Dealing with Money in Politics

[Lord MJ]

So I've been hearing the libertarian/conservative take on dealing with money in politics.

The liberal take seems to be around amending the constitution to allow the regulation of contributions to campaigns, mandating public financing for campaigns, ending the revolving door between government and private sector, etc.

The libertarian take seems to be eliminate regulatory agencies, get the government out of the economy, and curtail the government's powers. That way, the corporate interests would no longer have any incentive to spend money in politics, and thus would have to rely on the free market and their ability to market to paying customers to advance their interests. The only reason money is spent in politics is because the government is too powerful and regulatory powers exist. Get rid of those powers, and the incentive for corruption disappears.

For me that doesn't compute, due to the fact that if you shrink government, but don't do anything to curtail the ability of companies to buy politicians, you just made it easier for the money interests to control the government, and therefore would have the ability to make government as weak or as powerful as they like.

It also goes into a fundamental problem with libertarian ideology, is that there are no concrete proposals as to how a nation of 300 million people, and the world's largest (well second largest now) economy will function if their ideas are implemented. While it's pretty simple to structure how a only public financing for campaigns, or 5 year waiting period between major government positions and private industry would work.

To me it seems fundamentally flawed to address the issue of money in politics, by not doing anything about money in politics.

[Metahive]

The libertarian take seems to be eliminate regulatory agencies, get the government out of the economy, and curtail the government's powers.

Well no, they still want the government to protect their property and enforce contracts, because they're usually not delusional enough to demand everybody hire their own defenders and enforcers. Usually. In which way they imagine the government being capable of doing so when they don't want to actually support it via taxes or fees is another question.
The Libertarian world is one where everyone has only entitlements and rights, but no duties. Is it a wonder most people consider their ideology to be extremely half-baked and childish?

[Lord MJ]

The libertarian thought is that the government can protect property and enforce contracts without regulatory agencies. And aside from providing a judicial system to handle contract law, the government should not be involved in the economy. No government in the economy, no incentive for people to spend money in politics, is how their logic goes.

[Purple]

The libertarian thought is that the government can protect property and enforce contracts without regulatory agencies. And aside from providing a judicial system to handle contract law, the government should not be involved in the economy. No government in the economy, no incentive for people to spend money in politics, is how their logic goes.

Except that obviously the money simply shifts away toward buying off the courts instead.

[Simon_Jester]

The libertarian thought is that the government can protect property and enforce contracts without regulatory agencies.

In many cases, even measuring the damages to property or the consequences of breaking a contract requires the assistance of a regulatory agency.

And aside from providing a judicial system to handle contract law, the government should not be involved in the economy. No government in the economy, no incentive for people to spend money in politics, is how their logic goes.

Except that then the corporations would immediately have an incentive to bribe the government to start meddling in the economy on their behalf... and there would be no laws to prevent them from doing so.

[Lord MJ]

Except that then the corporations would immediately have an incentive to bribe the government to start meddling in the economy on their behalf... and there would be no laws to prevent them from doing so.

What they say, and this is from both Libertarians I know personally, and just random discussions on Internet comments. If the government no longer has the power to meddle in the economy, then the corporations can't bribe the government to that.

It's as if basic logic is lost of these folks. That they can't comprehend the basic flaw in that line of reasoning.

Part of the reason why they dislike regulatory agencies so much, is because they work on behalf of incumbents against innovators. But once again, that's the money in politics, and the revolving door between government and industry at work.