WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

[dcarrigg]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

Yes, but what you seem to be overlooking is that there is no stalemate, albeit there are elements of gridlock at times, the Fed Gov continues to acquire power and promulgate policy and regulation in virtually every aspect of human endeavor (executive and judicial branches primarily). I agree that divided government is much better that united government, especially when it is intent on driving us into a hive-like society dominated by public opinion molded by elitist academics misinformed by arcane 19th century german philosophies and do-gooder OR egotistical social scientists who think they have the answers, all the while the plutocrats pull the strings. Can anyone really suggest that we are freer today than we were 50 or 100 years ago to live a self-actualized life (absent inherited wealth or unlimited access to credit). I'll take unchecked capitalism any day over soft-fascist crony-capitalism that we have today where the gov uses its power to assist "capitalist" in increasing their wealth. The problem is not capitalism, but corrupted capitalism whereby the laws are co-opted and politicians owned (why is this so hard to grasp for so many I wonder). This is exactly why small limited government with clearly defined roles and limited powers was the intent and genius of this country's (USA) founding Republic. But somehow most have their own ox to gore and need the government to see they get "their justice".

Sometimes I think this myth of a hands-off government of yore is overblown.

The first congress did several things that people may find contentious. They regulated and licensed all behavior and trade involving Indians. They set forth requirements for state militia's and the President's power to take them over at will. They set forth remarkably specific taxes on goods. They set forth complicated and moralizing laws surrounding the storage and sale of liquor. They set forth a central bank. They took land from the states by law to create the District of Columbia. They set forth complicated intellectual property restrictions surrounding books and maps. They undertook a huge infrastructure spending plan on borrowed money to build a national system of lighthouses, buoys, and other marine navigation aids. They established an immigration and naturalization system. They created an even more expensive infrastructure program in the United States postal system, and spent borrowed money on a nation-wide network of post roads. They established a lengthy code of criminal violations and penalties including public whippings.

And this is just a small sample from the first 2 years. I'm afraid you'll find that an age of super-simple, non-interfering, non-moralizing government never truly existed. And don't even get me started on 18th century state law and local ordinance. It gets even crazier. In many ways the government is more hands off today than it was in the past. Hell, in 1920 they passed a constitutional amendment banning alcohol. I think it's a mistake to assume that a smaller government is a less intrusive one, or that people in the past were kinder or simpler or more likely to leave you alone than people today.

[lektrode]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

....
A guy who donates primarily to democrats, some to republicans, and none to libertarians that I'm aware of bought a dying newspaper. This is the sign that anarchy is coming?

I share (what I believe is) your view that the press is a complete disgrace at this point and getting worse. But I don't read news articles and think they are representative of libertarian philosophy.

+1
and to think that its the conservatives that are somehow 'the media conspiracy' is the most over-the-top POV
= quite laffable at this point. (no offense, dc, as i agree with most of your essay)

the lamestream media, with the editorial desks run mostly by liberals, who seem to think that 'reality programming' is the highest form of (their) art, who continues to ignore the real REALITY, even as they run cover/blocking for their own agenda, all the while decrying the 'concentration' of ownership (and i agree that this is a VERY BAD THING)

and surely there are worse things than having the BosGlobe bought by someone like JH
at least he knows how to fill fenway park...

[dcarrigg]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

I understand your viewpoint on why you don't want an extreme libertarian society. What I don't understand is how you can think there is some chance of this happening.

I consider myself a libertarian leaning person. I mostly want America returned to its past governance which I consider to be much more libertarian than today. Minus the aspects (slavery/equal rights issues) that are completely opposed to true libertarian ideas. If you asked me how the libertarian viewpoint is faring in America I would say it's taking an unimaginable beating. Almost nothing that I advocate is happening and nearly everything I oppose is happening.

Looking at recent history:

The "war" is neverending. How many people died in drone attacks today? Have we almost won yet?
Income tax, capital gains, dividend rates all recently increased. We also got a new tax on top of that.
The welfare state continues to grow. PPACA gets more people on government programs. Food stamp numbers are simply unbelievable (47 million people?!)
There is no hope for having a balanced budget in the foreseeable future.
Personal freedoms are under a constant assault. Including many which (at least in my opinion) are supposed to be constitutionally protected and a key part of the American Experiment.

