Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First, we need a revolution of the proletariat. It all has to start with that!

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote: Why not expect the Gov't to lfinction within a budget like my family has to?

Because even if the comparison is apt, most families cannot exist without incurring debt.

But most families cannot exist by running a year-to-year spending deficit. Even if their income steadily increases year-to-year to service the added debt, eventually there will be a bump in the road and then you're in deep.

Sure, but as I alluded to, the comparison isn't particularly apt. No one would think of a family as a government, and no one should think of the government as a family. Each has distinct financial needs and capabilities, and varying legal restrictions. Then, of course, there's scale to consider.

We could have abolished capitalism a couple of years ago, by not propping up the tottering financial system with taxpayers' money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The classic function of government is to borrow and invest during a downturn, when private industry is struggling, then spend less and reap more during an upturn, to pay down the national debt..

Most western nations have fallen into a pattern of borrowing and spending (not necessarily investing) all the time.

Melissia wrote:First, we need a revolution of the proletariat. It all has to start with that!

If there is hope...it lies in the proles.

However, a proletariate revolution doesn't necessarily abolish capitalism. The French Revolution was a proletariat revolution and resulted in a capitalist Republic.

Kilkrazy wrote:We could have abolished capitalism a couple of years ago, by not propping up the tottering financial system with taxpayers' money.

That wouldn't necessarily have abolished capitalism either. In fact, "propping up the tottering financial system with taxpayers' money" was more of a step away from capitalism.

I just don't see any way to get rid of the profit motive and bargained-for-exchange that are essential elements of capitalism without almost complete totalitarianism.

I prefer to call it the triumph of capitalism.

Then I have no idea what you mean when you say "capitalism."

Government involvement with markets is anti-capitalist because it transforms a free market into a regulated or controlled market, which is bad.

I mean the whole capitalist system was about to collapse and was rescued by good old fashioned socialism.

It was the triumph of capitalism in two ways. The first ironic, in that capitalism rather than being a growth engine was suddenly revealed as a massive money destroying machine. Secondly, in the sense that capitalism managed to get itself dealt a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card off taxpayers' back.

For example, Sir Fred Goodwin, who managed the Royal Bank of Scotland into a £24.1 billion hole in the ground, got out with a pension of £700,000 a year on top of other bennies. I'll have to work until I'm 67 to pay for that, and my pension has been cut 74%.

Apparently he has quite high bills for security, though.

Next time you go down to the free market, please would you buy some nerve gas for me? I'll pay you by PayPal.

Kilkrazy wrote:Next time you go down to the free market, please would you buy some nerve gas for me? I'll pay you by PayPal.

Unfortunately, as a capitalist, I'm not willing to act unless it's in my interest. However, if you're interested, we can certainly negotiate a reasonable fee. Send me a PM and we can work out the details.

Profits get "capitalized" by the rich.
Losses get "socialized" by the poor.

Kilkrazy wrote: For example, Sir Fred Goodwin, who managed the Royal Bank of Scotland into a £24.1 billion hole in the ground, got out with a pension of £700,000 a year on top of other bennies. I'll have to work until I'm 67 to pay for that, and my pension has been cut 74%.

That's something else i couldn't/can't understand. All of the retired union blue collar workers were raked over the coals for working
for the length of their agreed employment with a company, retire, and now they're the bad guys. and for doing what was agreed
to between them and whatever entity that employeed them. yet someone like the above mentioned is worth how much, for how
long and why?

biccat wrote:
Government involvement with markets is anti-capitalist because it transforms a free market into a regulated or controlled market, which is bad.

What exactly is this "free market" you speak of?

It certainly isn't the system which exists in the absence of government, not given any actual development.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Government involvement with markets is anti-capitalist because it transforms a free market into a regulated or controlled market, which is bad.

What exactly is this "free market" you speak of?

It certainly isn't the system which exists in the absence of government, not given any actual development.

A free market doesn't mean no government, it means no government involvement in the market except for evenhanded taxation and enforcement of private property and contractual rights. Essentially, it's a market that is free to operate according to market principles, not according to the whims of government.

