverse ecological situation/administratively enforced monopoly w/social loss/etc. we restrict lobbying"), not a one that falsely assumes every instance of lobbying lessens the efficiency of the markets. And this is why I say again - terming everything in "property rights" and "efficiency" has an adverse conquence of (a) throwing morals out of the window from the very start (b) ignoring the real, not stipulated, consequence of a action one dislikes.

By maintaining rule of law through independent courts, a political process with clearly defined parameters and a regulatory framework that is not designed by a select group whose disputes they are supposed to arbitrate.

This ignores an important observation about reality, which is that regulatory framework is more often than not designed, and implemented by members of the same group whose disputes they are supposed to arbitrate. I haven't seen governments that wouldn't be massively composed of active or former capitalists; I haven't seen bank regulation panels not chock-full with former bankers, I haven't seen industry regulation panels not full with "experts from the industry" i.e. former corporate owners or corporate employees who obviously keep an allegiance to the "group" the arbiters are supposed to oversee.

Try talking to libertarians and say that bankers should be banned from banking regulations commitees. TOTALITARIANISM!!! WAAAH!!! is probably the first thing one would hear immediately upon suggesting such an idea. Same goes for the rest. The idea of separating the group whose disputes are to be regulated and the watchmen seems nice, but so far no right-wing force that I know of has suggest on placing such limitations on people to prevent it. Because the goal of creating an independent regulatory body conflicts with the "individual freedom at all costs!" mantra, which would say that you can't unfairly penalize former bankers/capitalists/ etc. by banning them from public posts. Uh.

[Lord Zentei]

Antitrust legislation and attempts to prevent regulatory capture don't go together. Anti-trust legislation is arguably a transgression against property rights, but mechanisms to prevent regulatory capture are not. In the former case, you're actively using force to prevent people from using free competition and voluntary exchanges from gaining an edge on others, but in the latter, you're preventing them from using proxies to use such tactics for themselves against others.

Yes, and in the process you are infringing upon their right to use their property as they see fit! This is a good thing, but that, again, does not make it an infringement! Instituting measures to allow people to express unpopular opinions requires stopping people from expressing themselves by shutting them up. That is at the core of how we understand the right to freedom of speech, but in order to protect the freedom of speech of a minority, we must infringe upon the expression of a majority. It's small, but a very important distinction.

No. This would be using your property to transgess against other people's ability to use their property. For a society to respect property rights does not mean the ability that so-and-so gains the ability to do whatever he wants. That is a blatant strawman.

Why does it inherently make the market less efficient? For example, a company using its influence to end environmental regulations makes companies far more efficient, because they no longer have to institute controls and expend time and money in doing so and maintaining them. Does that not therefore make the market more efficient, because its constituent parts have become more efficient?

No, it certainly doesnt. The efficiency of the market is not the same thing as the "efficiency" of individual actors and firms.

[Simon_Jester]

If there is a restriction on how much of an industry you can own, because of antitrust laws, how is that not a limit or infringement on your property rights?

Sure, it's there for a good reason and protects the property rights of others in some respects, but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect the property of the person who's trying to establish a monopoly.

Which, I agree with Stas, is why it's a bad idea to cast all arguments about economic policy in terms of property rights, any more than we cast all conversations in terms of freedom of speech. The fact that speech should be free may be largely irrelevant to whether you ought to stop saying any particular thing; the thesis that people ought to be able to own and control property as they wish may be largely irrelevant to a particular question about what to do with the property.

[Lord Zentei]

I must concur with Bakustra; regulatory capture does not automatically make markets "less efficient". It depends strictly on the nature and character of the regulatory capture.

To make the point clear, imagine a market where a suboptimal productive state exists due to regulations that are aimed to "soften" some side effects (distributory regulations, environmental regulations, whatever). Imagine a round of lobbying that repeals this regulation and the market achieves productive efficiency, the point representing the new state standing firmly on the PE curve.

How the hell is that "making markets less efficient" if in fact it the effect is the exact opposite?

Well, in the case of environmental regulations, regulations would clearly limit the negative externalities of pollution. Distributive regulations would on the other hand reduce efficiency. But saying that there are examples of repealing regulations through regulatory capture can increase market efficiency doesn't refute my point. I entirely agree that repealing regulations can improve efficiency, and it doesn't matter that sometimes this comes about due to lobbyists. But we were talking about the problems faced by America today specifically, so my argument wasn't an absolute one.

The only argument against lobbying can be a moral one (i.e. "for the inherent dangers that lobbying MAY create a non-efficient market/adverse ecological situation/administratively enforced monopoly w/social loss/etc. we restrict lobbying"), not a one that falsely assumes every instance of lobbying lessens the efficiency of the markets. And this is why I say again - terming everything in "property rights" and "efficiency" has an adverse conquence of (a) throwing morals out of the window from the very start (b) ignoring the real, not stipulated, consequence of a action one dislikes.

