Conservative Club II

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar
"Above the law" suggests some immunity to prosecution. Equality "under the law" refers to the equal status of citizenry. A person or persons who receive government position, special salary or tax exempt status due to blood lines is a violation of this notion. Monarchy is immoral and at odds with the egalitarian thrust of democracy.

---

bmolsson]If the same thing is acheived with superior access to wealth then? My view is that money in politics might create a similar situation. A person from a very wealthy family will be able to get a political position due to his blood line. This even if the equality to law apply.

---

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it your worry that wealth might mean someone being given a government hereditary position? That is impossible under U.S. law. It is very possible however that a wealthy man might get elected to a political post, even multiple times, and that is OK. From its inception the U.S. has been based upon the idea of political equality not economic equality. The garnering of wealth or its loss is left to the devices of the individual. As long as political power is ultimately amenable to popular consent then how an individual choose to use his acquired wealth, whether it be the pursuit of luxury or political position, is his own affair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it your worry that wealth might mean someone being given a government hereditary position? That is impossible under U.S. law. It is very possible however that a wealthy man might get elected to a political post, even multiple times, and that is OK. From its inception the U.S. has been based upon the idea of political equality not economic equality. The garnering of wealth or its loss is left to the devices of the individual. As long as political power is ultimately amenable to popular consent then how an individual choose to use his acquired wealth, whether it be the pursuit of luxury or political position, is his own affair.

---

Good points Pindar, looking back, I suppose the debate of who's rich or why, while perhaps interesting, is really irrelevant to the discussion anyhow. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Wrong. It's not talking about income, it's the total of all financial assets. There's a big difference there- not that I think it'll make much difference to you. Howabout you provide some data to backup your claim?

---

Table 1. Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of
Families, 1947 to 1994. (Families as of March of the following year.)

Percent distribution of aggregate income

Number Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest Top 5 Gini
Year (thous.) fifth fifth fifth fifth fifth percent ratio
1994../21/..69,313 4.2 10.0 15.7 23.3 46.9 20.1 0.426
1993../20/..68,506 4.1 9.9 15.7 23.3 47.0 20.3 0.429
1993../19/..68,506 4.2 10.1 15.9 23.6 46.2 19.1 0.420
1992../18/..68,216 4.3 10.5 16.5 24.0 44.7 17.6 0.404
1992........68,144 4.4 10.5 16.5 24.0 44.6 17.6 0.403
1991........67,173 4.5 10.7 16.6 24.1 44.2 17.1 0.397
1990........66,322 4.6 10.8 16.6 23.8 44.3 17.4 0.396
1989........66,090 4.6 10.6 16.5 23.7 44.6 17.9 0.401
1988........65,837 4.6 10.7 16.7 24.0 44.0 17.2 0.395
1987../17/..65,204 4.6 10.7 16.8 24.0 43.8 17.2 0.393
1986........64,491 4.6 10.8 16.8 24.0 43.7 17.0 0.392
1985../16/..63,558 4.6 10.9 16.9 24.2 43.5 16.7 0.389
1984........62,706 4.7 11.0 17.0 24.4 42.9 16.0 0.383
1983../15/..62,015 4.7 11.1 17.1 24.3 42.8 15.9 0.382
1982........61,393 4.7 11.2 17.1 24.3 42.7 16.0 0.380
1981........61,019 5.0 11.3 17.4 24.4 41.9 15.4 0.369
1980........60,309 5.1 11.6 17.5 24.3 41.6 15.3 0.365
1979../14/..59,550 5.2 11.6 17.5 24.1 41.7 15.8 0.365
1978........57,804 5.2 11.6 17.5 24.1 41.5 15.6 0.363
1977........57,215 5.2 11.6 17.5 24.2 41.5 15.7 0.363
1976../13/..56,710 5.4 11.8 17.6 24.1 41.1 15.6 0.358
1975../12/..56,245 5.4 11.8 17.6 24.1 41.1 15.5 0.357
1974./12/11/55,698 5.5 12.0 17.5 24.0 41.0 15.5 0.355
1973........55,053 5.5 11.9 17.5 24.0 41.1 15.5 0.356
1972........54,373 5.4 11.9 17.5 23.9 41.4 15.9 0.359
1971../10/..53,296 5.5 12.0 17.6 23.8 41.1 15.7 0.355
1970........52,227 5.4 12.2 17.6 23.8 40.9 15.6 0.353
1969........51,586 5.6 12.4 17.7 23.7 40.6 15.6 0.349
1968........50,823 5.6 12.4 17.7 23.7 40.5 15.6 0.348
1967../9/...49,834 5.4 12.2 17.5 23.5 41.4 16.4 0.358
1966../8/...49,214 5.6 12.4 17.8 23.8 40.5 15.6 0.349
1965../7/...48,509 5.2 12.2 17.8 23.9 40.9 15.5 0.356
1964........47,956 5.1 12.0 17.7 24.0 41.2 15.9 0.361
1963........47,540 5.0 12.1 17.7 24.0 41.2 15.8 0.362
1962../6/...47,059 5.0 12.1 17.6 24.0 41.3 15.7 0.362
1961../5/...46,418 4.7 11.9 17.5 23.8 42.2 16.6 0.374
1960........45,539 4.8 12.2 17.8 24.0 41.3 15.9 0.364
1959........45,111 4.9 12.3 17.9 23.8 41.1 15.9 0.361
1958........44,232 5.0 12.5 18.0 23.9 40.6 15.4 0.354
1957........43,696 5.1 12.7 18.1 23.8 40.4 15.6 0.351
1956........43,497 5.0 12.5 17.9 23.7 41.0 16.1 0.358
1955........42,889 4.8 12.3 17.8 23.7 41.3 16.4 0.363
1954........41,951 4.5 12.1 17.7 23.9 41.8 16.3 0.371
1953........41,202 4.7 12.5 18.0 23.9 40.9 15.7 0.359
1952../4/...40,832 4.9 12.3 17.4 23.4 41.9 17.4 0.368
1951........40,578 5.0 12.4 17.6 23.4 41.6 16.8 0.363
1950........39,929 4.5 12.0 17.4 23.4 42.7 17.3 0.379
1949../3/...39,303 4.5 11.9 17.3 23.5 42.7 16.9 0.378
1948........38,624 4.9 12.1 17.3 23.2 42.4 17.1 0.371
1947../2/...37,237 5.0 11.9 17.0 23.1 43.0 17.5 0.376