Once government starts limiting the market, such as by discriminatory taxation (either on goods or people) it becomes less free. In the case of the 2008 bailout, the government stepped in to decide that market forces - that would have forced some companies to liquidate their assets and go out of business - shouldn't apply to certain companies. By propping up these companies, they prolonged the consequences of the "crisis."

biccat wrote:
A free market doesn't mean no government, it means no government involvement in the market except for evenhanded taxation and enforcement of private property and contractual rights. Essentially, it's a market that is free to operate according to market principles, not according to the whims of government.

But the whims of government determine taxation, which has a necessary impact on the market; even handed or not. Then you have to think about the way contractual and property rights are defined, and how those definitions impact the market, and how they will necessarily differ according to the whims of government.

At least if we're assuming that the government and the market are independent entities, which is not the case.

biccat wrote:
Once government starts limiting the market, such as by discriminatory taxation (either on goods or people) it becomes less free.

All taxation is discriminatory. Well, all taxation except a perfectly balanced code in which all people of all income levels pay a tax which is precisely commensurate with their ability to pay; leading to an effective individual tax burden which is identical to the average tax burden.

biccat wrote:
In the case of the 2008 bailout, the government stepped in to decide that market forces - that would have forced some companies to liquidate their assets and go out of business - shouldn't apply to certain companies. By propping up these companies, they prolonged the consequences of the "crisis."

Obviously that is debatable, though the auspices of a serious debate on the matter are beyond the scope of this forum.

There are no real cuts in this deal only the possibility of reducing spending in the future and only if the next congress allows it.

Nothing was solved with this deal. Both sides got to keep their talking points going into the next election. Democrats can say you must elect them or your entitlements will be slashed and Grandma will have to move in with you. Republicans can say you must elect them or Democrats will tax you right out of your house and give the money to the person you hate the most.

The deal is no deal. Even the triggers can be removed by a vote of 60 senators in the next congress, which has happened before.

I'm afraid the only way we can get a solution to long term debt is to be thrown into the grips of a great depression or other similar calamity. We need to bottom out beofre we can go back up and we are far from bottoming out.

I blame the citizens of the USA. You get the government you deserve and the apathy of the majority has driven the parties into the arms of the radical wings on both sides. Loud voices get the media's attention and drives the procurement of money for campaigns. A politician will get more money if they make you afraid of it rather than solving it. There is big money in fear and very little money in solutions.

dogma wrote:But the whims of government determine taxation, which has a necessary impact on the market; even handed or not. Then you have to think about the way contractual and property rights are defined, and how those definitions impact the market, and how they will necessarily differ according to the whims of government.

You're partially right. While government taxation affects the market, it doesn't necessarily control how the market allocates resources.

If the government taxes all economic activity at (for example) 5%, then the only effect on the market is to slow growth. But if they tax Product A at 5% and Product B at 6%, then the market will respond accordingly, because Product B has been made artificially more expensive than Product A.

And most governments will place legal limits on what can be sold, which increases those transaction costs as well. For example, marijuana is sold above fair market price because of the artificial price increase imposed by the government. Same with prostitution, murder-for-hire, and a host of other products and services.

dogma wrote:At least if we're assuming that the government and the market are independent entities, which is not the case.

It's not the case only if you assume that the government has a role in regulating the market, and that the market has an impact on government regulation.

Of course, I'm assuming you're using the term "independent" to mean "separate" or "distinct" instead of "not dependent." Your statement is true given the latter, but not the former.

dogma wrote:All taxation is discriminatory. Well, all taxation except a perfectly balanced code in which all people of all income levels pay a tax which is precisely commensurate with their ability to pay; leading to an effective individual tax burden which is identical to the average tax burden.

That is incorrect. Fair taxation isn't "commensurate with ability to pay" but rather "commensurate with expenditures." That is, assuming you're adopting the theory that government should be representative, rather than the theory that the government is a market actor with exclusive authority.

But when taxation is nondiscriminatory as to the market, the market is more free.

dogma wrote:Obviously that is debatable, though the auspices of a serious debate on the matter are beyond the scope of this forum.

