T Nation

Origins of Conservatism

Some pretty strange ideologies in there. Ownership without control is slavery?

“Ownership and control are property. Ownership without control is slavery because control without ownership is tyranny.” Outright fallacy, and a really really bad one…

The reason it’s bad is because it’s based on the idea that we an all agree with in control without ownership being tyranny. But it doesn’t mean that the above makes a logical connection or that there is even a valid argument present.

I know that was a different time, but really wtf that’s a scary sentiment to think about.

Strongly de-regulatory but ultimately self serving as usual?

What am I missing?

Seems anti corporate but it isn’t bringing up the specifics as to why corporations are allowed to exist indefinitely… The problem with corporations as people is that they are immortal and they were never intended to be.

It’s already bad that the collective bargaining power of a corporation is also overtly and unabashedly connected to money which in theory makes corporations exponentially more powerful in government. That it isn’t a necessity that corporations die and lose their forms of central or collective power allows for them to grow indefinitely in power. It isn’t necessary that they ever die… It actually becomes a necessity that they stay alive after a certain point which is why there are bailouts. We walked down this path a long time, the only way it can be fixed is to forcefully deconstruct them, but then is government overstepping it’s power, or taking power back?

Am I seeing it wrong?

You all still like Justice Roberts?

I found the idea of corporations being anti-free market interesting. It supports the idea that the founders (w/the exception of Hamilton+), felt the same way, and that the revolution was as much a revolt against corporate/charter control as anything else. Perhaps there is a relationship between the expansion of coprorate powers and the increasing size of government.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
I found the idea of corporations being anti-free market interesting. It supports the idea that the founders (w/the exception of Hamilton+), felt the same way, and that the revolution was as much a revolt against corporate/charter control as anything else. Perhaps there is a relationship between the expansion of coprorate powers and the increasing size of government. [/quote]

Perhaps? But do you think corporations would be any less powerful with smaller government? It may have been connected that way at one point, but it’s my feeling that if you reduce the size of government at this point all you do is consolidate power in government individuals and allow corporations to be more focused on those individuals. Effectively removing red tape and streamlining the process in such a way that it helps corporations. Another thing to consider is the revolving door between corporations and government office… There would be fewer ways to infiltrate government, but you could also look at it in that corporations would need fewer people in government to get the same, or more power. I think it’s the latter.

It may seem like this creates more competition amongst corporations to have politicians in their pockets at that may be true to some degree, but at the same time not all corporations are in direct competition with one another. It would just put more power in fewer hands, in terms of the government. It might actually reduce the amount of expendatures/red tape for corporations to cut through for the sake of writing the laws for their own interest and control of their own stocks in the, “free market” (which is what we are really talking about).

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
I found the idea of corporations being anti-free market interesting. It supports the idea that the founders (w/the exception of Hamilton+), felt the same way, and that the revolution was as much a revolt against corporate/charter control as anything else. Perhaps there is a relationship between the expansion of coprorate powers and the increasing size of government. [/quote]

But what did a corporation look like in 1750? Most of these were chartered by the Crown as an alternate means of generating revenue that side-stepped Parliament. Citizens were tasked with various economic or social goals (such as the disastrous plantations in Ireland) and failure to comply meant a trip to the Star Chamber, torture, confessions and confiscation. These were in short Mercantilist operations. The article makes a hopeless mess of this historical situation and gets it roundly confused with American Popularist movements (such as lead by Huey Long in the 1920’s and 30’s). Note that the Mercantilist model was despised in the Colonies and was a major reason for the rebellion, along with taxation without representation. Note also that Socialist forced labor camps and resettlements followed Mercantilism directly (and said so too, I might add) and are its direct historical descendants.

Adam Smith was rightly trying to promote a different method in which the state would be required to abide by its own laws and everyone plays fair, with all contracts as public documents. (He did not invent “capitalism”, but was trying to explain and articulate and profound economic shift he was observing.) This is properly called “Commerce” and that is precisely what the Founding Fathers were promoting, because it was operational already and very effective in many parts of the Colonies, at least internally.

