Partisan papers

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:52 pm

Sometimes I wonder whether there's not a certain candor present in the European press that is lacking here.Take this story as an example. The idea of a paper, tabloid or otherwise, not merely endorsing but openly and perpetually aligning itself with a party seems very strange to an American.In the United States we prefer to spend a lot of time and energy haranguing one another about which media are liberal and which are conservative even as each mainstream outlet competes to portray itself as the most neutral.My guess as to why our papers evolved differently is based on the geography of our nation compared to that of European nations. Our country is unusual in the large number of major cities we have scattered across a large continent, so it's not suprising that our papers would break down along geographic more than political lines. But that doesn't entirely convince me that our system is better or worse.We all know that there are conservative outlets and liberal outlets. My question to the group is this: Is the time spent maintaining the appearance of neutrality and objectivity healthy for our democracy?

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:08 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
My question to the group is this: Is the time spent maintaining the appearance of neutrality and objectivity healthy for our democracy?<hr></blockquote>
Who cares about democracy? I work for shareholders. More seriously, a truly non-partisan paper would probably do Britain the world of good.

JPSheehan · **Posted:** Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:40 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
We all know that there are conservative outlets and liberal outlets. My question to the group is this: Is the time spent maintaining the appearance of neutrality and objectivity healthy for our democracy?<hr></blockquote>Jeepers, where to begin?Neutrality and objectivity, conjoined harmlessly enough in your question, are nonetheless, I think, completely different conditions. Objectivity, however impossible to achieve, is a worthy and necessary goal if any medium is to serve as an effective organ of democracy. Neutrality, however, is a political stance -- and a shaky one. The aspiration toward objectivity is healthy, if potentially troublesome and ultimately disappointing -- much like the act of prayer. Neutrality, however, is a game of appearances in the first place. A shell game. No paper should aspire to be neutral, or even to appear neutral. Even good papers get into trouble when they confuse the two, and that's why I think the word "appearance" creeps into your question. Papers, just like individual human beings, are capable of a fairly remarkable degree of objectivity (very briefly, perhaps, in heroic moments, in my subjective viewpoint); the profession of neutrality, however, is, as another discussion thread might have it, a "false pretext."[ April 22, 2004: Message edited by: JPSheehan ]

Jackie · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:42 am

Today my boss let me listen to a voice mail he got from someone praising us for fair and balanced reporting on Iraq and politics therein AND because of that he was increasing his subscription days. I nearly fainted.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:06 am

(sorry, i got carried away again. long sermon follows)The Editor & Publisher Yearbook's listings included U.S. newspapers' party affiliation long into the 1970s. As papers folded and merged until most cities had only one as the 20th century ended, the need to appeal to everyone led to a shift toward "neutrality." Editorials lost their bite, with most papers printing a lot of "on the other hand" drivel without taking stands. People rant about bias, but daily papers are as "objective" as they ever have been in this country. Mild exceptions appear when papers have multiple wire services to choose stories from, but even then it's rare to see the level of boosterism or attacks found just a few decades ago. For many papers, there is no alternative to AP. And how often do we see staff coverage that shakes things up?So, we have bland papers that fail to satisfy anyone not apolitical or in the political center. My guess is that papers, in whatever form they exist, will seek niches for survival. Smaller publications will replace the boring behemoths by:
1. tailoring content and political stands, or
2. publishing for political and economic purposes without regard for profit.Answering newsroom phones and talking with civilians away from work have convinced me that despite what people say, most don't want objectivity. Instead, they want their beliefs reinforced on a daily basis. So, the big question (besides what WE'LL do for careers) is, will the new (really, old-fashioned) publications inspire more political activity? Or, perhaps public dissatisfaction will inspire more publications.Either way, I expect increased polarization. With nations and communities of nations catching and surpassing the U.S. economically, the Apathetic Majority will loudly demand more from media. This will require flexibility and agility that shareholder-beholden newspaper corporations haven't shown.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:01 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
The idea of a paper, tabloid or otherwise, not merely endorsing but openly and perpetually aligning itself with a party seems very strange to an American.<hr></blockquote>When the republic was founded, newspapers were extremely partisan and published all sorts of vile rumors and slander about politicians from the enemy camp. And yet this is when the First Amendment was born.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:37 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
When the republic was founded, newspapers were extremely partisan and published all sorts of vile rumors and slander about politicians from the enemy camp. And yet this is when the First Amendment was born.<hr></blockquote>Good point. I should have said, "to a contemporary American."I thank all of you for the intelligent answers to my question. I knew some people might be peeved by it, but I wanted to hear an articulation of the reasons for why things are as they are.

