Comment: Thanks for your thoughts

(See in situ)

Thanks for your thoughts

"I'm not sure you've read a lot of economists in the liberty movement, since I don't recall any defending the collusion of government and corporations to shield owners from liability. Libertarians object to evasion of responsibility for damage, fraud, etc. and do not think the government should collude in such acts."

Well it is absolutely news to me that libertarian economists oppose the invention of the limited liability corporation, but welcome news at that.

a cleaner solution is simply to remove the special privilege of corporate personhood so all business is subject to the objective discipline of the market, not the whims and back room deals of politicians and bureaucrats.

I am with you on the removal of the special privilege of corporate personhood, and I actually think that would address the main concern that I have about campaign finance as it stands because if corporations aren't people then they aren't entitled to free speech and then cannot donate to political campaigns. If the individual CEO wants to donate, they can go to it, but they can't use the corporate treasury and won't have to or be tempted to turn campaign donations into an operating expense.

That said, I have trouble believing that even if you got corporate personhood eliminated and even if you got government completely out of the way that the market would be objectively disciplined. Economic actors act irrationally and emotionally in their economic affairs ALL THE TIME. They also cheat. Or they act irrationally short-term for long-term gain and vice versa. And the concentration of economic power in monopolies and trusts than can result from an unregulated market also gums up the works in terms of market efficiency and economic equity.

Since you are a thoughtful person, whom would you support in a general election if not Ron Paul? If he were the nominee, it would mean a r3VOLution had occurred in the Republican party -- running a solid peace candidate against a war president.

That is an excellent point. It would be a very tough call for me.

But at this point I would probably still vote for Obama (not that it would matter in my particular state) in the general election.

The biggest boost I can give to Ron Paul is in my state's primary. And I'm not such a die-hard partisan that I haven't ever voted for Republicans or third parties in certain instances and I just like being able to push forward a Republican with the most integrity in the race and the one with whom I agree on at least some issues.

But I still do not reject my original leanings. And at the moment my economic beliefs (American School, not Austrian School) are more aligned with Obama than they are Dr. Paul. While I share Dr. Paul's concern about the Fed, I'm not opposed to central banks as a rule. I just don't like this one. I'd want a federal bank run more like the state of North Dakota's bank (sub 5% unemployment for more please). I also am concerned about what sort of Supreme Court justices that Ron Paul would appoint as we have very divergent views on things like the right to contract and the interstate commerce clause.