http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60tb1.html

If this is off topic to the discussion then no need to carry on, but these are the statistics. More people becoming millionares isn't people becoming rich.

Yes, it's purely academic, but I've never been one to leave 'well enough' alone. ~;)
Did you see that part where the Census Bureau says that comparisons between 1992 and earlier and 1993 and later may not be valid because they changed their sampling methods that year?

So yes, between 1947 and 1992 the top 5% gained.... about 2% more of the resources? I dont think that comes as a shock to anyone. Also, if you look at the Gini coefficients for 1993-1998 you see that income inequality is virtually unchanged during that time. chart

Quote:

---

More people becoming millionares isn't people becoming rich.

---

I still maintain that is what it means. But just out of curiosity, what criteria would satisfy you for "people becoming rich"? Increases in people making $500,000? $100,000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yes, it's purely academic, but I've never been one to leave 'well enough' alone. ~;)
Did you see that part where the Census Bureau says that comparisons between 1992 and earlier and 1993 and later may not be valid because they changed their sampling methods that year?

---

So we don't know?

Quote:

---

So yes, between 1947 and 1992 the top 5% gained.... about 2% more of the resources? I dont think that comes as a shock to anyone. Also, if you look at the Gini coefficients for 1993-1998 you see that income inequality is virtually unchanged during that time. chart

---

It may be a small percent, but it's out of a big number ~:)

I admit I have no idea what a Gini coefficient is.

Quote:

---

I still maintain that is what it means. But just out of curiosity, what criteria would satisfy you for "people becoming rich"? Increases in people making $500,000? $100,000?

---

I tend to think of over $100,000 as rich. But that's just me. I can't see a difference between having say 200 grand and 300 grand. Just more expensive cars and a bigger house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I admit I have no idea what a Gini coefficient is.

---

Eh, I'd have a tough time spelling it out for you myself- other than to say it's a metric they use to represent the level of income inequality between rich and poor... the higher the number, the greater the inequality.