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:35 pm

Are you people endorsing the Fox News approach to journalism?

JPSheehan · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:48 pm

Wait. Did I hear "Fox News" and "journalism" in the same sentence?

drew4au · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:07 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Are you people endorsing the Fox News approach to journalism? <hr></blockquote>I think there's a big difference between the "Fox News approach" to journalism and injecting life into stagnant publications by standing for something beyond the bottom line and the status quo. Mario Garcia was talking about presentation when he said American newspapers don't have cojones, but I think the way we present the news is indicative of a larger fear in the industry of shaking things up and losing street cred with other journalists. Heaven forbid we ever get riled up and lose objectivity. It's not an original thought, but what's wrong with a paper being an attorney for the most defenseless in its community?

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:53 pm

See, my problem with Fox News is not that it's conservative. My problem is that they claim to have no agenda and a substantial percentage of their viewership is stupid enough to believe them. They have every right to exist -- I just want them to admit what they are.And it's that problem that led me to openly wonder if the British model doesn't have something going for it. Of course, Murdoch is powerful there too, but I have never actually seen SkyNews so I don't know how similar it is to Fox News.

Rio · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:59 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by JPSheehan:
Wait. Did I hear "Fox News" and "journalism" in the same sentence?<hr></blockquote>Why not? It certainly is less an oxymoron than, say, "CBS" and "journalism."

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:24 pm

This forum does not recognize "CBS News" or "Fox News" or "CNN" as "journalism." That is not to say that random acts of journalism might not pop up on TV now and again, but they are purely accidental.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:38 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Gary Kirchherr:
Why not? It certainly is less an oxymoron than, say, "CBS" and "journalism."<hr></blockquote>This is what I'm talking about. Though CBS is perhaps more favorable to Democrats than the other major networks are, I find laughable Gary's implication that its favoritism toward Democrats is equal to, let alone greater than, Fox's favoritism toward Republicans. And yet I don't doubt his conviction that the opposite is true.Who, other than Rupert Murdoch, benefits from this charade?P.S. I would concur with blanp, but it's quixotic to ignore the role television news coverage, call it what you will, plays in shaping public opinion. I'd readily agree that the world would be a better place if everyone read newspapers and nobody watched television, but I think it's important to discuss how newspapers can remain relevant components of democracy in the world we actually live in.

Mort · **Posted:** Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:12 pm

Any employee at a newspaper is paid by the mighty dollar of the advertiser the same as anyone at CBS or Fox or CNN. You print what makes you money. Get off your high horse.[ April 23, 2004: Message edited by: Mort ]

lafollette · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:52 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
I find laughable Gary's implication that its favoritism toward Democrats is equal to, let alone greater than, Fox's favoritism toward Republicans. [...]
I'd readily agree that the world would be a better place if everyone read newspapers and nobody watched television, but I think it's important to discuss how newspapers can remain relevant components of democracy in the world we actually live in.<hr></blockquote>I'll admit up front that I'm a broadcaster and a former broadcast journalist. While every medium can be plenty provincial on its own (we laughed at and mocked the print reporters just as much as they laughed at and mocked us), it's small-minded to think that the news can be fully reported by any one medium. Radio is the most immediate and universal, and therefore, the best for fast-breaking news (severe weather, major accidents, and real-time events). Television can illustrate stories that radio and print cannot. Newspapers have a monopoly on the resources needed to bring depth to important issues. The Internet prevails where feedback and unfiltered community conversation are called for. The world would absolutely not be a better place without any one of those media. Every reader should also be a listener, a viewer, and a blogger.Please, PLEASE, though: Don't fall into the trap of thumping on Fox News just because Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch are prominent conservatives. Every time that the "traditional" outlets cover a nonsense PIRG event (or "anti-globalization" rally or labor protest) or defer to "official" statistics or releases from a government source, they lend credibility and authority to sources that are in favor of extending the reach of government. If "conservatives" are defined as those who favor less government, then you'd have to spend a lot of time pulling up old Ronald Reagan quotes just to balance out those voices who want government to do more.