Presumably you're referring to the second sentence. I would hope you're not seriously arguing that the first part is 'debatable'. And the second isn't even that debatable, from an economic perspective.

biccat wrote:
You're partially right. While government taxation affects the market, it doesn't necessarily control how the market allocates resources.

If the government taxes all economic activity at (for example) 5%, then the only effect on the market is to slow growth. But if they tax Product A at 5% and Product B at 6%, then the market will respond accordingly, because Product B has been made artificially more expensive than Product A.

Those are both controls on how the market allocates resources, one is simply more specific than the other. When you increase the price of all goods you artificially distort their value relative to one another. For example, a 50% increase in the price of both necessities and luxuries is going to sharply decrease the number of luxuries purchased, while the amount of necessities purchased will hold relatively constant; all things being equal.

biccat wrote:
And most governments will place legal limits on what can be sold, which increases those transaction costs as well. For example, marijuana is sold above fair market price because of the artificial price increase imposed by the government. Same with prostitution, murder-for-hire, and a host of other products and services.

Right, and those limits follow from the way in which contractual and property rights are defined, which is why I noted that a state limited to contractual and property rights still has a necessary impact on the market.

We're not really making different points, the divergence is my claim that the market (in the capitalist sense, anarchist "markets" are different) and the government are interdependent, and cannot be separated; which is really just a difference of emphasis. Or so it seems.

biccat wrote:
It's not the case only if you assume that the government has a role in regulating the market, and that the market has an impact on government regulation.

Of course, I'm assuming you're using the term "independent" to mean "separate" or "distinct" instead of "not dependent." Your statement is true given the latter, but not the former.

It is indeed the former, and it isn't so much an assumption as an observation of necessity. The market, again in the capitalist sense, necessarily depends on the existence of governance. Anarchist "markets" do not, because anarchist "markets" are essentially just euphemisms for existence (they also tend to produce governance, though).

biccat wrote:
That is incorrect. Fair taxation isn't "commensurate with ability to pay" but rather "commensurate with expenditures."

Both definitions are commensurate with the definition of "fair", so I'm not sure what you objection is, other than an ideological one.

biccat wrote:
That is, assuming you're adopting the theory that government should be representative, rather than the theory that the government is a market actor with exclusive authority.

Those are not mutually exclusive, and in fact must coexist. If the state has no exclusive market authority, then the government is simply a corporation with a large amount of power, and therefore not a government at all.

biccat wrote:
But when taxation is nondiscriminatory as to the market, the market is more free.

Again, taxation cannot be nondiscriminatory in any practical sense, and is arguably discriminatory by nature in a theoretical sense.

biccat wrote:
Presumably you're referring to the second sentence. I would hope you're not seriously arguing that the first part is 'debatable'. And the second isn't even that debatable, from an economic perspective.

The second sentence, yes. And it is debatable, unless that's some other activity in which many economists have been engaged since the crisis, in particular, and for something like 50 years regarding the general principle behind intervention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:
The deal is no deal. Even the triggers can be removed by a vote of 60 senators in the next congress, which has happened before.

Any trigger can be removed by the passage of repealing legislation, so the requirement of 60 senatorial votes isn't a huge issue. In fact, it might be a more difficult hurdle than obtaining majority in the House and Senate, under certain conditions.

dogma wrote:Those are both controls on how the market allocates resources, one is simply more specific than the other. When you increase the price of all goods you artificially distort their value relative to one another. For example, a 50% increase in the price of both necessities and luxuries is going to sharply decrease the number of luxuries purchased, while the amount of necessities purchased will hold relatively constant; all things being equal.

First of all, there really aren't sharp differences between "luxuries" and "necessities." Taxation makes everything more expensive, so the market may shift to accomodate higher levels of taxation. While this may make certain goods more expensive relative to their perceived value, it's not based on government discrimination for or against certain products.

dogma wrote:Right, and those limits follow from the way in which contractual and property rights are defined, which is why I noted that a state limited to contractual and property rights still has a necessary impact on the market.