Quote:

---

I tend to think of over $100,000 as rich

---

100,000 here is strictly middle class. Houses start at 300,000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

100,000 here is strictly middle class. Houses start at 300,000

---

Living in New York? 100,000 out here is upper Middle Class around these parts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Living in New York? 100,000 out here is upper Middle Class around these parts.

---

Heh, what I wouldn't give to be "upper middle class"- I dont even pull down half that... Maybe I should talk to the Dems, they're always promising handouts, a chicken in every pot and whatnot. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it your worry that wealth might mean someone being given a government hereditary position? That is impossible under U.S. law. It is very possible however that a wealthy man might get elected to a political post, even multiple times, and that is OK. From its inception the U.S. has been based upon the idea of political equality not economic equality. The garnering of wealth or its loss is left to the devices of the individual. As long as political power is ultimately amenable to popular consent then how an individual choose to use his acquired wealth, whether it be the pursuit of luxury or political position, is his own affair.

---

The question is hypothetical and what I am trying to say is that in a modern society, you need to achieve fame and get media attention to be recognized. In a populistic election you will be elected due to your fame and media attention. You get media attention and fame by using money, hence the connection between wealth and political positions.

If you have a media mogul with control over a few TV and radio stations, some newspapers and magazines. He will have a easier position to give himself or his candidate the attention needed for being elected.

Further down the road, if you have large business interests, a political position might be used to improve your business, and you make more money with in the end leds to larger wealth and higher political positions.

We have now come to the point where a well placed fortune, made for political success, might be a family vehicle and the comparation with a monarch starts.

My bottom line is that if you don't have economical equality in politics, do you really have political equality ?
The old kings was the richest persons in their kingdoms, since they owned everything. In old times, land was the difference between a poor and rich man, and in the end the political power. Today, well placed wealth could be used in a similar way, but with media and other resources important in the political election process.

Do I make my self a bit clearer ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

The question is hypothetical and what I am trying to say is that in a modern society, you need to achieve fame and get media attention to be recognized. In a populistic election you will be elected due to your fame and media attention. You get media attention and fame by using money, hence the connection between wealth and political positions.

If you have a media mogul with control over a few TV and radio stations, some newspapers and magazines. He will have a easier position to give himself or his candidate the attention needed for being elected.

Further down the road, if you have large business interests, a political position might be used to improve your business, and you make more money with in the end leds to larger wealth and higher political positions.

---

I don't have a problem with any of this as long as there is full disclosure.

Quote:

---

We have now come to the point where a well placed fortune, made for political success, might be a family vehicle and the comparation with a monarch starts.

---

This doesn't follow: a plutocrat however rich is still a private citizen and operating within the private arena. A king does not. Should the plutocrat assume public office he is bound by the lawful terms of that office and remains subject to the public trust via elections. A king is a titled hereditary position not subject to a typical meritocracies' concerns.

Quote:

---

My bottom line is that if you don't have economical equality in politics, do you really have political equality?

---

Yes. One man one vote.

Quote:

---

The old kings was the richest persons in their kingdoms, since they owned everything. In old times, land was the difference between a poor and rich man, and in the end the political power. Today, well placed wealth could be used in a similar way, but with media and other resources important in the political election process.

---

Wealth can create influence and access and that is fine.

Quote:

---

Do I make my self a bit clearer ?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Good points Pindar, looking back, I suppose the debate of who's rich or why, while perhaps interesting, is really irrelevant to the discussion anyhow. :bow:

---

Quite right.

Thank you sir. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This doesn't follow: a plutocrat however rich is still a private citizen and operating within the private arena. A king does not. Should the plutocrat assume public office he is bound by the lawful terms of that office and remains subject to the public trust via elections. A king is a titled hereditary position not subject to a typical meritocracies' concerns.

---

True, but if the wealth is the tool to gain power and the wealth is inherited, isn't the difference rather small ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Wealth can create influence and access and that is fine.

---

Even if the influence and access is used to gain more wealth, which then give more influence and access etc etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

True, but if the wealth is the tool to gain power and the wealth is inherited, isn't the difference rather small ?

---

The difference is that money is not a guarntee to politicial leadership - however being born into royality is a guarntee to politicial power.