lafollette · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:09 am

To answer the original question:Newspapers are in a peculiar position. Because most of the company's costs are sunk in the cost of the staff itself and other fixed costs (and since the cost of printing one additional paper is generally covered by the subscription fee), the newspaper market in a given community will tend toward a natural monopoly. Thus, since the natural state is for only one paper to exist, the newspaper that suits the tastes of the largest number of consumers is the one most likely to predominate in a competitive market and drive the others out of business. In other words, if all papers in a competitive market are of similar quality, the most centrist paper is likely to emerge in the long run as the only shop in town.The best way to defy this lunge toward neutrality, in my view, is to defy the tendency toward natural monopoly by being the most interesting paper in town. This can be achieved (among other ways) by being highly partisan while still reporting the news accurately.

Mike Billings · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:19 am

In some areas of the world, the idea of a free press is being allowed to print a paper that is in opposition to the government's paper.
In these countries, the lines are clearly drawn: government paper and opposition paper(s).
There is no idea of a neutral press, but people read the papers knowing that the news is written to influence as much as inform. Neither side claims to be neutral.
I think the danger may be in a news source that claims to be neutral, but is really seeking to unfairly influence.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:47 am

Regarding Fox News, this from NYT:Among the national television news organizations, only the Fox News Channel had no plans to use any of the photos or explore the issue of why they had been barred from use in the news media, a channel spokesman said.*If they think the photos demean the slain soldiers, that's justification for not airing them. But what is the justification for ignoring the issue?*

JPSheehan · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:52 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
*...what is the justification for ignoring the issue?*<hr></blockquote>An almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Oh wait. That's the Spanish Inquisition. Common mistake.

tommangan · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:13 am

I suspect that deep down, our motivation for running the coffin pix is the same as Fox's motivation for not running it.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:40 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by lafollette:
Please, PLEASE, though: Don't fall into the trap of thumping on Fox News just because Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch are prominent conservatives.<hr></blockquote>I'm not. I'm "thumping" on Fox News because it has a conservative agenda itself, and anyone who makes a serious effort to deny it is an idiot or a liar.Fox News is refusing to run the coffin pix because it has an unmistakable purpose of portraying the war in Iraq as going as well as possible. It may say that it is doing it "out of respect" for the dead, but if you believe that, you're a fool.The Fox formula is obvious: Portray the administration as favorably as policy, and then give token attention to the other side so that your viewers can shrilly point to that token coverage when their news source is criticized for bias.You can't separate the money-making agenda from the political agenda. Fox's overwhelming bias is exactly what makes them money: Watching Fox News is very comforting for an American, because it instills in you the belief that everything the administration is doing is ultimately right, and that's a lot easier to take in than coverage that leads one to question one's leaders.I agree that television could be used to do good journalism. I'm afraid I don't agree that more than a very small handful of people is doing so. It is possible to be well informed without watching television, but it is not possible to be well informed without print media.As ADKbrown's last post suggests, the problem runs even deeper. It's one thing for Fox to choose not to run the photos. It's another for them to refuse to engage their readers in the question. This is the sort of behavior that leads to the "dumbing of America."[ April 23, 2004: Message edited by: Matthew Grieco ]

