The ‘Conservative’ Third Rail — at Least on the RNL :-)

OK, this is a re-occurring theme with me, and it has been a lightning rod in the past.  But it is a line of reasoning I can’t let go of.  I will admit, I am still working my way through this one, but I believe there is something here.  I also think I have enough figured out to share it with you.  However, I want to make sure I make it clear that I actually see a philosophical ‘fix’ to the Marxist/socialist attacks on the free market in what I am doing here.  I am not anti-corporation, I am anti violation of Natural law.  Our founders didn’t allow corporations, but they did allow co-ops and charter companies and I believe that similar structures can allow for the needs of modern international trade while still holding individuals accountable to Natural Law.  So, with that said, here’s a bit of my latest piece on this subject:

Form & Function: Capitalism Does Not Necessarily Mean Free Market

 This post will challenge many who consider themselves “conservative,” but I implore you to read it and give it careful consideration before you dismiss this argument.  At the top of this blog, under the page titled “Basic Precepts,” you will find a post titled “Form & Function,”  in which I explain that a thing is not defined by what we call it, but rather, by its form and function.   This post uses this basic precept to explain why ‘Capitalism’ does not necessarily equate to ‘the free market.’  In fact, as they are practiced today, in this country, they are not the same thing.  In order to make my case, I will have to refer to a lot of definitions.  This may make for tedious reading; however, if you will stick with this post, I believe that – even if I do not win you to my side – I will give you sufficient reason to reconsider what you do believe regarding the relationship between Capitalism and the free market.

Read the rest…

30 thoughts on “The ‘Conservative’ Third Rail — at Least on the RNL :-)

  1. Wow, Joe. Interesting read. My simple mind always kind of linked the free-market and capitalism as one in the same thing,hence my never researching it out for any distinctions.

    • Libercrite,

      Thanks. As I said, I am still working through this one. I just thought I’d share as I do. Also, notice that I DID allow for the fact that Capitalism CAN be the same as a free market. Where we get in trouble is when we use corporations to create people who then become ‘larger’ or more powerful than the individuals who created them. That’s a problem because it isn’t real. In the real world, there is always a single individual or small group of individuals wielding the power for or in the name of the corporation. At that point, they have assumed a higher place in the society that made it possible than they can have if we are to be a free and self-governing people.

      Anyway, hope it makes some sense. I’ll keep working on it until it does because the answer to ALL collectivist accusations against Capitalism is right here. When Capitalism morphs into Corporatism, it fails. So, when the collectivist accuses that form of Capitalism of being greedy and not working, he is actually accusing his own ideology, not the true free market. 🙂

      • Free-markets require a strong anti-corporatist government to prevent market monopolization. How can a strong anti-corporatist government exists, when the private corporate money starts funding campaigns and owning all the media.

        • So you admit that Capitalism is not the free market, which means it is a form of collectivization, which means it is closer to your precious Communism. Now, just remember that next time you tell us that Capitalism is greedy and does not work because YOU ARE ACTUALLY ATTACKING YOUR OWN IDEAS! 🙂

          • Capitalism is the existence of private property. If you have a network of worker’s co-ops buying and selling and trading with each other it is still capitalism. A classless capitalism, but still capitalism. A corporation is indeed collectivist. But so is a church, a hunting club or any other organization. Communism differs from collectivism in a capitalist context, because the goal of the collective is not to compete and accumulate more private property. But to advance their own quality of life, by advancing the collective property.

            A corporation might build a factory in order to accumulate private property for the owners and control would be limited to the owners of the corporation. A communist collective would build a factory in order to provide for the community, and control would be given to the community.

            I don’t know how you would keep people from forming any kind of collective. To do that you would need a stronger collective i.e, a state. A state existing in an environment where the people are not organized into collectives that wield the means of production, will be corrupted by the individuals or private-collectives(corporations) that do wield the means of production. For such a plan to work it would require the capitalist to abandon the pursuit of profit and abandon attempting to expand marketshare (make a monopoly) and bribery. There is no way to keep private property from corrupting a state.

            The only way to build a stable society is to skip the state and empower the people to form collective and exercise power(property) for themselves. if there are no collectives society will just turn into a rat-race of private property accumulation. leading to monopolies and corrupt political systems. in other words crony capitalism.