The idea that we have gridlock is an illusion. The two party system generally agrees on everything that matters. They fight over gay marriage as political theater. And even then, they just make up their opinions. Obama was against gay marriage when he thought it was politically valuable and then reversed when he thought the opposite. He's against the war and spying on Americans until he's actually in charge and doesn't care about votes anymore.

What evidence suggests we should be worried about an extreme libertarian takeover? What percent of the population has even heard of von Mises? Far less than 1% I'd guess.

A guy who donates primarily to democrats, some to republicans, and none to libertarians that I'm aware of bought a dying newspaper. This is the sign that anarchy is coming?

I share (what I believe is) your view that the press is a complete disgrace at this point and getting worse. But I don't read news articles and think they are representative of libertarian philosophy.

Small, highly motivated, extreme groups of people who are dedicated with resources can cause havok on a society. Who would have thought that the former Trotskyists Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would be able to have their turn at the wheel of the American ship of state? And yet they did. And they wrote in 2000 that they wanted to invade Iraq. And when in power, they got their way.

Who would have thought that a total takeover of the established Republicans in Kansas and Arkansas by the libertarian branded Republicans would happen overnight in 2012? But it did. Who would have thought that Rhode Island, among the bluest of blue states, would pass a voter ID law with Koch funding by an Alec board member in a state legislature that is 97% democrat? But they did. Who would have thought that legislatures in 30 states would demand the type of public stand-your-ground law that arguably has re-legalized the ancient practice of public dueling? But they did.

The funders of the libertarian movement are growing in both wealth and influence. And they are actively seeking to purchase public media. They are actively seeking to take over state legislatures. They pay state legislators, send them on lavish trips, hire them as "board members," buy them fancy meals, and then hand them a copy of "model legislation" that is 100% approved by the libertarian movement leaders. I am not making this stuff up.

Were I in their place, and would I want to take over the ship of state, I would be doing exactly what they are. #1: Secure funding. #2: Establish your philosophy and a rabid group of core followers. #3: Work to repeal limits on political spending. #4: Bribe legitimate doctoral students and professors at ivy league institutions to publish your propaganda by offering large cash fellowships, giving your proposals the air of legitimacy. #5: Propagate policy think-tanks at the federal, state, and local levels. #6: Form political action groups to fund candidates at the federal, state and local level. #7: Run a test case as proof of concept of small state legislative takeover with relatively limited funds. #8: Purchase major media outlets. #9: Run a test case as proof of concept of federal and large state legislative takeovers with more, but still limited, funds, using major media outlets for key exposure. #10: Push for a watershed election and hammer your agenda through.

And that's assuming that their agenda includes the continued existence of a United States, which is something of which I am not 100% certain.

You see everything not going your way. I see a growing organization and list of people who actually are so hard line that they believe the "all taxation is theft" mantra. It is one thing to say, "I think taxes are too high." It is quite another to say, "I think taxes should not exist." It's one thing to say, "I think we can scale back the scope and spending of the United States government." It's another thing to say, "I think the United States government should not exist."

I suppose I seem over-alarmed to you. But growing movements with billions of dollars of funding and active political machinations with serious elements who want to destroy the republic worry me. Say what you want about liberals and conservatives. I don't think you'll find a growing group of them openly calling for the end of democracy. It takes 30 seconds on an internet forum to find dozens of libertarians openly calling for an end of democracy. Then you get extreme libertarian media figures like Adam Kokesh calling for a 50 state armed march "final revolution" on all of our state capitals. Even if he is just the crazy fringe, invading our statehouses and murdering all of our elected representatives is not even on the fringe agenda for liberals and conservatives.

[lektrode]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

Sometimes I think this myth of a hands-off government of yore is overblown.

The first congress did several things that people may find contentious.....
....
don't even get me started on 18th century state law and local ordinance. It gets even crazier. In many ways the government is more hands off today than it was in the past. Hell, in 1920 they passed a constitutional amendment banning alcohol. I think it's a mistake to assume that a smaller government is a less intrusive one, or that people in the past were kinder or simpler or more likely to leave you alone than people today.

fair enough (there are whackos in every generation ;) but those were 'different' times back then - i mean, could you JUST IMAGINE what it would be like, merely attempting to begin the process that resulted in today's USA ?

we'd be dead at the initial environmental impact statement.

at some point, somebody HAS TO LEAD (not that we'd even agree on what direction these daze, seeing as the lametream media prospers when there's a 49/51% split and the 'decisions' get left to the courts!)