While I agree that such a state would have a necessary impact, the market would still be described as "more free" than one in which the government heavily regulates production, sale, and other aspects of the market. The freedom of a market isn't absolute but a relative scale.

dogma wrote:It is indeed the former, and it isn't so much an assumption as an observation of necessity. The market, again in the capitalist sense, necessarily depends on the existence of governance. Anarchist "markets" do not, because anarchist "markets" are essentially just euphemisms for existence (they also tend to produce governance, though).

I'm glad that you acknowledge that markets create government. But the two are only intertwined to a limited extent. The former Soviet Union demonstrated that you could have a government without a market (for a time at least), and there are plenty of 'markets' that exist without government. For example, drug trade and prostitution are underground markets that function reasonably well without governments.

edit: the market part functions reasonably well, in that there are relatively stable rates for a known quality of goods or services and market competition has created an array of choices for consumers.

dogma wrote:Both definitions are commensurate with the definition of "fair", so I'm not sure what you objection is, other than an ideological one.

Ideological, only to the extent of your implied assertion that only "ability to pay" is a "fair" system of taxation. But like I said, that depends on how you see a government.

If the government is an equal provider of services, then what is "fair" (not providing unjust enrichment) is either fixed contribution (everyone pays X) or a percentage contribution (everyone pays X% of their income).

However, if you see the government as a market actor with exclusive authority, then what is "fair" is the amount of benefit that each person draws from the government services. In this case, a person without a car should contribute less than a person who drives daily for the maintenance and provision of roads.

That is, taking the basic assumption that free riders are "unfair."

dogma wrote:The second sentence, yes. And it is debatable, unless that's some other activity in which many economists have been engaged since the crisis, in particular, and for something like 50 years regarding the general principle behind intervention.

I started a response, but I think you're right that such a debate is beyond the scope of this forum.

biccat wrote:
First of all, there really aren't sharp differences between "luxuries" and "necessities." Taxation makes everything more expensive, so the market may shift to accomodate higher levels of taxation. While this may make certain goods more expensive relative to their perceived value, it's not based on government discrimination for or against certain products.

The differentiation between luxuries and necessities is determined by the purchaser, obviously, but it would be foolish to believe that a (successful) state is not aware that such a distinction exists. If the state wanted citizens to cut down on luxury expenditures, for whatever reason, then artificially increasing the costs of all goods would accomplish this. This is a fine-grained example certainly, but the point I'm attempting to make is that taxation is tacit to market control because individual goods do not exist in isolation.

There are also psychological variables, though they tend to be minor concerns.

biccat wrote:
While I agree that such a state would have a necessary impact, the market would still be described as "more free" than one in which the government heavily regulates production, sale, and other aspects of the market. The freedom of a market isn't absolute but a relative scale.

I agree with that.

biccat wrote:
I'm glad that you acknowledge that markets create government.

I do, though the inverse can also be true if the state is particularly heavy handed. Chile is a good example of this.

biccat wrote:
But the two are only intertwined to a limited extent. The former Soviet Union demonstrated that you could have a government without a market (for a time at least), and there are plenty of 'markets' that exist without government. For example, drug trade and prostitution are underground markets that function reasonably well without governments.

edit: the market part functions reasonably well, in that there are relatively stable rates for a known quality of goods or services and market competition has created an array of choices for consumers.

The Soviet Union was able to minimize the effect of the market, but it never vanished, at least if we're accepting black markets as legitimate markets.

Additionally, I would contend that black markets exist under governance because of the effect of prohibitions. In essence, prostitution and the drug trade may be underground, but they are governed.

biccat wrote:
Ideological, only to the extent of your implied assertion that only "ability to pay" is a "fair" system of taxation. But like I said, that depends on how you see a government.

It was meant only as a generic catch-all term for fair taxation. Showing my American liberal education I suppose.

biccat wrote:
If the government is an equal provider of services, then what is "fair" (not providing unjust enrichment) is either fixed contribution (everyone pays X) or a percentage contribution (everyone pays X% of their income).

