$90,000 in credit card fees

[P4man]

Having it legal makes it easier to trace.  If it's going to happen anyway, might as well keep it open. 

IMO its far better take away most of the need for it; public financing. Its even more transparent and you pay per vote instead of paying for votes (empirically it also turns out you pay FAR less). Public campaign financing doesnt mean bribes can not happen, but it does mean politicians are not entirely dependent on corporate bribes, giving you far better odds of electing politicians who work for the people rather than for the lobbyists.

[1714005882]

1714005882

[1714005882]

1714005882

[notme]

Having it legal makes it easier to trace.  If it's going to happen anyway, might as well keep it open. 

IMO its far better take away most of the need for it; public financing. Its even more transparent and you pay per vote instead of paying for votes (empirically it also turns out you pay FAR less). Public campaign financing doesnt mean bribes can not happen, but it does mean politicians are not entirely dependent on corporate bribes, giving you far better odds of electing politicians who work for the people rather than for the lobbyists.

I agree that would help.  However, as long as there is power to be seized via bribes it will happen frequently.  But public financing would allow "bribe free" candidates to run.

[fornit]

problem with all that trimming is that companies suck at providing public infrastructure. do you really want to rely on someone providing things like water, electricity or public transportation who has no legal obligation to it in a proper way and can stop to provide a service at any time?

[notme]

problem with all that trimming is that companies suck at providing public infrastructure. do you really want to rely on someone providing things like water, electricity or public transportation who has no legal obligation to it in a proper way and can stop to provide a service at any time?

Where I live we get our water from a well and there is not public transportation.  Some roads are state maintained, but some are maintained by local people with earth moving equipment.  Recently, the major roads that are the State's domain have been repaired by the oil drilling companies since they were the ones that tore them up.  The government doesn't do much for us out here besides collect taxes.

[P4man]

I agree that would help.  However, as long as there is power to be seized via bribes it will happen frequently. 

As long as there is money to steal, it will happen frequently. Should we abolish wealth?
A libertarian government free utopia just means the power is transferred entirely to corporations. Id rather suffer from political corruption than end up at the mercy of the (0.0)1%. We tried that system in Europe some centuries ago and it didnt work all that well.

Also, if not the various branches of government, what is going to fight corruption? Some of you should think about that for a second. I actually dont think its coincidence that list with corruption features mostly big governments (with public campaign financing) at the top and nearly lawless "libertarian" states at the bottom.

[notme]

As long as there is money to steal, it will happen frequently. Should we abolish wealth?
A libertarian government free utopia just means the power is transferred entirely to corporations. Id rather suffer from political corruption than end up at the mercy of the (0.0)1%. We tried that system in Europe some centuries ago and it didnt work all that well.

Also, if not the various branches of government, what is going to fight corruption? Some of you should think about that for a second. I actually dont think its coincidence that list with corruption features mostly big governments (with public campaign financing) at the top and nearly lawless "libertarian" states at the bottom.

Having it legal makes it easier to trace.  If it's going to happen anyway, might as well keep it open.  The only way to reduce it is to limit the government's authority.  I'm not sure we should throw out everything, but we could stand a good trim.

You aren't talking to me.  I'm no anarchist, but I do think the federal government of the United States has vastly overstepped it's bounds.  There is a continuum between here and 0 government.  It is not a binary decision.  Also, let's not mix the issue of public campaign financing (good idea) with big government (excessive atm, but it varies).  Finally, are there any modern-day examples of

nearly lawless "libertarian" states

you can point to?

[fornit]

problem with all that trimming is that companies suck at providing public infrastructure. do you really want to rely on someone providing things like water, electricity or public transportation who has no legal obligation to it in a proper way and can stop to provide a service at any time?

Where I live we get our water from a well and there is not public transportation.  Some roads are state maintained, but some are maintained by local people with earth moving equipment.  Recently, the major roads that are the State's domain have been repaired by the oil drilling companies since they were the ones that tore them up.  The government doesn't do much for us out here besides collect taxes.

i on the other hand come from a village with 500 people with public bus, roads, water, eletricity and dsl even were you have to dig several hundred meters just to provide for a single house. in a country were practically everybody has acceptable medical care and nobody lost his pension during the financial crisis.
to me those are essential archievements of civilization and i am quite happy to live in a country that hasnt yet disposed them completely.
doesnt mean things couldnt be better. there is a lot of corruption and spending. but the solution is to improve the government, not throw it away.
and thats actually quite possible. its not really a technical problem, but a political one. the solutions are often simple, the system just doesnt want to change. but thats exactly the same forces at work that stop you from getting rid of the government. so if one has the power to overcome those forces and get rid of all those ineffective government agencies, that same person/party/entity could change them for the better as well.