The Real Problem is WE, The People do NOT have real leaders - what we have are 535+1 clowns who are all (or most all) concerned about ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY.

their own GD re-election.

just once, i'd like to hear from a candidate that specified UP FRONT that they are running for ONE TERM and only one
and WILL do The Right Thing, vs the most politically expedient (as does the current occupant, in particular)

[vinoveri]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

Sometimes I think this myth of a hands-off government of yore is overblown.

The first congress did several things that people may find contentious. They regulated and licensed all behavior and trade involving Indians. They set forth requirements for state militia's and the President's power to take them over at will. They set forth remarkably specific taxes on goods. They set forth complicated and moralizing laws surrounding the storage and sale of liquor. They set forth a central bank. They took land from the states by law to create the District of Columbia. They set forth complicated intellectual property restrictions surrounding books and maps. They undertook a huge infrastructure spending plan on borrowed money to build a national system of lighthouses, buoys, and other marine navigation aids. They established an immigration and naturalization system. They created an even more expensive infrastructure program in the United States postal system, and spent borrowed money on a nation-wide network of post roads. They established a lengthy code of criminal violations and penalties including public whippings.

And this is just a small sample from the first 2 years. I'm afraid you'll find that an age of super-simple, non-interfering, non-moralizing government never truly existed. And don't even get me started on 18th century state law and local ordinance. It gets even crazier. In many ways the government is more hands off today than it was in the past. Hell, in 1920 they passed a constitutional amendment banning alcohol. I think it's a mistake to assume that a smaller government is a less intrusive one, or that people in the past were kinder or simpler or more likely to leave you alone than people today.

Respectfully, regarding the activities of the first congress, 1) is any example expressly not-authorized by Article I of the constitution? 2)it was the representative congress (not unilateral executive branch fiat which we have today in the regs promulgated by HHS, DEA, NEA, DOE, etc). I don't suggest that there has not always been a "ready to intrude" government, but pointing to out-dated 18th century laws reflecting mores of the time as evidence that the government is "more hands off today" doesn't convince me " - I think if you compare both periods and look at 1)the budget/gdp 2) # of federal agencies per capita 3) # regulations per capita 4) chained dollar taxes per capita 5) # law enforcement per capita you would see that government is clear more intrusive today than before. Moreover, now in the "turnkey tyranny" state we live in, exercising freedom can be very risky and I would suggest a subconscious deterrent to many who fear they might be doing something wrong. My kids are even infected - when I suggested to one of my children that we go ride our bikes at night, they asked me if it was legal! Regarding the amendment banning alcohol, it needed and got the ratification of 3/4 states (how strange is that), but at least it had the semblemce of rule by the people and not executive decree.

[lektrode]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

I am less optimistic. Between the Kochs going after the Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, LA Times, Orlando Sentinel, Hartford Courant, etc. etc. and Bezos getting the Wash Post, I suppose I should be thanking my lucky stars John Henry bought the Boston Globe.
.....

My guess is that a cable network is the next step by 2015. I'm just curious to see if they'll have any more success preaching praxeological voodoo on TV than Al Gore did with his ill-fated cable experiment. But I'm pretty sure I'll get to see an answer to that question soon enough.

hey - things can always get worse

at least we get some kind of alternative (to cnbc...)

[charliebrown]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

Thanks for posting this DC. something to think about. There will always be government, either it is a legitimate, elected one or the war lord in samolia, or the bully on the grade school playground. I think the pendulum in this epoch has swung to too much toward big .gov and is still swining in that direction. I do feel my personal liberties
are being infringed upon, and I have no voice, except maybe at the local level. State and Fed politics are hand maidens of the moneied interests.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

I don't feel I have consenting powers any more.

[shiny!]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

Small, highly motivated, extreme groups of people who are dedicated with resources can cause havok on a society. Who would have thought that the former Trotskyists Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would be able to have their turn at the wheel of the American ship of state? And yet they did. And they wrote in 2000 that they wanted to invade Iraq. And when in power, they got their way.

Who would have thought that a total takeover of the established Republicans in Kansas and Arkansas by the libertarian branded Republicans would happen overnight in 2012? But it did. Who would have thought that Rhode Island, among the bluest of blue states, would pass a voter ID law with Koch funding by an Alec board member in a state legislature that is 97% democrat? But they did. Who would have thought that legislatures in 30 states would demand the type of public stand-your-ground law that arguably has re-legalized the ancient practice of public dueling? But they did.