OK, first of all I have never said that all lobbying lessens the efficiency of the market. Moreover, if you assert that the phrase "we restrict lobbying because of the harm it MAY cause" is preferable to "we assume that lobbying reduces market efficiency, hence it is bad" I'm left wondering what the difference in effect is. In both cases, you say that you want less of it.

And as for the claims regarding the consequences of expressing things in terms of property rights and efficiency... seriously, WTF?

By maintaining rule of law through independent courts, a political process with clearly defined parameters and a regulatory framework that is not designed by a select group whose disputes they are supposed to arbitrate.

This ignores an important observation about reality, which is that regulatory framework is more often than not designed, and implemented by members of the same group whose disputes they are supposed to arbitrate. I haven't seen governments that wouldn't be massively composed of active or former capitalists; I haven't seen bank regulation panels not chock-full with former bankers, I haven't seen industry regulation panels not full with "experts from the industry" i.e. former corporate owners or corporate employees who obviously keep an allegiance to the "group" the arbiters are supposed to oversee.

Try talking to libertarians and say that bankers should be banned from banking regulations commitees. TOTALITARIANISM!!! WAAAH!!! is probably the first thing one would hear immediately upon suggesting such an idea. Same goes for the rest. The idea of separating the group whose disputes are to be regulated and the watchmen seems nice, but so far no right-wing force that I know of has suggest on placing such limitations on people to prevent it. Because the goal of creating an independent regulatory body conflicts with the "individual freedom at all costs!" mantra, which would say that you can't unfairly penalize former bankers/capitalists/ etc. by banning them from public posts. Uh.

Who is talking about outright banning bankers and capitalists from posts? There's a difference between having regulations custom designed by the companies and banks for their benefit and people with knowledge of and experience with the business providing input into the regulatory framework. Why are you interpreting this in black/white terms?

[Lord Zentei]

If there is a restriction on how much of an industry you can own, because of antitrust laws, how is that not a limit or infringement on your property rights? <snip>

I grow tired of strawman distortions. Kindly read what I wrote, not what people keep insisting that I wrote.

[K. A. Pital]

OK, first of all I have never said that all lobbying lessens the efficiency of the market.

In this case what grounds you have to create anti-lobbying legislation? Legislation often outlasts the current economic situation. If lobbying is not opposed on principle but instead because exactly today it had a consequence you don't like (which you theoretically admit it may not have tomorrow or in some other case) - what is the point? You can't implement long-term measures. And patchwork legislation for a certain period will just make people laugh at your political measures.

And as for the claims regarding the consequences of expressing things in terms of property rights and efficiency... seriously, WTF?

Neither of the term has any moral connotations. It may be prudent from the point of view of "rights" to deny some food to a starving person not to violate the property rights of the owner of that food, if rights are absolute. When you start a logical construction from absolute rights that have to be protected and efficiency of the economical production machine without questioning the goals of said production themselves, you start by explicitly ignoring any moral dimensions to the question. You have to forcibly add them to the discussion, because neither of the two concepts - "rights" or "efficiency" - encompasses them. For example, one can criticize a zero-growth economy which has a static, but decent life level for the citizenry as "inefficient", since it may not fully utilize its productive forces for some reasons - be they ecological, humanitarian, or stem from a desire to have a reserve productive power that can be utilized in case of emergency or war, irrelevant. It would be extremely hard to level a moral criticism against such a society, especially in absence of external threats, and yet it is trivially easy to level a criticism from an "efficiency" point of view (look! they aren't fully using productive capacities!) or a "rights" point of view (look! they're trampling on property rights daily!).

Vice-versa it is the same. It is trivially easy to deflect a moral criticism of a society that is clearly deficient from an utilitarian point of view by saying that this society achieved efficiency and protects property rights well. That would be irrelevant to the moral criticism, of course, but it does not stop people to argue in such terms.

Who is talking about outright banning bankers and capitalists from posts? There's a difference between having regulations custom designed by the companies and banks for their benefit and people with knowledge of and experience with the business providing input into the regulatory framework. Why are you interpreting this in black/white terms?

The line is very thin. People with knowledge and experience, but without corresponding interest to benefit their own field of experience and work/business? That is even more of a utopia than I've ever read from libertarians. The perfect "homo politicus", completely separate from his economic interests! That is a myth; a gross distortion that should not be allowed to continue existing in the brains of man. And this is why I put it in such "black and white terms", to shake off these illusions of impartial regulators that people continue having.

You can only say "well, they are dependent to some extent on the industry they're regulating", not use the term "independent regulators" or "regulatory framework that is not designed by a select group whose disputes they are supposed to arbitrate". You can only hope that people will not pursue special interests of their particular class and/or social group, more generally, and try to provide incentives to ignore the most obvious class interest in favor of impartiality.