That follows, though I would contend that services provided is difficult to measure because of aggregate social effects. The monopoly on legitimate force, for example, is quite valuable to the middle and above classes but that value is difficult to determine.

biccat wrote:
However, if you see the government as a market actor with exclusive authority, then what is "fair" is the amount of benefit that each person draws from the government services. In this case, a person without a car should contribute less than a person who drives daily for the maintenance and provision of roads.

That follows as well.

They could have written in the bill that triggers could only be repealed by a 2/3rd majority. But that's only if they were serious about the bill and I know the super majority to remove triggers was proposed but not accepted in tthe final bill.

DarthDiggler wrote:They could have written in the bill that triggers could only be repealed by a 2/3rd majority. But that's only if they were serious about the bill and I know the super majority to remove triggers was proposed but not accepted in tthe final bill.

There have been super-majorities in Congress before, so you would likely have been just as upset. At least given what you said earlier.

dogma wrote:Additionally, I would contend that black markets exist under governance because of the effect of prohibitions. In essence, prostitution and the drug trade may be underground, but they are governed.

Black markets exist because of the prohibitions, but are not subject to government because there's no property protection (you can't call the cops if someone steals your weed) and no enforcement of contracts (if the guy you hired fails to kill your wife, the courts won't enforce the agreement). Without these basic functions it's hard to say that black markets are in any way governed or subject to local governance.

biccat wrote:
Black markets exist because of the prohibitions, but are not subject to government because there's no property protection (you can't call the cops if someone steals your weed) and no enforcement of contracts (if the guy you hired fails to kill your wife, the courts won't enforce the agreement). Without these basic functions it's hard to say that black markets are in any way governed or subject to local governance.

You can certainly call the cops if someone steals your weed, you simply won't get it back because reporting such a theft if basically just reporting drug possession and the assorted criminal activities that generally go with theft.

In the case of the hit contract the court will not enforce the contract as stipulated by the contractors, but it will enforce it as stipulated by its own interests (arrest both contractors) which is no different from any other enforcement of contract.

This all goes back to the definition of property rights and contractual rights, and how they relate to state behavior.

dogma wrote:You can certainly call the cops if someone steals your weed, you simply won't get it back because reporting such a theft if basically just reporting drug possession and the assorted criminal activities that generally go with theft.

That's not really protecting someone's property interest, is it? A property interest is the right to exclude others from your exclusive control over property. If someone steals you're weed, they are interfering with your exclusive control. Neither the police nor the courts will return to you your property, but will engage in their own violation of your personal property.

dogma wrote:In the case of the hit contract the court will not enforce the contract as stipulated by the contractors, but it will enforce it as stipulated by its own interests (arrest both contractors) which is no different from any other enforcement of contract.

Again, that's not enforcing the agreement between the parties, that is substituting the court's will for the will of the court. Contractual enforcement is when the court holds the parties to do what they agreed to do so that the parties are in the position they would have been had the contract been performed (or, in certain cases, not entered into, or to prevent unjust enrichment).

dogma wrote:This all goes back to the definition of property rights and contractual rights, and how they relate to state behavior.

Yes, it does. But the way you've defined property and contract rights eliminates the interests of the parties and substitutes the state's interest as controlling. I don't know where you get this definition (presumably from a socialist or progressive theory of justice), but I don't think you'll find it's widely accepted.

biccat wrote:
That's not really protecting someone's property interest, is it? A property interest is the right to exclude others from your exclusive control over property. If someone steals you're weed, they are interfering with your exclusive control. Neither the police nor the courts will return to you your property, but will engage in their own violation of your personal property.

Property interest and property rights are not the same thing to my mind. I generally subscribe to the notion that rights do not exist without social, or at least legal, consensus. So, basically, you have no property right to weed no matter how much you feel that is the case, because an insufficient number, or at least the wrong, people disagree.

biccat wrote:
Again, that's not enforcing the agreement between the parties, that is substituting the court's will for the will of the court. Contractual enforcement is when the court holds the parties to do what they agreed to do so that the parties are in the position they would have been had the contract been performed (or, in certain cases, not entered into, or to prevent unjust enrichment).