The funders of the libertarian movement are growing in both wealth and influence. And they are actively seeking to purchase public media. They are actively seeking to take over state legislatures. They pay state legislators, send them on lavish trips, hire them as "board members," buy them fancy meals, and then hand them a copy of "model legislation" that is 100% approved by the libertarian movement leaders. I am not making this stuff up.

Were I in their place, and would I want to take over the ship of state, I would be doing exactly what they are. #1: Secure funding. #2: Establish your philosophy and a rabid group of core followers. #3: Work to repeal limits on political spending. #4: Bribe legitimate doctoral students and professors at ivy league institutions to publish your propaganda by offering large cash fellowships, giving your proposals the air of legitimacy. #5: Propagate policy think-tanks at the federal, state, and local levels. #6: Form political action groups to fund candidates at the federal, state and local level. #7: Run a test case as proof of concept of small state legislative takeover with relatively limited funds. #8: Purchase major media outlets. #9: Run a test case as proof of concept of federal and large state legislative takeovers with more, but still limited, funds, using major media outlets for key exposure. #10: Push for a watershed election and hammer your agenda through.

And that's assuming that their agenda includes the continued existence of a United States, which is something of which I am not 100% certain.

You see everything not going your way. I see a growing organization and list of people who actually are so hard line that they believe the "all taxation is theft" mantra. It is one thing to say, "I think taxes are too high." It is quite another to say, "I think taxes should not exist." It's one thing to say, "I think we can scale back the scope and spending of the United States government." It's another thing to say, "I think the United States government should not exist."

dcarrigg, do you consider an UberLibertarian dystopia as the next iteration of FIRE interests, or something completely different? Are the oligarchs from Goldman Sachs, JPM, etc. behind this? Or is this agenda being pushed by of a new crop of robber barons?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

Respectfully, regarding the activities of the first congress, 1) is any example expressly not-authorized by Article I of the constitution?....

Candidates include the Crimes Act of 1790 and the creation of the First Bank of the United States. Though not a product of the first congress, the Louisianan purchase deserves mention here. Thomas Jefferson clearly felt his actions were outside the constitution he had written with his own hand, but felt the purchase was in the clear best interests of the nation none the less. Other founders like John Adams agreed with Jefferson on both points.

[c1ue]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

The funders of the libertarian movement are growing in both wealth and influence. And they are actively seeking to purchase public media. They are actively seeking to take over state legislatures. They pay state legislators, send them on lavish trips, hire them as "board members," buy them fancy meals, and then hand them a copy of "model legislation" that is 100% approved by the libertarian movement leaders. I am not making this stuff up.

I see the same things as you do, but to me this is simply emblematic of democracy: to wit, that the excesses of government due to political hegemony first demonstrated by Kennedy/Johnson, then replaced by Reagan/Bush, co-opted by Clinton, morphed by Cheney/W. Bush, and now Clinton+Bush combo that is Obama - which lead to huge economic rewards, it is then small wonder that there are other groups seeking the 'big prize' as well.

[vinoveri]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

Candidates include the Crimes Act of 1790 and the creation of the First Bank of the United States. Though not a product of the first congress, the Louisianan purchase deserves mention here. Thomas Jefferson clearly felt his actions were outside the constitution he had written with his own hand, but felt the purchase was in the clear best interests of the nation none the less. Other founders like John Adams agreed with Jefferson on both points.

Dang statutory law. I suppose codifying the common law made sense at the time - interesting, how most of the crimes are what we would today take as the the "basic felonies", murder, treason, larceny, perjury, etc, sort of those that most would agree should be criminalized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_Act_of_1790, Constitutionality[edit]