But as the recent "Who watches the watchmen" buffonade has demonstrated once again, regulators picked from organizations they are supposed to regulate don't become "impartial" once they open the door to their new cabinet in Government Agency A. Instead, and often disregarding serious disincentives such as penalties for corruption, etc. they continue to follow their class and group interests by "designing" a system which is openly favoring the agents. The US banking regulation problem was not that the regulators were "asleep", the regulators were in god damn cahoots with bankers and they were fully responsible for what happened every bit as much as the bankers themselves.

The phenomena of the "revolving door" can only be curbed if you are willing to introduce certain rules, like banning people from powerful corporations from holding government posts. But like I said, that would lead to cries of "opression" from the people who consciously aim to enter government politics with the malevolent intent of subverting them to their own ends. I am sorry, but that's simply the way it is.

[Lord Zentei]

OK, first of all I have never said that all lobbying lessens the efficiency of the market.

In this case what grounds you have to create anti-lobbying legislation? Legislation often outlasts the current economic situation. If lobbying is not opposed on principle but instead because exactly today it had a consequence you don't like (which you theoretically admit it may not have tomorrow or in some other case) - what is the point? You can't implement long-term measures. And patchwork legislation for a certain period will just make people laugh at your political measures.

This strikes me as a rather odd argument. Why does all lobbying have to be destructive on order for laws balancing it to be justifiable?

And as for the claims regarding the consequences of expressing things in terms of property rights and efficiency... seriously, WTF?

Neither of the term has any moral connotations. It may be prudent from the point of view of "rights" to deny some food to a starving person not to violate the property rights of the owner of that food, if rights are absolute. When you start a logical construction from absolute rights that have to be protected and efficiency of the economical production machine without questioning the goals of said production themselves, you start by explicitly ignoring any moral dimensions to the question. You have to forcibly add them to the discussion, because neither of the two concepts - "rights" or "efficiency" - encompasses them. For example, one can criticize a zero-growth economy which has a static, but decent life level for the citizenry as "inefficient", since it may not fully utilize its productive forces for some reasons - be they ecological, humanitarian, or stem from a desire to have a reserve productive power that can be utilized in case of emergency or war, irrelevant. It would be extremely hard to level a moral criticism against such a society, especially in absence of external threats, and yet it is trivially easy to level a criticism from an "efficiency" point of view (look! they aren't fully using productive capacities!) or a "rights" point of view (look! they're trampling on property rights daily!).

Oh, bullshit. By their very nature, rights define the moral obligations others have with respect to you. And obviously you should criticize a zero-growth economy if there's an ability to improve it. If you assert that it's hard to level moral criticism against such a society, then that's a weakness of your moral philosophy, not a strength.

Who is talking about outright banning bankers and capitalists from posts? There's a difference between having regulations custom designed by the companies and banks for their benefit and people with knowledge of and experience with the business providing input into the regulatory framework. Why are you interpreting this in black/white terms?

The line is very thin. People with knowledge and experience, but without corresponding interest to benefit their own field of experience and work/business? That is even more of a utopia than I've ever read from libertarians. The perfect "homo politicus", completely separate from his economic interests! That is a myth; a gross distortion that should not be allowed to continue existing in the brains of man. And this is why I put it in such "black and white terms", to shake off these illusions of impartial regulators that people continue having.

You express it in black/white terms because you believe the situation to be black/white, in other words. So, what's the alternative? Rely only on people who have no knowledge or experience to design all the regulations?

You can only say "well, they are dependent to some extent on the industry they're regulating", not use the term "independent regulators" or "regulatory framework that is not designed by a select group whose disputes they are supposed to arbitrate". You can only hope that people will not pursue special interests of their particular class and/or social group, more generally, and try to provide incentives to ignore the most obvious class interest in favor of impartiality.

But as the recent "Who watches the watchmen" buffonade has demonstrated once again, regulators picked from organizations they are supposed to regulate don't become "impartial" once they open the door to their new cabinet in Government Agency A. Instead, and often disregarding serious disincentives such as penalties for corruption, etc. they continue to follow their class and group interests by "designing" a system which is openly favoring the agents. The US banking regulation problem was not that the regulators were "asleep", the regulators were in god damn cahoots with bankers and they were fully responsible for what happened every bit as much as the bankers themselves.

The problem was that regulators were picked almost exclusively from the banks and corporations and moved directly from these businesses to hand picked cushy jobs, not that they merely participated.

The phenomena of the "revolving door" can only be curbed if you are willing to introduce certain rules, like banning people from powerful corporations from holding government posts. But like I said, that would lead to cries of "opression" from the people who consciously aim to enter government politics with the malevolent intent of subverting them to their own ends. I am sorry, but that's simply the way it is.

Right, so people who want to subvert government to their own ends will complain when this is made more difficult for them. What's your point again?