As for “Capitalism” this was a phrase brought to prominence by the Socialist theoretician Werner Sombart. His thesis is that “capitalism” = money-grubbing, was a Jewish phenomenon and this viewpoint was adopted by the socialists and in particular the Nazis through the 1920’s and 30’s. (Marx never used the word “Capitalism” and referred to that concept as “Judentum” = Jews. The Nazi’s anti-semitism was nothing new, really. The Nazis just introduced a pseudo-scientific theory of genetics to explain Marx’s class warfare.) So yes, every time someone uses the word “capitalism” they are using a Nazi economic model to explain why liberal economies based on Commerce are really fronts for the Jews. Sombart railed against both the US and England as being overrun with Jews and squarely pitted purer German economics (in the form of syndicalism, which was a popular form of socialism then) against those. The Nazis almost always referred to “jewish capitalism” though the “jewish” was dropped by other socialists who accepted this, but did not want to be confused with the Nazis.

Sorry, but I just did not find the article worth really reading. If you ask me very nicely I’ll tell what Conservatism is.

As always, full off shit*,

–jj

==========

  • meaning I am fallible and will be the first to admit that. I am not an internet expert, therefore.

I think the history of the Corp has been a boondoggle to man kind . Corporations were originally brought about to limit liability , now they are people

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the history of the Corp has been a boondoggle to man kind . Corporations were originally brought about to limit liability , now they are people [/quote]

What a load of giant horse shit.

This is 100% partisan talking point. You couldn’t back this up with fact if you tried.

There are significant differences between European and American conservatism. However, the first conservatives in America were obviously the loyalists during the revolution. Then the federalists. Then the Southern Democrats.

Edit: this is because conservatism is reactionary in nature. Although I identify with conservatism, a more apt description of my political ideology would be classical liberalism.

Without Corporations we most likely wouldn’t have the levels of tech and convenience we have today, but those conveniences come with economic dependency when the corporations become large and entwined in our economy.

We are literally at a point where we as private citizens need to act like corporations in that we need collective bargaining power for our money to influence corporations… Which seems to be more important than our votes.

What’s the point in voting for anyone or being part of a party when corporations decide who we can vote for by who they back? Candidates cant really run successful campaigns without money from corps. They control the market policy which goes a long way in determining stock, so we don’t really have a free market. The only thing that should keep a corporation at this point honest is that they cannot control every aspect of bubbles or crashes… But as we have seen with both Bush and Obama, Repub and Dem, corps need to be bailed out because our economy is too dependent on them.

The way we vote is everyday with the way we spend our money. But, we are collectively too disorganized and at one anothers throats with our passe, childish ideas of being Democrats and Republicans to realize that how we spend our money, rather than who we vote for is what determines our path as a nation.

Money is God

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Without Corporations we most likely wouldn’t have the levels of tech and convenience we have today, but those conveniences come with economic dependency when the corporations become large and entwined in our economy.

We are literally at a point where we as private citizens need to act like corporations in that we need collective bargaining power for our money to influence corporations… Which seems to be more important than our votes.

What’s the point in voting for anyone or being part of a party when corporations decide who we can vote for by who they back? Candidates cant really run successful campaigns without money from corps. They control the market policy which goes a long way in determining stock, so we don’t really have a free market. The only thing that should keep a corporation at this point honest is that they cannot control every aspect of bubbles or crashes… But as we have seen with both Bush and Obama, Repub and Dem, corps need to be bailed out because our economy is too dependent on them.

The way we vote is everyday with the way we spend our money. But, we are collectively too disorganized and at one anothers throats with our passe, childish ideas of being Democrats and Republicans to realize that how we spend our money, rather than who we vote for is what determines our path as a nation.

Money is God[/quote]

Excellent post, Sev.

Mufasa

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
There are significant differences between European and American conservatism. However, the first conservatives in America were obviously the loyalists during the revolution. Then the federalists. Then the Southern Democrats.

Edit: this is because conservatism is reactionary in nature. Although I identify with conservatism, a more apt description of my political ideology would be classical liberalism.[/quote]

For once I totally agree With you.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the history of the Corp has been a boondoggle to man kind . Corporations were originally brought about to limit liability , now they are people [/quote]

What a load of giant horse shit.