It is enforcing the regulations that are pertinent to the contract between the two parties, which is really the meat of contract enforcement. Governments don't enforce contracts, they enforce their regulation of them.

biccat wrote:
Yes, it does. But the way you've defined property and contract rights eliminates the interests of the parties and substitutes the state's interest as controlling. I don't know where you get this definition (presumably from a socialist or progressive theory of justice), but I don't think you'll find it's widely accepted.

You misunderstand. I'm arguing that the state's interests control the state's actions, not that they necessarily override individual interests, though they generally do as a result of power differentials. I'm not particularly concerned with justice at all.

dogma wrote:Property interest and property rights are not the same thing to my mind. I generally subscribe to the notion that rights do not exist without social, or at least legal, consensus. So, basically, you have no property right to weed no matter how much you feel that is the case, because an insufficient number, or at least the wrong, people disagree.

OK, so you disagree with the basic theory of property. I suppose it makes sense from a practicality standpoint, but the underlying theory of property is that it's an exclusive right that exists independent of government action.

I'm not sure how you get from this point to the idea that markets create government, however. If property isn't an innate right, then there can be no market without a government to recognize this right. Therefore, governments must have existed before markets to define the property rights being traded.

dogma wrote:It is enforcing the regulations that are pertinent to the contract between the two parties, which is really the meat of contract enforcement. Governments don't enforce contracts, they enforce their regulation of them.

And again, you're disagreeing with the underlying theory of contracts, that an agreement between parties is enforceable unless there is some reason not to enforce the agreement. Unless the government has an interest in not enforcing the contract, the government will enforce it. Moreso, the ability to compel performance is generally held by the government and not by private parties.

I understand that yours might be an acceptable alternative in legal philosophy, but it really isn't relevant to legal or economic theory.

dogma wrote:You misunderstand. I'm arguing that the state's interests control the state's actions, not that they necessarily override individual interests, though they generally do as a result of power differentials. I'm not particularly concerned with justice at all.

The idea that the state's interests control the state's actions was used as a rationale in Shelley v. Kraemer where the court reasoned that judicial enforcement of a discriminatory land covenant sufficied to constitute state action. The argument was as follows:

The state is prohibited from racially discriminatory action.
When the state enforces an agreement, it is required to enforce it according to its terms.
By enforcing the agreement by its terms, the state is acting.
Therefore, the state is prohibited from enforcing a racially discriminatory action.

This rationale has been mostly rejected by our legal system. When the court enforces an agreement between parties, it will generally not consider the enforcement state action.

biccat wrote:
OK, so you disagree with the basic theory of property. I suppose it makes sense from a practicality standpoint, but the underlying theory of property is that it's an exclusive right that exists independent of government action.

That is my disagreement with the theory, yes. I am, in general, more interested with how people actually behave than how others want them to behave.

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure how you get from this point to the idea that markets create government, however. If property isn't an innate right, then there can be no market without a government to recognize this right. Therefore, governments must have existed before markets to define the property rights being traded.

Not necessarily, note that I said rights were contingent upon social considerations as well (and really for the most part). Government becomes involved at the level institutionalization, and occasionally codification; though occasionally the latter precedes the former.

I'll take this time to say that I don't generally think of these things in a linear fashion, though whether or not that approach holds water will depend on my defense.

biccat wrote:
And again, you're disagreeing with the underlying theory of contracts, that an agreement between parties is enforceable unless there is some reason not to enforce the agreement. Unless the government has an interest in not enforcing the contract, the government will enforce it. Moreso, the ability to compel performance is generally held by the government and not by private parties.

I understand that yours might be an acceptable alternative in legal philosophy, but it really isn't relevant to legal or economic theory.

I don't disagree with the idea that a contract is enforceable. I disagree with the idea that it is enforceable only on the terms of the contracting parties. The terms of the enforcer are also relevant. Often the third set of terms is dictated by the original two, but it doesn't need to be the case, and the amount of divergence is governed by the "will" of the enforcer.

biccat wrote:
The idea that the state's interests control the state's actions was used as a rationale in Shelley v. Kraemer where the court reasoned that judicial enforcement of a discriminatory land covenant sufficied to constitute state action. The argument was as follows:

The state is prohibited from racially discriminatory action.
When the state enforces an agreement, it is required to enforce it according to its terms.
By enforcing the agreement by its terms, the state is acting.
Therefore, the state is prohibited from enforcing a racially discriminatory action.