[Bakustra]

Why is a zero-growth society immoral? That seems to suggest that the very consequences of physical law are immoral, as there are not infinite resources available and ultimately all growth must add up to zero. Or, on the contrary, why is economic growth automatically good? I would not call the economic growth the United States has gone through in the last 40 years a good thing, as it has resulted in a net decline in wages and the concentration of overwhelming amounts of wealth in the top 20% of incomes. Would you?

For that matter, this seems to suggest that a society that grows less economically is worse than one that grows more. Why is that the case?

Rights do not automatically define the obligations of others, either. The idea that the right to swing my fist ends at your nose, to invoke cliche, has never been fully accepted by people, especially those in power.

Well, if you wanted to introduce economic regulations with actual teeth, you would avoid hiring regulators for whom their best interest is to make economic regulations toothless. Ideally, you could hire academics who have no vested self-interest in commodities speculation or mortgage packaging or the like to determine what the rules should be. What you're suggesting is that it's ridiculous to categorically bar foxes from guarding your henhouses.

Finally, you suggest that only bankers and businessmen have any of the knowledge or experience necessary to design regulation, but then you say that the problem was that regulators were solely bankers and businessmen! Which one is it? It can hardly be both!

[Lord Zentei]

Bakustra, try reading what I wrote again:

And obviously you should criticize a zero-growth economy if there's an ability to improve it.

Understand the qualification? Moreover, this statement, like economic statements in general, is to be understood to be made ceteris paribus.

And yes, rights do define the obligations of others with respect to you. That's their function.

Finally, you suggest that only bankers and businessmen have any of the knowledge or experience necessary to design regulation, but then you say that the problem was that regulators were solely bankers and businessmen! Which one is it? It can hardly be both!

Why is it that you morons assume that everything must be one extreme or the other?

[Bakustra]

Bakustra, try reading what I wrote again:

And obviously you should criticize a zero-growth economy if there's an ability to improve it.

Understand the qualification? Moreover, this statement, like economic statements in general, is to be understood to be made ceteris paribus.

And yes, rights do define the obligations of others with respect to you. That's their function.

Define improvement, though. Because there are very different definitions of that word when used to apply to the economy. There are plenty of people who would define the trend in the US since the 1970s as a good one. There are plenty of people who believe that growth of any kind is a good. These sorts of people would consider any zero-growth economy with room to grow as being able to be improved, regardless of the long-term consequences. So it's not obvious that your statement was intended to mean "if a zero-growth society can increase to another plateau without grievous short- and long-term consequences, and it does not do so, then it is a vile state" solely. Don't depend on other people to read your mind or assume that you have the most benevolent of intentions.

Explain how the right to express oneself implicitly restricts that right to certain expressions. That is what "rights define the obligation of others" ultimately means- that "freedom of speech" means "speech is restricted in specific ways". While the common understanding is such that people don't assume that the right to express oneself includes suppressing the speech of others or inflicting physical harm, that is because these restrictions are within the common imagination. But pretending that rights actually implicitly include these things is an attempt to salvage your conception of rights as good in and of themselves.

Finally, you suggest that only bankers and businessmen have any of the knowledge or experience necessary to design regulation, but then you say that the problem was that regulators were solely bankers and businessmen! Which one is it? It can hardly be both!

Why is it that you morons assume that everything must be one extreme or the other?

Because you make absolute statements like "If you bar bankers, then the only people you can use to regulate banks won't have a clue!!!" and then follow them up with contradictions. Stop blaming other people for your own deep inadequacies in interpersonal communication.

[Lord Zentei]

Define improvement, though. Because there are very different definitions of that word when used to apply to the economy. There are plenty of people who would define the trend in the US since the 1970s as a good one. There are plenty of people who believe that growth of any kind is a good. These sorts of people would consider any zero-growth economy with room to grow as being able to be improved, regardless of the long-term consequences. So it's not obvious that your statement was intended to mean "if a zero-growth society can increase to another plateau without grievous short- and long-term consequences, and it does not do so, then it is a vile state" solely. Don't depend on other people to read your mind or assume that you have the most benevolent of intentions.

Good grief, are you actually attempting to be as disingenuous as you possibly can here?

Explain how the right to express oneself implicitly restricts that right to certain expressions. That is what "rights define the obligation of others" ultimately means- that "freedom of speech" means "speech is restricted in specific ways". While the common understanding is such that people don't assume that the right to express oneself includes suppressing the speech of others or inflicting physical harm, that is because these restrictions are within the common imagination. But pretending that rights actually implicitly include these things is an attempt to salvage your conception of rights as good in and of themselves.

Your rights are limited in the case of acts where you harm others, since they have the right not to be harmed. What's so hard to understand about this?