Steve O'Brien · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:05 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Mort:
Any employee at a newspaper is paid by the mighty dollar of the advertiser the same as anyone at CBS or Fox or CNN. You print what makes you money. Get off your high horse.<hr></blockquote>May a newbie jump in?Even though this thread lacks the rough-and-tumble directness of an off-topic thread on (say) the Navy SEAL Fitness Forum, there are good things in the discussion that Matthew Grieco has launched. But Mort's comment, cited above, is the best.The American "mainstream" press is not neutral toward capitalism, or toward the charades that we call the "two-party" political system or the "liberal/conservative" ideological dichotomy. In reality, there's only one party, and there's only one ideology. Just as there's only one state religion: the worship of Mammon.The fact that the rich and the powerful automatically control all societies, including their communications media, is almost a tautology. Why argue with someone who denies that the sun is shining? What syllogism shall we use if the skeptic refuses to open his or her eyes and look up at the sky?

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:02 pm

What you essentially endorse is a capitulation to total, rather than partial, plutocracy. I will not follow. Because we want to eat, we should refrain from criticizing those who jeopardize the marketplace of ideas for the good of the marketplace of commerce?I believe in both democracy and capitalism. But I believe that the former is more important than the latter, and I will not pretend that I consider them to be of equal importance.I reject the proposition that journalism should be viewed exactly like every other business. Journalism is special. Only two professions -- journalism and the clergy -- are specifically enshrined for protection by the First Amendment. The CEOs of journalism companies SHOULD be less profit-driven than the CEOs of other companies, and people who don't like that should stay out of the business.My former corporate parent, Knight Ridder, is being eviscerated by a CEO who subscribes to the insane belief that a newspaper should pursue profit margins equal to that of a television station. If his goal is generate as much wealth as possible, Tony Ridder should have stayed out of the family business and done something else with his life.In many ways, the state of the newspaper business today exposes the lie at the heart of the doctrine of capitalist absolutism. It is posited that unrestrained cutthroat competition gives us the best product. But that is only true if "the best product" is synonymous with "what the customer wants." This is the Rupert Murdoch fallacy. As Paul Wiggins quoted Murdoch as saying once: "Is there any other industry in this country which seeks to presume so completely to give the customer what he does not want?"No, there is not, but Murdoch's offense against the craft is his implication that giving the customer what he does not want is a bad thing. Leave taste tests to Coca-Cola. A journalist's job is to tell the people what they need to know, even if they don't want to hear it and even if it opens the journalist up to allegations of bias or arrogance.I close with a quote from Anton Chekhov's 1898 short story "Gooseberries":There ought to be behind the door of every happy, contented man someone standing with a hammer continually reminding him with a tap that there are unhappy people; that however happy he may be, life will show him her laws sooner or later, trouble will come for him -- disease, poverty, losses, and no one will see or hear, just as now he neither sees nor hears others. But there is no man with a hammer; the happy man lives at his ease, and trivial daily cares faintly agitate him like the wind in the aspen-tree -- and all goes well.

Steve O'Brien · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:20 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
What you essentially endorse is a capitulation to total, rather than partial, plutocracy. I will not follow. Because we want to eat, we should refrain from criticizing those who jeopardize the marketplace of ideas for the good of the marketplace of commerce?<hr></blockquote>Mr. Grieco, I'm not at all endorsing "capitulation" to the plutocracy. I'm doing my best to fight it. Please check my profile. Even at my age, I'm a troublemaker.And I'm totally opposed to starvation. I would simply note, however, that a conscientious person may not be able to avoid starvation with a paycheck from an outlet of the "mainstream" media.And thanks for the Chekhov quotation!

lafollette · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:20 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
I believe in both democracy and capitalism. But I believe that the former is more important than the latter, and I will not pretend that I consider them to be of equal importance.<hr></blockquote>
I must disagree -- and very strongly. A capitalist or free-market system is a prerequisite for the formation of a democracy. You cannot have a system in which people own their votes if they do not also own the fruits of their own labor.Ancient Greece was a democracy, but only in name. The slaves did not own themselves. The same goes for our own country before the Civil War. Human rights are best served where private property is respected first. Democratic rights almost always follow. Free speech and a free press are extensions of private property rights, not of democracy.