      • “So, when the collectivist accuses that form of Capitalism of being greedy and not working, he is actually accusing his own ideology, not the true free market.”

        That thought entered my mind after I initially read that post. This exchange with Karl should be interesting…

  2. TRUE Free-Market Capitalism is what should exist…..with that “order implicit”…

    In otherwords the FreeMarket first.

  3. Joe,

    So what’s your opinion on the Citizen’s United Case where the 4 Conservative judges and Kennedy ruled corporations are to be treated as individuals and can contribute to political parties and politicians.

    After researching this issue I may need to rethink which side I’m on. Do I have to admit that Sotomayor, Keagan, Ginsberg & Stevens had it right. Frankly I never paid that much attention to this issue until I read your posts regarding corporations.

    My vote goes to not allowing anyone other than a real person being allowed to give to a politician or political party. The only limits on individual contributions would be like we have in place today.

    Since I supported the decission at that time I’ll have to do a flip-flop on this issue.

    Click to access hidden_corporate_history.pdf

    • Chhelo,

      Can a corporation vote? So why should it be allowed to contribute to political campaigns? Here are a few other things to consider:

      1 — A corporation can contribute to politician A, even if a majority of stock holders want to support politician B. Thus, the corporation just forced them to use their money to support a political opponent and did so against their will.

      2 — How can we justify a corporation from California getting involved in a campaign in Texas? Isn’t this essentially giving the California corporation a form of dual citizenship in both States?

      3 — Now, what if that corporation is Islamic and just has a branch in Texas. Now you get Islamic oil money — which is often connected to Terrorism — ‘contributing’ to U.S. political campaigns though their U.S. corporate arm. I don’t see any potential problem with that, do you? 🙂

      SO, no, I do not think a corporation should be allowed to contribute to campaigns. But then, I do not think it should be allowed to own other corporations, either. After all, if a corporation is a ‘person,’ but it can own another corporation (person), how is that not a violation of the 14th Amendment? You see, what is happening is we are letting people use the corporate structure to get away with things they could not do as in individual. This is a tearing apart of Natural Law and will lead to a crash of the system — sooner or later.

    • Chhelo,

      So Corporations can not have the same Priviledges as Unions ???

      THAT is the essence of the Citizens United case…..By flipflopping you are doing the Left’s bidding because the argument in the SC was that to disallow Corporations but ALLOW Unions to have political contributions etc would be unconstitutional.

      The ANTI-Citizens Untied campaign is entirely aimed at Empowering the Progressive agenda…Research it a Bit more…

      Notice that there IS NOT a huge movement to OVERTHROW the ObamaCare SC decision…… Now ask yourself….WHY? …Same reason NOT overturning ObmamaCARE also fits in with the BIG GOV’T progressive agenda…… in a certain sense they are BOOKens issues…..Overturning CU and KEEPING Obamacare BOTH add weight to the Left Progressive agenda.

      • Don, You are missing the point. Yes, unions are corporations, as are PACs, ‘outreach’ programs and all other “Democrat” funding sources. But you will never defeat them using the line of reasoning we have been trying to use because they have successfully demonized corporations.

        However, if we use the argument I am making to tell people WHY corporations are destructive, we can then make the easy step of including the unions, PACS, etc and take them ALL out.

        Citizens United is more Court activism. They were just trying to balance thins\gs so the ruling has no basis in NATURAL LAW, which is why our legal system continues to drift. We severed the chain that once anchored our system.

        In the end, we must not justify doing what we oppose because they do it — which is the argument you are essentially making. The moment we do that, we cede the moral high ground and it becomes nothing more than a fight of might makes right. Since they own the govt, our social institutions, media, schools, courts and most everything else that shapes public opinion, we will lose that fight. The only way to win this one is to make the moral case. Luckily, the approach I am using has the added advantage of being true 🙂

        • With all due respect Joe…..It is YOU who are missing the point, if you think that as you say…..”we can then make the easy step of including the unions, PACS, etc and take them ALL out.”

          If you truely believe that you have mis-read recent history and strongly under-estimate the Progressive movement ……… :- ))

          • Don,

            A wise man once told me that you have to find a point where you can say “You’re right, but…” This is a point where we can say “You’re right, and here’s why..” THEN we can say “But!”