Because you make absolute statements like "If you bar bankers, then the only people you can use to regulate banks won't have a clue!!!" and then follow them up with contradictions. Stop blaming other people for your own deep inadequacies in interpersonal communication.

Again, try actually reading what I wrote, and in context. Try understanding the concept of hyperbole while you do so.

[Bakustra]

How do you prioritize the right not to be harmed over the right to harm, without something else, aka morality, in the mix? That's what Stas was talking about with morality and the problem with expressing things solely in terms of rights. There is no way to determine that the right to not be harmed outweighs the right to harm without something else to give weight to them. That is why expressing rights as though they alone can determine things is ridiculous.

You said that it was possible to somehow reliably garner individuals who come from business, and have a vested self-interest in loose regulations, and convince them to act against their interests. Stas laughed at that, and you responded with saying that the alternative was people without any experience or knowledge and that he was reducing this to black and white. Don't say stupid shit if you can avoid it, please. Again, it's like saying that you could reliably hire foxes to guard henhouses successfully.

[Lord Zentei]

Obviously you can express it in those terms if you can quantify the scale of the damage inflicted, and require that interactions be voluntary and/or compensated for. By contrast, there's no unambiguous way of asserting what you may or may not do in human interactions without first defining people's rights.

You said that it was possible to somehow reliably garner individuals who come from business, and have a vested self-interest in loose regulations, and convince them to act against their interests. Stas laughed at that, and you responded with saying that the alternative was people without any experience or knowledge and that he was reducing this to black and white. Don't say stupid shit if you can avoid it, please. Again, it's like saying that you could reliably hire foxes to guard henhouses successfully.

I see: so you choose to persist in being a completely clueless idiot. In rebuttal, please shut the fuck up.

[K. A. Pital]

This strikes me as a rather odd argument. Why does all lobbying have to be destructive on order for laws balancing it to be justifiable?

It does not, but the grounds for justification should lie elsewhere, not in the fact that lobbying makes markets less efficient. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, bullshit. By their very nature, rights define the moral obligations others have with respect to you. And obviously you should criticize a zero-growth economy if there's an ability to improve it. If you assert that it's hard to level moral criticism against such a society, then that's a weakness of your moral philosophy, not a strength.

Why? Like I said, the zero-growth economy may pursue zero growth for reasons completely unrelated to efficiency. Imagine someone builds an arcology on a forest planet. Obviously the arcology could grow by cutting down trees, sucking out natural resources, etc. However, if the arcology is self-sufficient and non-growing for reasons unrelated to economy itself, the criticism would be completely misguided. That's like saying there's still whales to hunt down, a slack that the Japanese whalers should pick up. What is the point of this purely economic criticism? None.

Property rights do not define any moral obligations. A property right may be creating a negative utility (like in the example with the starving person and a person who has enough food for both to survive). I was not speaking about "rights" in general, but specifically about property rights. You should understand that absolute property rights do not entail any obligations. The owner of a factory may bankrupt it and use funds for personal consumption instead for no reasons other than "I so want to snort lots of cocaine!" From the grounds of property rights you cannot criticise his decision. He decided that the alternative option of running the enterprise is not worth it. He did not infringe on the property rights of others during the process of selling his own property.

You seem to be of the opinion that property rights somehow create obligations. They do not. My right to own an object, item, money or whatever does not, itself, create ANY obligations whatsoever. It is simply a right to own/use/dispose. And that is why property rights are completely void of any morality.

You express it in black/white terms because you believe the situation to be black/white, in other words. So, what's the alternative? Rely only on people who have no knowledge or experience to design all the regulations?

Call them straight up from universities if you must. That will give them the education they so need. Create a training program so that newcomers may gather experience. Of course, that is all rather "expensive" and would undoubtedly be called "pork", "government slack" and destroyed by the establishment at the first attempt to introduce it. So my good wishes are absolutely irrelevant as I have no power to implement my social-technocratic designs, being a powerless prole at the very bottom of the ladder.

The problem was that regulators were picked almost exclusively from the banks and corporations and moved directly from these businesses to hand picked cushy jobs, not that they merely participated.

You asked the question about knowledge and experience above. How else would you find people "experienced" in the banking field, if not by asking bankers? Many libertarians follow this logical train of thought to an end, and declare that government regulatory agencies are a waste of time and thus should be abolished entirely in favor of voluntary association of experts and bodies corporate from within the industry/sector, who will police, observe, supervise and control their respective industries and sectors. That is the logical end of this argument. Alas.

Right, so people who want to subvert government to their own ends will complain when this is made more difficult for them. What's your point again?

You won't be able to introduce any limiting measures to any right-wing ideological platform or any right-wing political force. The fact that right-wing political forces have never supported any sort of control mechanism that would prevent regulators being drafted from the same pool as they're supposed to regulate (not that I know of; enlighten me if they ever did) only underscores my point.