Quote:

---

Even if the influence and access is used to gain more wealth, which then give more influence and access etc etc

---

Once again wealth is not a guartnee to politicial leadership - it does give the individual more influence both to private citizens and the government. But that does not mean that just because wealth is needed for politicial office - that the people will necessarily vote toward that wealth. By having a voting process under the populist concept every individual gets a vote regardless of what their economic status is.

Now the United States populist voting system is hedged by the electroial college which weights the votes by the state - which futher gives the population of a state the feeling that their vote matters in the election process because the candidate desiring to be President must tour several different states - verus just hanging out in the higher population density areas of the nation.

While wealth might create a major problem in the election process - establishing a monarch removes the election process from the people. Monarcy by defination removes the ability of the people to decide for themselves the direction in which they want the country to move. The voters decide the direction not by issue - but by who we vote into office.

A monarchy takes that away from the people - and places it only on one family regardless of what the people would like. People with wealth still have to convince the voters that their agenda is best - so that they will get the votes necessary to get in office.

members of the Conservative Club, time to mobilize!!!
Go to this thread...
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=44481
listen to the intervue I posted that came from the Daily Show and please post comments. Thank you...

Time to take the gloves off and throw down the gauntlet!!!

Yeah I posted there already. The dems are in real trouble if this all works out. I remember hearing Clinton say how he wished 911 had occurred during his watch.

The far left in the United States is doing more harm to the democratic party then good. If the democrates want to have a decent chance in the next elections for congress and the Presidential Office - they will have to cut the strings from this group and force a split - in other words cast them aside so they can form a useless third party. But as long as the Democratic Party pampers to this ideologicial minority - well the Republician will in short maintain control of both houses of congress and most likely even the Presidential Office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The far left in the United States is doing more harm to the democratic party then good. If the democrates want to have a decent chance in the next elections for congress and the Presidential Office - they will have to cut the strings from this group and force a split - in other words cast them aside so they can form a useless third party. But as long as the Democratic Party pampers to this ideologicial minority - well the Republician will in short maintain control of both houses of congress and most likely even the Presidential Office.

---

I'm afraid you're right on this. A split would seem suicidal though, there has to be some way to keep them in, much like Bush kept in the far christian right.

But many americans are Christians, not left wing fanatics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I'm afraid you're right on this. A split would seem suicidal though, there has to be some way to keep them in, much like Bush kept in the far christian right.

---

I think short term it will be a very painful move for the Dems, but for long term survival, it needs to be done or there will be no more Democratic party.

Well, I wouldn't personally mind the dems dying out, and another party emerging from the left/social conservative side of the republicans. In short, everyone moves right. Though I doubt that will happen.

The dems really need to do something to survive- they are becoming stagnant no-men who are defined by what they oppose, not what they support. Having Howard' "I hate republicans!" YEEAAARRGH! "Republicans are evil!" 'Dean as their chair certainly isn't helping. I plan on sitting back and watching the show of their fall.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

True, but if the wealth is the tool to gain power and the wealth is inherited, isn't the difference rather small ?

---

No, it is not. The meritocratic element is a critical distinction as is the notion of popular sovereignty.

Quote:

---

Even if the influence and access is used to gain more wealth, which then give more influence and access etc etc

---

The accumulation of wealth is not a bad thing. That more wealth may allow greater influence is also not a bad thing. My sense is you worry about corporate influence on the political process. Business should be able to lobby a position as much as any other group. If a politician is more amenable to the President of Microsoft than to the plumber who calls his office that is because the President of Microsoft is more important. As far as political contributions are concerned: people, corporations etc. should be able to contribute as much money as they like. Campaign finance reform legislation is foolish and self defeating. If George Soros wants to give 50 million to support John Kerry, bully for him. The only requirement should be complete transparency so all know where the money has its source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The accumulation of wealth is not a bad thing. That more wealth may allow greater influence is also not a bad thing. My sense is you worry about corporate influence on the political process. Business should be able to lobby a position as much as any other group. If a politician is more amenable to the President of Microsoft than to the plumber who calls his office that is because the President of Microsoft is more important. As far as political contributions are concerned: people, corporations etc. should be able to contribute as much money as they like. Campaign finance reform legislation is foolish and self defeating. If George Soros wants to give 50 million to support John Kerry, bully for him. The only requirement should be complete transparency so all know where the money has its source.

