Lobbyists vs. laissez-faire and free speech

Economics Economics Questions
1

The current political system in America is dominated by special interest money. Millions of dollars are spent on campaigns, and largely candidates are chosen by the special interest money, without which no candidate has a hope of getting elected.

A criticism of this special interest domination poses the question, “special interest money and lobbyists are free to do as they choose, if you support laissez-faire society, so how could you criticize their actions?”

My take on it is that the money is not laissez faire money in the first place, since we are not in a laissez faire system. The Fed pumps billions of fiat currency into preferential hands in the first place, which skews the system from the start. Subsequently, winners and losers are not chosen naturally as they would be in a laissez faire system. The Fed’s preferential and secret disbursements, the tax codes and legislation all change the path of money away from where it would travel in laissez faire. Therefore, it is acceptable to criticize the special interest money domination.

However, would it be that much different in laissez faire?

Any thoughts?

2

The issue is that all actors are forced to be complicit in whatever the legal monopoly decides to enact, the question is one of exit.

3

“The problem isn’t the abuse of power, the problem is the power to abuse.” - Someone

If the state wasn’t able to grant and deny special privleges, there would be no lobbyists.

4

Buying special privileges from an institution that holds a monopoly on force is about as far away from the free market as one could possibly venture.

5

I think one can imagine lobbyists in just about any system, but who they went to to garner favor would certainly change depending on who has the power. In monarchy, you get a court full of sycophants and supplicants. In our system, we get special interest lobbying groups.

As long as people continue to want special favors, you can bet there will be people trying to figure out how to get them.

But obviously, change the rules of the game, you change the way the game is played.

6

Those who criticize special interests don’t understand how any political system works. Especially Democracy! They are under the illusion that the government, at least in theory, can work for the public, or serve society, or blah blah blah… In fact, politics is always a zero-sum game. No matter how you play this barbaric game, the gain of one person is always a loss for another.

The system is inherently exploitative no matter what. So those who criticize special interests never really criticize special interest but only those special interests they don’t like. They want their own interest served at the expense of others.

Anyway, what does this have to do with laissez-faire? laissez-faire means Government hands off! No violence!

7

The situation is like being in a prison camp, with some prisoners able to bribe the guards.

When a poorer prisoner complains, he is told, “You believe in freedom, right? So let them be free to bribe the guards.”

The whole discussion is laughable. How can you talk about freedom in a prison camp?

To understand how we are living in a prison camp, you have lewrockwell.com

Edit: Of course one might argue that there are degrees of freedom. Even a prison camp can have more or less freedom.

A more accurate description is this:

The prisoners are strip searched upon arrival, all their goods confiscated.

Some of the wealthier prisoners bribe the guards to pull out the gold teeth from the prisoners as well, and give the gold to the wealthy prisoners.

They explain that the right to bribe is a valuable freedom and benefits the whole camp.

8

In laissez faire you can’t pay someone to beat the crap out of your competitors much less claim they don’t have the right to self defense while you’re doing it