It is not them who will "complain", it is you who will be marginalized at any right-wing party gathering when you'll voice your ideas of erecting barriers and introducing limitations for people who may subvert the regulation. That was my point.

[Bakustra]

Obviously you can express it in those terms if you can quantify the scale of the damage inflicted, and require that interactions be voluntary and/or compensated for. By contrast, there's no unambiguous way of asserting what you may or may not do in human interactions without first defining people's rights.

See, you're adding shit onto the concept of rights! You're declaring various things that are not implicit in rights, and so you're demolishing the argument you've presented! These obligations of voluntary and/or compensated interaction are not implicit to rights at all. For that matter, how do you value a human life contra, say, the theft of expensive medicines?

There are plenty of ways to avoid the concept of rights and still "unambiguously" determine what people may or may not do in human interactions. Most of them are inhumane; some are not. But the concept of natural rights is not something that people have held throughout history, and the concept of legal rights only dates to the establishment of laws. Virtue ethics and consequentialism based around the harm principle are examples of moral systems that do not rely on rights to determine how to behave.

[Lord Zentei]

Obviously you can express it in those terms if you can quantify the scale of the damage inflicted, and require that interactions be voluntary and/or compensated for. By contrast, there's no unambiguous way of asserting what you may or may not do in human interactions without first defining people's rights.

See, you're adding shit onto the concept of rights! You're declaring various things that are not implicit in rights, and so you're demolishing the argument you've presented! These obligations of voluntary and/or compensated interaction are not implicit to rights at all. For that matter, how do you value a human life contra, say, the theft of expensive medicines?

You value it by gaugeing how much people value their own lives.

There are plenty of ways to avoid the concept of rights and still "unambiguously" determine what people may or may not do in human interactions. Most of them are inhumane; some are not. But the concept of natural rights is not something that people have held throughout history, and the concept of legal rights only dates to the establishment of laws. Virtue ethics and consequentialism based around the harm principle are examples of moral systems that do not rely on rights to determine how to behave.

Yeah, so: the concept of natural rights has evolved throughout history. And so?

Fuck off, clueless little metoo.

[Lord Zentei]

This strikes me as a rather odd argument. Why does all lobbying have to be destructive on order for laws balancing it to be justifiable?

It does not, but the grounds for justification should lie elsewhere, not in the fact that lobbying makes markets less efficient. That's all I'm saying.

OK, that's makes more sense, though I don't agree. In my view, the justifications for permitting or not permitting it must include market efficiency, as is is a crucial element of the health of the overall economy.

Oh, bullshit. By their very nature, rights define the moral obligations others have with respect to you. And obviously you should criticize a zero-growth economy if there's an ability to improve it. If you assert that it's hard to level moral criticism against such a society, then that's a weakness of your moral philosophy, not a strength.

Why? Like I said, the zero-growth economy may pursue zero growth for reasons completely unrelated to efficiency. Imagine someone builds an arcology on a forest planet. Obviously the arcology could grow by cutting down trees, sucking out natural resources, etc. However, if the arcology is self-sufficient and non-growing for reasons unrelated to economy itself, the criticism would be completely misguided. That's like saying there's still whales to hunt down, a slack that the Japanese whalers should pick up. What is the point of this purely economic criticism? None.

Sustainability is an economic criterion, and long-term growth is negated by ignoring it. And again, my statement is naturally made ceteris paribus.

Property rights do not define any moral obligations. A property right may be creating a negative utility (like in the example with the starving person and a person who has enough food for both to survive). I was not speaking about "rights" in general, but specifically about property rights. You should understand that absolute property rights do not entail any obligations. The owner of a factory may bankrupt it and use funds for personal consumption instead for no reasons other than "I so want to snort lots of cocaine!" From the grounds of property rights you cannot criticise his decision. He decided that the alternative option of running the enterprise is not worth it. He did not infringe on the property rights of others during the process of selling his own property.

You seem to be of the opinion that property rights somehow create obligations. They do not. My right to own an object, item, money or whatever does not, itself, create ANY obligations whatsoever. It is simply a right to own/use/dispose. And that is why property rights are completely void of any morality.

That's a sweeping generalization from an extreme example. Your property rights may not create obligations with respect to how you use that object, but my property rights create obligations in you with respect to how you treat my property, as well as your prior obligations from our mutual contracts.

You express it in black/white terms because you believe the situation to be black/white, in other words. So, what's the alternative? Rely only on people who have no knowledge or experience to design all the regulations?

Call them straight up from universities if you must. That will give them the education they so need. Create a training program so that newcomers may gather experience. Of course, that is all rather "expensive" and would undoubtedly be called "pork", "government slack" and destroyed by the establishment at the first attempt to introduce it. So my good wishes are absolutely irrelevant as I have no power to implement my social-technocratic designs, being a powerless prole at the very bottom of the ladder.