---

Never said that wealth is a bad thing, but we do have a few issues that will very soon become serious matters. Patents are today something that moves in the direction of genetic material as well as software code. The corporate interest here is often different from the political (read peoples).
Other matters more recent is tobacco industry, where corporate interests for profit is against political interests for peoples health.
Now, my point here was not the above, my question was if there is a risk if wealth are able to buy political power in a democratic process. It was not for US specifically. Also to note, I am not talking about corrupt practices.
I do believe that if a populistic system become to dependent on private financial support, we might lose out to get the "best man" on the political posts. I don't have any solution, just a concern..... ~;)

When I split this thread to create "Junk science", I accidently included Pindar's last post. Sorry. Here is it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Never said that wealth is a bad thing, but we do have a few issues that will very soon become serious matters. Patents are today something that moves in the direction of genetic material as well as software code. The corporate interest here is often different from the political (read peoples).
Other matters more recent is tobacco industry, where corporate interests for profit is against political interests for peoples health.
Now, my point here was not the above, my question was if there is a risk if wealth are able to buy political power in a democratic process. It was not for US specifically. Also to note, I am not talking about corrupt practices.
I do believe that if a populistic system become to dependent on private financial support, we might lose out to get the "best man" on the political posts. I don't have any solution, just a concern..... ~;)

---

Economics is amoral. Thus, economic interests are also amoral. Any society that allows private enterprise will by that allowance bring tension between "public" and "private" read: corporate, concerns. The theoretical justification for these allowances and acceptance of possible tensions is liberty. The role of a government that recognizes liberty's centrality is to provide and maintain the boundaries that maximize opportunity and systemic equity. This is the reason for anti-monopoly legislation. This does not mean sustaining inefficiency in the private sector, but simply maximizing the grounds for competition to occur. This competition also applies when private interests court public officials. Transparency between these relations and contributions allows the public at large to check any perceived undue influence.

The "best men" rarely emerge to fill political posts because those that seek such position are typically motivated by a base narcissism. This puts them at odds with general notions of virtue. This is one of the reasons government is a necessary evil.

---

I read this article from Slate today- I found it amusing..
Bush to U.N.: Drop Dead

Heh, sounds like Bush is appointing a UN ambassador who pretty much hates the very same organization. ~D

The UN doesn't need to drop dead, it just needs to get off US property. Time for the international buerocrats get their whores, drugs, and diplomatic immunity on someone else's property. It will be a glorious day when Koffi and his band of thieves go back to their little hell holes around the globe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Economics is amoral. Thus, economic interests are also amoral. Any society that allows private enterprise will by that allowance bring tension between "public" and "private" read: corporate, concerns. The theoretical justification for these allowances and acceptance of possible tensions is liberty. The role of a government that recognizes liberty's centrality is to provide and maintain the boundaries that maximize opportunity and systemic equity. This is the reason for anti-monopoly legislation. This does not mean sustaining inefficiency in the private sector, but simply maximizing the grounds for competition to occur. This competition also applies when private interests court public officials. Transparency between these relations and contributions allows the public at large to check any perceived undue influence.

---

I disagree that economics is amoral. It is possible to do business with everyone involved being happy.
The problem with wealth, just like power, it corrupt individuals. Being rich is not as easy as it seems.

Anti-monopoly legislation is a way to protect the market economy, since the definition of market economy is competition. Fully agree on that one.
But when we are talking about it, I think that we actually can see anti-monopoly legislation as a protection of the democratic system as well. It will actually prevent my concerns to occur..... ~;)

Quote:

---

The "best men" rarely emerge to fill political posts because those that seek such position are typically motivated by a base narcissism. This puts them at odds with general notions of virtue. This is one of the reasons government is a necessary evil.

---

Don't fully agree with this. There are still idealists around, believe it or not.... :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

I disagree that economics is amoral. It is possible to do business with everyone involved being happy.

---

The happiness of participants is not a moral determinate.

Commerce is not concerned or effected by the moral standing of the participants or the objects under consideration. It does not matter whether one is the Pope or a common dealer, whether the object for sale is a vase or a person: the relation of buyer and seller and transferable unit remains.