This is 100% partisan talking point. You couldn’t back this up with fact if you tried. [/quote]

I know you would argue if I said the Earth revolves around the sun but this time you will have to argue with the book called Barron’s Business Keys “Keys to Incorporating” 3rd addition , it was a Barnes and Nobles publication

It was written by Steven Fox LL.M C.P.A. Attorney at Law :slight_smile:

I can’t argue with you :slight_smile: but the book said Corporations were created by people that did Sailing expeditions from one land mass to another . That way they could limit liability to what they had invested

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Without Corporations we most likely wouldn’t have the levels of tech and convenience we have today, but those conveniences come with economic dependency when the corporations become large and entwined in our economy.

We are literally at a point where we as private citizens need to act like corporations in that we need collective bargaining power for our money to influence corporations… Which seems to be more important than our votes.

What’s the point in voting for anyone or being part of a party when corporations decide who we can vote for by who they back? Candidates cant really run successful campaigns without money from corps. They control the market policy which goes a long way in determining stock, so we don’t really have a free market. The only thing that should keep a corporation at this point honest is that they cannot control every aspect of bubbles or crashes… But as we have seen with both Bush and Obama, Repub and Dem, corps need to be bailed out because our economy is too dependent on them.

The way we vote is everyday with the way we spend our money. But, we are collectively too disorganized and at one anothers throats with our passe, childish ideas of being Democrats and Republicans to realize that how we spend our money, rather than who we vote for is what determines our path as a nation.

Money is God[/quote]

Pretty good. But… Money is the root of all evil is either a very Christian or Left-wing statement (since I view Progressivism as, in effect trying to secularize Christianity, this makes a pretty arresting assertion.) In any case, money is information about what people value. Track money to understand allocation of resources and priorities.

Let’s do some Math. If you take everything that the government owns, (Fed. State, local) and add it up (every tank, park, aircraft carrier, courthouse, &c., &c.) estimates run to about $180 trillion. The largest corporations (Exxon tops out at $415 billion) are about .25% – one quarter of one percent – the size of the government. Companies are acutely aware they can get squished by the government. The Progressive claim is that any private interest is automatically against the public interest and therefore intolerable. Oh and most of the wealth outside the government in the US is in private hands, followed by not for profits and in a very distant 3rd place, corporations.

You say “private citizens need to act more like corporations” and you are right. The reason that that US does allow for corporate (=body of people) law is to allow for basically grass roots entrepreneurship. That is the right approach. They assume the risk of development and managing themselves, which is pretty hard. They also have been the reason for most advances in Science and Tech. since day one (Thomas Edison started this himself with his development companies). Think about the Progressive claim of companies being “Right Wing”. These same companies are producing things like Twitter and Facebook which are doing more to destabilize dictatorships than anything else. They produce empowering technologies and this is what drives innovation.

Very large corporations are extremely risk-averse and get bloated. This is the predictable result of growth and bureaucracy – which applies across the board to every human institution, be it government, private, ecclesiastical, you name it. Government programs are never shut down and will continue to bloat without end since there is no correction possible without massive political intervention. Private ones will seek to horn in on this government stability and that should be discouraged. Big deal if they break up and fail as long as the pieces can be allowed to organize themselves into something useful.

And as always, Just full of shit,

– jj

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Without Corporations we most likely wouldn’t have the levels of tech and convenience we have today, but those conveniences come with economic dependency when the corporations become large and entwined in our economy.

We are literally at a point where we as private citizens need to act like corporations in that we need collective bargaining power for our money to influence corporations… Which seems to be more important than our votes.

What’s the point in voting for anyone or being part of a party when corporations decide who we can vote for by who they back? Candidates cant really run successful campaigns without money from corps. They control the market policy which goes a long way in determining stock, so we don’t really have a free market. The only thing that should keep a corporation at this point honest is that they cannot control every aspect of bubbles or crashes… But as we have seen with both Bush and Obama, Repub and Dem, corps need to be bailed out because our economy is too dependent on them.

The way we vote is everyday with the way we spend our money. But, we are collectively too disorganized and at one anothers throats with our passe, childish ideas of being Democrats and Republicans to realize that how we spend our money, rather than who we vote for is what determines our path as a nation.

Money is God[/quote]

Pretty good. But… Money is the root of all evil is either a very Christian or Left-wing statement (since I view Progressivism as, in effect trying to secularize Christianity, this makes a pretty arresting assertion.) In any case, money is information about what people value. Track money to understand allocation of resources and priorities.