This rationale has been mostly rejected by our legal system. When the court enforces an agreement between parties, it will generally not consider the enforcement state action.

Just to be clear, when I refer to states I am doing so in the broad sense; ie. nation-states.

In any case, what a state is required to do by law is not necessarily consistent with its interests. I am arguing that the state, which in the case of your example would be inclusive of the Supreme Court, has a set of interests which control its actions (in the case of the Court this includes precedent and personal bias).

Also, I'm not particularly concerned with our legal system because, quite honestly, law in general does not intend to be descriptive, but prescriptive (or postscriptive, as the case varies). The court may not consider its enforcement to be state action, but from a standpoint of description it most certainly is.

dogma wrote:I don't disagree with the idea that a contract is enforceable. I disagree with the idea that it is enforceable only on the terms of the contracting parties. The terms of the enforcer are also relevant. Often the third set of terms is dictated by the original two, but it doesn't need to be the case, and the amount of divergence is governed by the "will" of the enforcer.

So it's your position that the government is its own unique entity, rather than a collection of individuals exercising force according to a set of governing principles? Because that appears to be the core difference between "liberal" and "conservative" positions (in general). I don't view government as a separate entity that has its own interests. The only interests it has are those of the people.

dogma wrote:Just to be clear, when I refer to states I am doing so in the broad sense; ie. nation-states.

So am I, and the same applies to Constitutional Law. The Federal or State govenment can be a "state actor." In fact, the label "states" for political subdivisions of the United States isn't by accident.

dogma wrote:In any case, what a state is required to do by law is not necessarily consistent with its interests. I am arguing that the state, which in the case of your example would be inclusive of the Supreme Court, has a set of interests which control its actions (in the case of the Court this includes precedent and personal bias).

And I would disagree. The interests of the state are and must be coextensive with the interests of the people, but only to the extent that exercise of the state's power is coextensive with its authority. When a state exceeds its authority, or acts against the interests of the people, you get either political correction or a revolution. Which, coincidentally, demonstrates the fallability of construing the state as a separate entity. The state only exists so long as the people support the state.

dogma wrote:Also, I'm not particularly concerned with our legal system because, quite honestly, law in general does not intend to be descriptive, but prescriptive (or postscriptive, as the case varies). The court may not consider its enforcement to be state action, but from a standpoint of description it most certainly is.

And again, I disagree. The state's sole power (ultimately) is the authority to use force to compel action without threat of repercussion from a higher entity. The Court in enforcing a contract is using the threat of force to compel a person not to do what the government wants, or is in the government's best interest, but rather to do what was agreed to by the parties.

I suppose you could say that legal equality is the interest of the state that is being advanced here, but that cedes (IMO) too much power to the government. Any action that it takes or fails to take is an exercise of its power. But that ignores the very real limits on the power of government. A government only has power to act to the extent that its actions are not outside the tolerable scope of internal opposition.

biccat wrote:
So it's your position that the government is its own unique entity, rather than a collection of individuals exercising force according to a set of governing principles? Because that appears to be the core difference between "liberal" and "conservative" positions (in general). I don't view government as a separate entity that has its own interests. The only interests it has are those of the people.

Yes, it is my position that collections of people have interests distinct from the individuals (at least the individuals outside groups, it is questionable that such beings exist, but that is another thread) that constitute them; whether they be corporations, families, or governments.

biccat wrote:
So am I, and the same applies to Constitutional Law. The Federal or State govenment can be a "state actor." In fact, the label "states" for political subdivisions of the United States isn't by accident.

Of course not, but in current practice there is a distinction.

biccat wrote:
And I would disagree. The interests of the state are and must be coextensive with the interests of the people, but only to the extent that exercise of the state's power is coextensive with its authority. When a state exceeds its authority, or acts against the interests of the people, you get either political correction or a revolution.