[P4man]

I'm no anarchist,

I am actually. Kind of - I think. Socialist anarchist libertarian of the pagmatic variety . or something like that.
Put differently, I like noam chomsky's thinking a lot. I havent figured out where that fits on the traditional political spectrum, I tend to like elements from either US political extremes.

 Finally, are there any modern-day examples of

nearly lawless "libertarian" states

you can point to?

I guess Somalia or Ethiopia comes closest to it. If anyone has a better example, historical or current of a libertarian state, Im all ears.

[notme]

I'm a Chomsky fan as well.

[db]

problem with all that trimming is that companies suck at providing public infrastructure. do you really want to rely on someone providing things like water, electricity or public transportation who has no legal obligation to it in a proper way and can stop to provide a service at any time?

The internet is provided by competing private companies. The phone networks were provided by government monopolies. The latter sucked, the former doesn't.

[P4man]

The internet is provided by competing private companies. The phone networks were provided by government monopolies. The latter sucked, the former doesn't.

Neither of your examples have a public interest component (except maybe accessibility in rural area). Its quite different when you leave things like tap water or electricity production in nuclear power stations to an unregulated private market. There is an incentive to do it cheap (which is good) at the expense of things like safety or the environment. Im not saying you cant have private companies produce either, but not without regulation. And for some things trying to regulate a free market so its short term profit seeking is not harmful to society at large just isnt worth it.

[db]

Neither of your examples have a public interest component (except maybe accessibility in rural area). Its quite different when you leave things like tap water or electricity production in nuclear power stations to an unregulated private market. There is an incentive to do it cheap (which is good) at the expense of things like safety or the environment. Im not saying you cant have private companies produce either, but not without regulation. And for some things trying to regulate a free market so its short term profit seeking is not harmful to society at large just isnt worth it.

Yes, it's all about incentives. Yes, the profit motive in efficient production encourages cheapness at the expense of safety. However, this is balanced by the profit motive in having to pay for damages caused also encouraging safety at the expense of efficient production.

Removing the profit motive by having a nuclear power plant run by a government removes both these incentives. It encourages the people running it to run it sloppily but is does not encourage them to run it safely. You must find some other incentives that properly balances safety versus efficiency and somehow bind the people running it by them.

The horrible safety and efficency of government-run Soviet nuclear power plants versus privately run Western ones show this is not easy.

[P4man]

Yes, it's all about incentives. Yes, the profit motive in efficient production encourages cheapness at the expense of safety. However, this is balanced by the profit motive in having to pay for damages caused also encouraging safety at the expense of efficient production.

I disagree. Chances of a nuclear disaster, particularly on the short/medium are slim to non existent if you look at it as an investor. It doesnt make sense to cut your profit in half year after year to reduce the chance of an accident from say, 0.01% per year to 0.001% per year. If you look at that from a society POV, that probably makes a ton of sense.

Removing the profit motive by having a nuclear power plant run by a government removes both these incentives. It encourages the people running it to run it sloppily but is does not encourage them to run it safely.

I disagree. If someone exposes cost cutting that results in hazards in a nuclear power plant, that may well cost the politician his job/electorate. The electorate is anal about nuclear safety. The same cant be said for the executive. If anything shareholders would like to reward such cost cutting measures, if it saved them enough money.

So if we assume a perfect democracy where politicians are elected by people and not money, and these politicians act upon their voters behalf, they do have a very strong incentive to ensure safety. Just listen to the green parties in Europe who get most of their votes from the anti nuclear power crowd.

The horrible safety and efficency of government-run Soviet nuclear power plants versus privately run Western ones show this is not easy.

Fair point, but important difference is that the soviet regime was not democratic and no one was ever held accountable. Not much free speech or open debate to highlight such problems either.

[enmaku]

It's worth noting that the "3% fee" cited by many is highly variable.

It's commonplace, for example, for a payment processor to charge a lower fee for transactions containing magstripe data (i.e. physically swiped) than those that were hand-keyed at the store, and phone or internet transactions bring higher fees still. Also, restaurants often pay higher fees than other businesses because they commonly post-auth for a different amount than they pre-auth for (to add the gratuity).

I don't feel like scrolling for the fellow who suggested he'd write a check instead, but checks are usually processed via EFT which carry their own (albeit lower) fees. Then you pay a monthly fee for the privilege of having an account, you pay a monthly fee to rent any physical equipment you've got (fun fact: it's VERY hard to actually buy a PINpad or CC terminal) and before you're allowed to pay those fees you have to pay a setup fee.

3% is usually listed as the "average fee" but depending on store volume, transaction type distribution, time of day, phase of the moon, blood type, iris pigmentation and the fourth letter in the name of your double-paternal great grandfather's dog, it can be drastically more or less than this - Wal Mart almost certainly doesn't pay 3% for swiped card fees and the guy who owns the mom-and-pop restaurant down the street or a small internet retailer almost certainly pays more, even without factoring in the fixed monthly, batch and per-transaction fees as a percent of revenue.