According to Taylor: "Like the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Process Act of 1789 and the Crimes Act of 1790, having been passed by the First Congress, are perhaps the statutes most informative of an original understanding of Congress's constitutional power over the federal judiciary."^[114]
According to Kurland, "for the most part, Congress enacted statutes that closely tracked the specific constitutional grants of federal criminal authority. However, Congress continued to venture slightly, but signfiicantly, into areas outside the specific constitutional grants."^[115] As examples in the later category, Kurland cites the provisions concerning the integrity of the federal criminal process, bribery, misprison of treason, and the revenue provisions.^[116]
Currie notes that the Crimes Act "resolved a number of interesting constitutional questions."^[3] For example, with reference to the punishments of "stripes" and disqualification from office, Currie argues that: "These provisions suggest not only that Congress viewed neither of these punishments as cruel and unusual, but also that they did not understand impeachment to be the sole avenue for the future disqualification of current officeholders."^[117] Taylor goes further in arguing the disqualification provision was not merely prospective: "The Crimes Act of 1790 indicates that, beyond its plenary power over federal court jurisdiction and procedure, the First Congress believed it had the constitutional power to make conviction by a court an alternative means of removing a federal judge, outside the impeachment context, and it sheds light on the First Congress's understanding of its own powers to discipline federal judges."^[118]
Similarly, the Supreme Court and individual justices have cited the Crimes Act's authorization of the death penalty as evidence that the founders believed it was constitutional.^[119]

[Forrest]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

Libertarian danger or not, I cannot help but long for a government that has more interest in doing right than in getting re-elected. The people that framed the Crimes Act of 1790 would be horrified at how our government has gotten so imbedded in their sources of power that they really do not care if there is even a seeming of legitimacy on their actions, anymore than the American people have a general expectation of either the government, or themselves, following any rule of law.

We are beyond corrupted as a nation, and a large, dictatorial government, however kindly and caring they pretend to be, having little sense of honesty or decency, has to be less valuable than a Libertarian one that does less for people, and expects more from them because they believe in personal responsibility.

[c1ue]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

We are beyond corrupted as a nation, and a large, dictatorial government, however kindly and caring they pretend to be, having little sense of honesty or decency, has to be less valuable than a Libertarian one that does less for people, and expects more from them because they believe in personal responsibility.

The problem I have with this sentiment is that many of the abuses which have transpired in the past decades can be directly traced to deregulation - and precisely under the banner of less government.

Thus having a government which desires to deregulate even further - I can't say it fills me with any degree of confidence that things will improve.

From my view, the problem is the people in government. Some of this can be traced to incentives - but the reality is that people in government have always had this conflict of interest.

For whatever reason - whether it be integrity, ignorance, or operational inefficiency/ineffectiveness - this conflict was relatively minimized in the past.

My personal view is that it was minimized because the economic tide was rising, and so the relative picayune thefts were simply overlooked. There are any number of well documented examples where members of the US government deeply involved it in criminal activities.

Today, however, we're no longer in a situation where the economic tide is rising. If anything, it is falling, and it is when the tide retreats that you see who's swimming naked - to paraphrase Sir Warren.

[shiny!]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

The problem I have with this sentiment is that many of the abuses which have transpired in the past decades can be directly traced to deregulation - and precisely under the banner of less government.

Thus having a government which desires to deregulate even further - I can't say it fills me with any degree of confidence that things will improve.

From my view, the problem is the people in government. Some of this can be traced to incentives - but the reality is that people in government have always had this conflict of interest.

We've had deregulation of the banking sector, but hyper-regulation of every other aspect of our lives. Those regulations, supposedly for our own good, are often, usually, for the good of some special interest. The dairy industry fears competition from raw milk, so they push for strict regulations prohibiting the sale of raw milk, even between private parties. Big Pharma fears competition from alternative medicine, so they have the AMA to make sure that laws favor conventional medicine, etc...

A great deal of regulation now comes from unelected bureaucracies, not legislation, anyway.

[c1ue]

Re: WaPo to be sold to Bezos. Now we know why Sir Warren stepped down from the board

We've had deregulation of the banking sector, but hyper-regulation of every other aspect of our lives. Those regulations, supposedly for our own good, are often, usually, for the good of some special interest. The dairy industry fears competition from raw milk, so they push for strict regulations prohibiting the sale of raw milk, even between private parties. Big Pharma fears competition from alternative medicine, so they have the AMA to make sure that laws favor conventional medicine, etc...

A great deal of regulation now comes from unelected bureaucracies, not legislation, anyway.

I agree, government is being used more and more for furthering specific business interests rather than furthering the common good.

The banking sector is not the only one that was deregulated, however.

Telephones, airlines, cable TV, radio, newspapers; the list goes on and on.

That's why I noted the ultimate problem is the people in government who are increasingly obviously failing in their fiduciary duty. The AMA's ability to pass laws favoring Big Pharma is a function of our elected representatives and their (lack of) willingness to fight for the common good - as much as this same (lack of) willingness manifests itself in TBTF bailouts.