Or oppression. Again, the point is that the state, and its interests, are separate from the interests of the people (if such a thing exists).

biccat wrote:
Which, coincidentally, demonstrates the fallability of construing the state as a separate entity. The state only exists so long as the people support the state.

Or the state can hold the people at gun point.

Keep in mind I am not speaking to what the state should do, but what they can, and have done.

biccat wrote:
And again, I disagree. The state's sole power (ultimately) is the authority to use force to compel action without threat of repercussion from a higher entity. The Court in enforcing a contract is using the threat of force to compel a person not to do what the government wants, or is in the government's best interest, but rather to do what was agreed to by the parties.

I disagree along the same lines as above. The state (and the court is always part of the state) cares about the state, and only about others when they become relevant to the state.

biccat wrote:
I suppose you could say that legal equality is the interest of the state that is being advanced here, but that cedes (IMO) too much power to the government. Any action that it takes or fails to take is an exercise of its power. But that ignores the very real limits on the power of government. A government only has power to act to the extent that its actions are not outside the tolerable scope of internal opposition.

That is true but, as history has shown, the tolerable scope of internal opposition is not small thing.

dogma wrote:Yes, it is my position that collections of people have interests distinct from the individuals (at least the individuals outside groups, it is questionable that such beings exist, but that is another thread) that constitute them; whether they be corporations, families, or governments.

Having different interests is not the same as the state being distinct from the individuals who make up the state. After all, it's individuals who make up the structure of the state. The "interests of the state" are therefore only those that are either expressed to the state agents or those that the agents themselves believe should be adopted.

The state has no ability to develop its own interests. Although a state agent may believe that the interests of the state are different than or even averse to his own interests.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
So am I, and the same applies to Constitutional Law. The Federal or State govenment can be a "state actor." In fact, the label "states" for political subdivisions of the United States isn't by accident.

Of course not, but in current practice there is a distinction.

Not as much as you'd expect. The states are individual sovereigns (legally at least). It's a very unique relationship.

dogma wrote:Or the state can hold the people at gun point.

Keep in mind I am not speaking to what the state should do, but what they can, and have done.
...
That is true but, as history has shown, the tolerable scope of internal opposition is not small thing.

You should also consider that there are a lot more "former governments" than there are "current governments." Revolution, even in the modern world, isn't inescapable.

dogma wrote:The state (and the court is always part of the state) cares about the state, and only about others when they become relevant to the state.

Now you're outright ignoring the right of petition. Everyone has the right to access the state's mechanism for resolving dispute regardless of whether they're relevant to the state. An immense amount of litigation and state power is engaged in and expended that is utterly irrelevant to the state.

biccat wrote:
Having different interests is not the same as the state being distinct from the individuals who make up the state. After all, it's individuals who make up the structure of the state. The "interests of the state" are therefore only those that are either expressed to the state agents or those that the agents themselves believe should be adopted.

You're conflating nation and state, which is, if I'm honest, a common conservative mistake. The state, as in those people who make up the state, have a set of interests which are not identical to those interests which are expressed by those people who exist in the nation the state represents.

biccat wrote:
The state has no ability to develop its own interests. Although a state agent may believe that the interests of the state are different than or even averse to his own interests.

Sure it does. If any collective body has the ability to develop an interest, then all collective bodies possess this property; nations and states included.

biccat wrote:
Not as much as you'd expect. The states are individual sovereigns (legally at least). It's a very unique relationship.

Sort of. The extrapolation of Amendments changed that.

biccat wrote:
You should also consider that there are a lot more "former governments" than there are "current governments." Revolution, even in the modern world, isn't inescapable.

Sure, the Middle East, among other regions, has shown this. However, that doesn't change the fact that the state can gun down whomever opposes it if it sees fit. Such action might shorten the lifespan of the state, or lengthen it, it is a matter of circumstance.

biccat wrote:
Now you're outright ignoring the right of petition. Everyone has the right to access the state's mechanism for resolving dispute regardless of whether they're relevant to the state. An immense amount of litigation and state power is engaged in and expended that is utterly irrelevant to the state.

Yes, and that is a mechanism of control. Said people are relevant because they're angry, and because the state said their anger is important.