Quote:

---

Anti-monopoly legislation is a way to protect the market economy, since the definition of market economy is competition. Fully agree on that one.
But when we are talking about it, I think that we actually can see anti-monopoly legislation as a protection of the democratic system as well. It will actually prevent my concerns to occur..... ~;)

---

This is an extrapolation. There is nothing in the law that suggests this. Monopolies are bad because they potentially stifle innovation and negatively impact price.

Suggesting an arbitrary limiting of market share protects against potential political influence peddling is dangerous. Any industry that demonstrates money generating potential wields power and political influence. If one really fears corporate power then one must attack at the source: private enterprise.

Quote:

---

Don't fully agree with this. There are still idealists around, believe it or not.... :bow:

---

If one accepts the notion that greater power increases the possibility of greater corruption and one is also familiar with the general trend of history then it is prudent to guard against tyranny. The threat of Alcibiades is ever present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The happiness of participants is not a moral determinate.

---

In reality it is, theory surely not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Commerce is not concerned or effected by the moral standing of the participants or the objects under consideration. It does not matter whether one is the Pope or a common dealer, whether the object for sale is a vase or a person: the relation of buyer and seller and transferable unit remains.

---

So you deem a sale-buy transaction as amoral ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is an extrapolation. There is nothing in the law that suggests this. Monopolies are bad because they potentially stifle innovation and negatively impact price.

---

Yes it is, but you have to admit that the assumption works....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Suggesting an arbitrary limiting of market share protects against potential political influence peddling is dangerous. Any industry that demonstrates money generating potential wields power and political influence. If one really fears corporate power then one must attack at the source: private enterprise.

---

Yes and no. Controlling the market for monopoly building is necessary to keep the market economy healthy. Monopoly itself is a threat against private enterprise. The power and political influence a good business generate is insignificant as long as large economical resources are not used in a system where it is permitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If one accepts the notion that greater power increases the possibility of greater corruption and one is also familiar with the general trend of history then it is prudent to guard against tyranny. The threat of Alcibiades is ever present.

---

Yes it is, but that is not actually an argument against any system. It's an question and concern on how a ruler should be removed when he have lost the interest of the people and/or country he is ruling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

In reality it is, theory surely not...

---

In theory it fails as well. The notion that the good is defined by happiness is known as eudaimonism and it certainly has its proponets. However, this view has critical flaws. By defining the good as happiness one has created a moral theory where the good is a species of egoism. This is because happiness is subject specific. Egoistic moral theory, as with its cosmological corollary, has a reductionist tendency which means the "I" maintains a primacy. That is ultimately implosive and self defeating.

It is more fruitful to see the good as expanding beyond the self: as that which seeks what is best for the other.

Quote:

---

So you deem a sale-buy transaction as amoral ???

---

Yes, there is nothing within the commercial act that requires a moral referent. Further all things within the dynamic are interchangeable or of undetermined status. This applies to buyer, seller, object of purchase and assigned value.

Quote:

---

Yes it is, but you have to admit that the assumption works....

---

Assumptions work through the assuming. If you mean that anti-monopoly law restricts corporate growth and thereby helps control political influence then things become more complicated. To determine whether such a law "works" one must first determine a viable threat exists. If under full disclosure legislation all commercial/political contact is always already available for public scrutiny then what you have described is at best a redundancy.

Quote:

---

Yes and no....The power and political influence a good business generate is insignificant as long as large economical resources are not used in a system where it is permitted.

---

I don't know how a good business is being defined here. If a good business is any business that isn't a monopoly then you have allowed quite a large margin. Further, there are a whole host of businesses that may not be the largest company for there field but nonetheless weld massive amounts of capital. In addition, the anti-monopoly law seems specious as a political influence control since a company that only owns 58% of a market seems essentially as powerful as a company that owns the monopoly status 60%.

Quote:

---

Yes it is, but that is not actually an argument against any system. It's an question and concern on how a ruler should be removed when he have lost the interest of the people and/or country he is ruling.

---

The Alcibiades option, as I will name it, is not about removal of corrupt power, but that the threat of corruption is ever present and thus stands as a retort to simple idealism about power and the state.