Let’s do some Math. If you take everything that the government owns, (Fed. State, local) and add it up (every tank, park, aircraft carrier, courthouse, &c., &c.) estimates run to about $180 trillion. The largest corporations (Exxon tops out at $415 billion) are about .25% – one quarter of one percent – the size of the government. Companies are acutely aware they can get squished by the government. The Progressive claim is that any private interest is automatically against the public interest and therefore intolerable. Oh and most of the wealth outside the government in the US is in private hands, followed by not for profits and in a very distant 3rd place, corporations.

You say “private citizens need to act more like corporations” and you are right. The reason that that US does allow for corporate (=body of people) law is to allow for basically grass roots entrepreneurship. That is the right approach. They assume the risk of development and managing themselves, which is pretty hard. They also have been the reason for most advances in Science and Tech. since day one (Thomas Edison started this himself with his development companies). Think about the Progressive claim of companies being “Right Wing”. These same companies are producing things like Twitter and Facebook which are doing more to destabilize dictatorships than anything else. They produce empowering technologies and this is what drives innovation.

Very large corporations are extremely risk-averse and get bloated. This is the predictable result of growth and bureaucracy – which applies across the board to every human institution, be it government, private, ecclesiastical, you name it. Government programs are never shut down and will continue to bloat without end since there is no correction possible without massive political intervention. Private ones will seek to horn in on this government stability and that should be discouraged. Big deal if they break up and fail as long as the pieces can be allowed to organize themselves into something useful.

And as always, Just full of shit,

– jj[/quote]

Government programs do shut down. We have shut down institutions like state run mental institutions and as a result have crazy people roaming the streets.

The government cuts funding to things like the V.A. as well. Always have money to bailout institutions that are, “risk averse.” Pardon me for thinking Bayesian methodology is more risk averse than classical. Bayesian theory is a basic root of rationality in my world. So I don’t consider big corporate tinkering and indirect control of markets by way of controlling elections is a very risk averse thing in and of itself.

It’s no more risk averse or conservative than measuring your own results and giving yourself the power to give yourself a raise off of said measurements. It’s quite predictably corrupt.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the history of the Corp has been a boondoggle to man kind . Corporations were originally brought about to limit liability , now they are people [/quote]

What a load of giant horse shit.

This is 100% partisan talking point. You couldn’t back this up with fact if you tried. [/quote]

I know you would argue if I said the Earth revolves around the sun but this time you will have to argue with the book called Barron’s Business Keys “Keys to Incorporating” 3rd addition , it was a Barnes and Nobles publication

It was written by Steven Fox LL.M C.P.A. Attorney at Law :slight_smile:

I can’t argue with you :slight_smile: but the book said Corporations were created by people that did Sailing expeditions from one land mass to another . That way they could limit liability to what they had invested
[/quote]

Of course. There’s no way they were becoming transnational to take advantage of new resources to fuel the fledgling industrial revolution or untouched markets for manufactured goods.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the history of the Corp has been a boondoggle to man kind . Corporations were originally brought about to limit liability , now they are people [/quote]

What a load of giant horse shit.

This is 100% partisan talking point. You couldn’t back this up with fact if you tried. [/quote]

I know you would argue if I said the Earth revolves around the sun but this time you will have to argue with the book called Barron’s Business Keys “Keys to Incorporating” 3rd addition , it was a Barnes and Nobles publication

It was written by Steven Fox LL.M C.P.A. Attorney at Law :slight_smile:

I can’t argue with you :slight_smile: but the book said Corporations were created by people that did Sailing expeditions from one land mass to another . That way they could limit liability to what they had invested
[/quote]

Of course. There’s no way they were becoming transnational to take advantage of new resources to fuel the fledgling industrial revolution or untouched markets for manufactured goods.
[/quote]

I doubt they were thinking of some industrial revolution , that would require hind sight :slight_smile:

I doubt they had any intention of exporting to any untouched market .I am guessing they loaded their ships with provisions to last as long as possible with out land

They were probably mare interested in importing raw materials to bolster their own burgeoning economies , sugar , spice , slaves , clothe , gold, silver and the like