            As for me watching and understanding recent history, I’d say I have. I have watched people convincing themselves that they can get back to good by doing bad. The ‘Right’ has been trying to use the same system the ‘Left’ has been using to FORCE their way on to people. That’s what CU represents: a PROGRESSIVE way of getting what you want. It did not change the hearts and minds of the people, only made it legal for the ‘Right’ to do their version of what they complain about the Left doing.

            History teaches me that when both sides of the political debate are rotten, tyranny is just around the corner.

              • Don,

                I know. And I know that means we have to fail so we can rebuild. And I know we need to start laying the foundations to rebuild now. Finally, I know those foundations must be firm, which means we need to get back to the principles upon which liberty is built — as I am trying to do. 🙂

                • No….the “We have to fail in order to win” is a false path….a false solution.

                  You and I agree on quite a bit …. this isn’t an intersection of agreement.

                  Failure will lead to a North Korea -like scenario for much of the world….the German’s stealing those Children over home-schooling is a shot across the bow………..The fact is the “War” has already begun… fail means to lose the war….and thus usher in ” a thousand years of Darkness “…as Reagan said.

                  And the ability for Individuals to form and build and join in association with others to create Corporations is an expression of Liberty … To forbid it is itself an expression of Tyranny.

      • Government is created by “man”.

        Then Government creates a fictional entity.

        The “fictional entity is held to be “a person”

        The fictional person becomes more powerful, or overrules, “man”.

        The fictional person is controlled by government, (not man)

        In effect, Government is now unlimited and more powerful than its Creator, man. And God.

        How can that be proper or legal? Just or Right? It cannot be.

        Something created, cannot create something it controls, more powerful than that which it serves… in order to control that which created it….

        Man creates limited government,
        government creates “fictions” more powerful than “man”,
        “created fictions are held to more powerful than “man”,
        created fictions are controlled by government,
        government controls man.

        ILLEGAL, IMPROPER, (government will collapse upon itself, “our Creator, God, natural law will always succeed. Truth, justice, and the American way.”

  4. So Joe, have you researched the articles of incorporation that most states imposed on the Corporations prior to the 14th Amendment. Makes for interesting reading and makes you wonder how the framers felt about the Corporation. And just why did the framers of the constitution feel this way? Was each Colony formed as an English Corporation with the King granting the land to the Corporation?

    • Triper,

      Yes, I have looked into it. I know this: after the Revolution, the framers outlawed corporations. They did allow charter companies, but they were structured and run much differently, and they had set periods and then they were dissolved. In fact, this is how the first national bank was gotten rid of: they refused to renew its charter.

      I happen to think the framers understood far more about the principles of liberty than we do today.

      • “I happen to think the framers understood far more about the principles of liberty than we do today.”

        For one, the founder’s weren’t hijacked and held hostage by progressivism.

        • Libercrite,

          I’m not sure I can agree. What we call ‘Progressiveness’ is merely a ‘type’ or a spirit. The spirit is control over others. I would think monarchies are another ‘type’ of this same spirit. In that sense, the founders were under the control of the same spirit, just by a different type or form of it.

  5. Joe,

    I was totally blind on this issue and admit it never really crossed my mind until reading RNL. When you add a despotic government to the mix its easy to see how Nazi Germany came to power. Throw the third leg into the mix, a central bank willing to finance both sides for a hefty profit, and you have the complete package.

    • Chhelo,

      Yep. If you have time, find a copy of “In the Garden of Beasts” and read that. It is a factual account told from the official dispatches and diaries of the American Ambassador and his family in 1930’s Germany. He gives a telling account of how the German people slid into evil. Then read “Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State ” and you will see how business got in bed with Hitler, and how Hitler used that relationship to buy the support of German people. Finally, you will see and understand why I have insisted on telling people we are traveling the same path as 1930’s Germany.

  6. Inherent in “free market” is “capitalism”. But no longer does “capitalism” = “free market”? while it is true in actual “use” today, it is a misleading “use”; purposely so. (much like the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are now misleading terms in the political arena).

    Joe points out, the “progressives/marxists/communists, et al. have bastardized “capitalism” to no longer be “free market”. ala’ the term “crony capitalism”, which is fascism, not capitalism. I have always understood; from educational, professional study, and know, the term; “capitalism” infers “free market”. Yes it was a long time ago, I earned a bachelors degree in “finance” with tutelage from a renowned professor…

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.