OK, that also works. Of course, training programmes don't always capture the nuances of experience. And to make another extreme example, if we go by the assumption that bankers and businessmen being hired is always to be frowned on... why is it that ex-hackers and ex-cons are often hired to work for law enforcement?

The problem was that regulators were picked almost exclusively from the banks and corporations and moved directly from these businesses to hand picked cushy jobs, not that they merely participated.

You asked the question about knowledge and experience above. How else would you find people "experienced" in the banking field, if not by asking bankers? Many libertarians follow this logical train of thought to an end, and declare that government regulatory agencies are a waste of time and thus should be abolished entirely in favor of voluntary association of experts and bodies corporate from within the industry/sector, who will police, observe, supervise and control their respective industries and sectors. That is the logical end of this argument. Alas.

That's an extreme version of libertarianism, going into anarcho-capitalism. Which I don't subscribe to (as I'm sure you know).

Right, so people who want to subvert government to their own ends will complain when this is made more difficult for them. What's your point again?

You won't be able to introduce any limiting measures to any right-wing ideological platform or any right-wing political force. The fact that right-wing political forces have never supported any sort of control mechanism that would prevent regulators being drafted from the same pool as they're supposed to regulate (not that I know of; enlighten me if they ever did) only underscores my point.

It is not them who will "complain", it is you who will be marginalized at any right-wing party gathering when you'll voice your ideas of erecting barriers and introducing limitations for people who may subvert the regulation. That was my point.

Black-white again, much? Your point may hold merit if you define "prevent regulators from being drafted from the same pool as they're supposed to regulate" as meaning "prevent any of the regulators from being drafted from the same pool as they're supposed to regulate". BTW, the same may hold for how left-wing political forces support working class people being drafted into ministries of labor *.

* Though yes, I'm aware of power disparities in society, don't harp on it.

[K. A. Pital]

In my view, the justifications for permitting or not permitting it must include market efficiency, as is is a crucial element of the health of the overall economy.

In this case you'd be left with evaluating acts of lobbying on a case-by-case basis, trying to find out whether this type of act harms or furthers efficiency.

Sustainability is an economic criterion, and long-term growth is negated by ignoring it. And again, my statement is naturally made ceteris paribus.

Sustainability is not related to efficiency, however, and isolated sectoral sustainability, like the whale population, won't negate long-term growth. There's simply no economic argument not to murder the last whale on Earth.

That's a sweeping generalization from an extreme example. Your property rights may not create obligations with respect to how you use that object, but my property rights create obligations in you with respect to how you treat my property, as well as your prior obligations from our mutual contracts.

If you fire your workers according to rules of the contracts made with the workers and sell your factory that doesn't change the nature of the act. Property creates no obligations. You may, in fact, have property and ignore the demands or pleas of others to enter into a contract and exchange your property and their property. The property right, in its absolute form, only embodies one side of the issue. If the right is absolute, other people may not influence or, worse yet, dictate how you shall use your property within what is allowed by the law. Even if your act is clearly malevolent but you don't break any laws and infringe on property rights of others, from a pure "property rights" ground one may not and will not be able to criticize the act.

And to make another extreme example, if we go by the assumption that bankers and businessmen being hired is always to be frowned on... why is it that ex-hackers and ex-cons are often hired to work for law enforcement?

That is actually a good question, because sometimes people with a criminal past infiltrate law enforcement agencies. You obviously know the murky thrillers where a cop keeps a network of "informants" among the criminal underworld, who work in crime but also keep him informed to go after the "big fish", but in the end he gets corrupted himself and becomes a part of the criminal machine as much as he is a part of law enforcement. When you bring the structures close to each other so that there is a rotation of cadre, people tend to follow their group interests. And when a "cyber security" company releases a program to protect you from the virus which its workers created in their free time as virus-writers, once again it begs the question whether such a conflation is beneficial or counterbeneficial - experience always brings in interests that the person had in his prior job.

That's an extreme version of libertarianism, going into anarcho-capitalism.

That is minarchism, actually; the idea that you can abolish most regulatory agencies and leave the state only with an army and a police whose main task would be the protection of private property. Anarchism goes even further and decides that government itself can be abolished in favor of private entities.

Black-white again, much? Your point may hold merit if you define "prevent regulators from being drafted from the same pool as they're supposed to regulate" as meaning "prevent any of the regulators from being drafted from the same pool as they're supposed to regulate". BTW, the same may hold for how left-wing political forces support working class people being drafted into ministries of labor *.

* Though yes, I'm aware of power disparities in society, don't harp on it.

I'm not harping on it; and I know that left-wing forces are an ugly monster inside, you don't need to lecture me on how bad left-wing movements are - I fully understand it. I support them because the right-wing movements seem worse to me and because right now only the left has a vision of a radically different future society; a rational reconstruction of nature into a more perfect world is in my view a good goal, even if the means are hideous. I don't support them "just because".