Dapper Dan · **Joined:** Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:01 am **Posts:** 273

Sorry for jumping in late, folks, but wanted to add to Wayne Countryman's comment about the E&P Yearbook. As of the 2001 edition, they still did print newspapers' political affiliations, though nearly all said "independent." I think they still do so, but I don't have a copy of the 2004 edition.You'll find the political affiliations of newspapers right below the list of wire services, on the same line with the year the newspaper was founded.

JPSheehan · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:34 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by lafollette:

Human rights are best served where private property is respected first. Democratic rights almost always follow...<hr></blockquote>
You're kidding, right? Free speech and a free press are extensions of private property rights, not of democracy.[/QUOTE]No, slavery and monopolism are (natural) extensions of private property rights. Who do you think ensures free speech and free press? Bill Gates? No, you and me.The democratic urge does not spring from capitalism like Athena from the forehead of Zeus. It exists, humbly enough, as a common social contract. The town meeting. The Iroquois Confederacy. Did you study history at Donald Trump Night School? Oh hell, I give up.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:59 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Mort:
Any employee at a newspaper is paid by the mighty dollar of the advertiser the same as anyone at CBS or Fox or CNN. You print what makes you money. Get off your high horse.<hr></blockquote>That's apparent by the abundance of stories on Wal-Mart's wonderful policies, GMAC's fairness in financing vehicle purchases, etc.Apparently in your "low-horse" world, newspapers print nothing that could anger an advertiser. This is obviously not the case, thank god.

Mort · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:50 pm

That really isn't even clever.

lafollette · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:05 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by JPSheehan:
The democratic urge does not spring from capitalism like Athena from the forehead of Zeus. It exists, humbly enough, as a common social contract. The town meeting. The Iroquois Confederacy. Did you study history at Donald Trump Night School? Oh hell, I give up.<hr></blockquote>
Please don't be so dismissive. I'm perfectly serious. Follow me here:1. The basic premise of a market economy is that I own myself, my thoughts, and the fruits of my labor.
2. My speech is the product of my thoughts. Ergo, I own my speech as well.
3. If I have free speech, that means my (property) rights to my own speech trump the (property) rights of the state to my speech.In a country where speech is ostensibly free but property rights are not secure, you have a snowball's chance in hell of claiming the right to that speech. After all, if you don't have a right to own something real, like property, how can you possibly defend your right to own something as esoteric as speech?The language of "social contracts" can be good, but it is incomplete if it does not acknowledge the environment in which the people bound by that contract can exchange what they own -- be it their time, their labor, their money, or their speech. <blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by JPSheehan:
No, slavery and monopolism are (natural) extensions of private property rights. Who do you think ensures free speech and free press? Bill Gates? No, you and me.<hr></blockquote>No, they're not. Slavery exists only where not all people own themselves. That's by definition. That violates the basic nature of the market...under the social contract, as you aptly put it. Permanent monopolism only occurs under two conditions: (a) when the conditions for "natural" monopoly exist, or (b) when special favors are granted or unnatural conditions created in order to keep a monopoly. Newspapers, as I mentioned in a prior entry here, tend toward natural monopoly within a given market.Hostility to the market is, in fact, a terribly self-defeating position for a free-speech advocate to take.