And yes, it only becomes a problem if a set of regulators drafted from the same pool can realize their special interest in absence of opposition and side control, for which they should control the entire body. But this is exactly what happened with banking and many other sectors as well.

[Lord Zentei]

In my view, the justifications for permitting or not permitting it must include market efficiency, as is is a crucial element of the health of the overall economy.

In this case you'd be left with evaluating acts of lobbying on a case-by-case basis, trying to find out whether this type of act harms or furthers efficiency.

You can state general principles, and review them. I don't think that any single set of protocols is going to be infallible, more so since the people who employ lobbyists are not stupid, and will find ways to get around barriers, regardless of restrictions.

Sustainability is an economic criterion, and long-term growth is negated by ignoring it. And again, my statement is naturally made ceteris paribus.

Sustainability is not related to efficiency, however, and isolated sectoral sustainability, like the whale population, won't negate long-term growth. There's simply no economic argument not to murder the last whale on Earth.

There certainly is: destroying a viable resource is not economically wise for those who own it. I agree though, that non-sustainability and economic growth needs to be decoupled. Taking nature to be an economic externality and then internalizing it into the economic process is IMHO the way to go, and that would help redress the problem. In other words, ecological problems that arise due to growth do so on account of treating ecological resources and ecological services as being non-scarce, and as a result insufficient market-oriented policies are put into place to deal with the problem, not that the market and economic efficiency are inherently hostile to ecological concerns.

That's a sweeping generalization from an extreme example. Your property rights may not create obligations with respect to how you use that object, but my property rights create obligations in you with respect to how you treat my property, as well as your prior obligations from our mutual contracts.

If you fire your workers according to rules of the contracts made with the workers and sell your factory that doesn't change the nature of the act. Property creates no obligations. You may, in fact, have property and ignore the demands or pleas of others to enter into a contract and exchange your property and their property. The property right, in its absolute form, only embodies one side of the issue. If the right is absolute, other people may not influence or, worse yet, dictate how you shall use your property within what is allowed by the law. Even if your act is clearly malevolent but you don't break any laws and infringe on property rights of others, from a pure "property rights" ground one may not and will not be able to criticize the act.

Of course. But why should anyone have the power to dictate how you shall use your property within what is allowed by law? The ability of others to dictate how you use your property can just as easily be abused as your non-use of your property. Moreover, contracts can be expanded if they are found wanting. As an aside though, your hypothetical capitalist doesn't exactly strike me as a typical profit maximizer.

And to make another extreme example, if we go by the assumption that bankers and businessmen being hired is always to be frowned on... why is it that ex-hackers and ex-cons are often hired to work for law enforcement?

That is actually a good question, because sometimes people with a criminal past infiltrate law enforcement agencies. You obviously know the murky thrillers where a cop keeps a network of "informants" among the criminal underworld, who work in crime but also keep him informed to go after the "big fish", but in the end he gets corrupted himself and becomes a part of the criminal machine as much as he is a part of law enforcement. When you bring the structures close to each other so that there is a rotation of cadre, people tend to follow their group interests. And when a "cyber security" company releases a program to protect you from the virus which its workers created in their free time as virus-writers, once again it begs the question whether such a conflation is beneficial or counterbeneficial - experience always brings in interests that the person had in his prior job.

That principle embodies too sweeping a statement, and the implications are too impractical for my tastes. Universally rejecting the use of those with prior experience on principle isn't going to make your system more effective.

That's an extreme version of libertarianism, going into anarcho-capitalism.

That is minarchism, actually; the idea that you can abolish most regulatory agencies and leave the state only with an army and a police whose main task would be the protection of private property. Anarchism goes even further and decides that government itself can be abolished in favor of private entities.

Yes indeed. But that's what I thought you were going for earlier.

Black-white again, much? Your point may hold merit if you define "prevent regulators from being drafted from the same pool as they're supposed to regulate" as meaning "prevent any of the regulators from being drafted from the same pool as they're supposed to regulate". BTW, the same may hold for how left-wing political forces support working class people being drafted into ministries of labor *.

* Though yes, I'm aware of power disparities in society, don't harp on it.

I'm not harping on it; and I know that left-wing forces are an ugly monster inside, you don't need to lecture me on how bad left-wing movements are - I fully understand it. I support them because the right-wing movements seem worse to me and because right now only the left has a vision of a radically different future society; a rational reconstruction of nature into a more perfect world is in my view a good goal, even if the means are hideous. I don't support them "just because".

And yes, it only becomes a problem if a set of regulators drafted from the same pool can realize their special interest in absence of opposition and side control, for which they should control the entire body. But this is exactly what happened with banking and many other sectors as well.

So the ends justify the means in your view?

<looks at sig>

Ah, yes. Sorry, can't say I agree with that.