JPSheehan · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:21 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by lafollette:
Slavery exists only where not all people own themselves. <hr></blockquote>I rest my case.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:59 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by lafollette:
Free speech and a free press are extensions of private property rights, not of democracy.<hr></blockquote>If capital is the mother of democracy, why did our Founders guarantee us a "republican" system of government (small "r" republican) and not a "capitalist" or "free-enterprise" system of government?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:28 pm

One might be tempted to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the famous case Lochner v. New York ..."[A] constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire." ... except, of course, he was in dissent (as he was so often), and he's also the Supreme Court justice who, in favor of forced sterilization of "defective" people, noted: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

tommangan · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:12 am

I'd like to add something to the "which came first, democracy or capitalism" debate.As long as humans have gathered into groups, they've always confronted scarcity or abundance of the things they consider essential to survivial. These two things caused people to sell what they didn't need and buy what they did .... trade is as old as our species, coded in our DNA as they say. Being against capitalism is like wishing we were dogs.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:57 am

I'm not Karl F. Marx, of course, but it is a reasonable hypothesis that the exchange of goods began "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Early on, greed took hold and it is from greed that capitalism grew.

Steve O'Brien · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:05 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
One might be tempted to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in the famous case Lochner v. New York ..."[A] constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire." ... except, of course, he was in dissent (as he was so often), and he's also the Supreme Court justice who, in favor of forced sterilization of "defective" people, noted: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."<hr></blockquote>And Holmes was also the guy who wrote the Supreme Court decision that sent Eugene Debs to prison for violating the Espionage Act by merely speaking against U.S. participation in World War I.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:46 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by tom mangan:
Being against capitalism is like wishing we were dogs.<hr></blockquote>I'm in favor of capitalism. I'm also in favor of a certain degree of redistribution of wealth to keep society stable. Our country can withstand abrogation of property rights with much greater ease than it can withstand abrogation of voting rights, and it can withstand swings in politics with much greater ease than it can withstand social stratification.If you don't believe me, consider Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, et al., an opinion written by Sandra Day O'Connor for a unanimous Supreme Court. The state of Hawaii seized massive amounts of land from private landowners (paying them "just compensation" as required by the Fifth Amendment) and gave it to other private citizens. The state had no more complicated reason for doing this than to redistrbute wealth. Too few people owned most of the private property in the state, and the state took action. The Court held this constitutional as a public use.Last I checked, Red China was not marching into Honolulu.

lafollette · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 12:50 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
If capital is the mother of democracy, why did our Founders guarantee us a "republican" system of government (small "r" republican) and not a "capitalist" or "free-enterprise" system of government?<hr></blockquote>
1. Because capitalism is not a system of government. It is a system of exchange.2. The Constitution is, in fact, very free-market-oriented.To wit:- Art. I, Sec. 8: "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"- Art. I, Sec. 8: "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States"These rules establish the entire country as one gigantic free-trade zone, with uniform laws and currency. Sections 9 and 10 of Article I continue in the same fashion. - Article VI: "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."Again, the rule is in favor of the private property lent to the government and its return to the rightful owners. The Constitution also addressed the return of slaves to their masters. On one hand, that was a recognition of property rights, but I submit that it was an incomplete recognition, since I still insist that slavery can only exist where property rights are incomplete.Anyone who tells you that the Constitution is hostile to private property is a fool or a thief.

lafollette · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:01 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
Our country can withstand abrogation of property rights with much greater ease than it can withstand abrogation of voting rights, and it can withstand swings in politics with much greater ease than it can withstand social stratification.<hr></blockquote>
Matthew, I mean this in good nature and good humor: For the love of God, please put down your law texts for a minute and read anything "Getting it Right" by Robert Barro. He's a brilliant economist who elucidates in very clear terms why political rights exist only when property rights are secure.The problem we Americans have is that we take property rights for granted while much of the less-developed world still struggles to understand it for the first time. Dictators and oppressive regimes can only support themselves by exploiting property.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:02 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by lafollette:
[b]These rules establish the entire country as one gigantic free-trade zone, with uniform laws and currency. Sections 9 and 10 of Article I continue in the same fashion.[/b]<hr></blockquote>Incorrect. They establish the country as one gigantic trade zone. That the Constitution makes the nation one economic unit does not lead inevitably to that trade zone being "free."Congress possesses, and has thankfully exercised, its considerable power to regulate interstate commerce in a way that strikes the best balance between free trade and government control that any country has seen. It is this moderate path that has afforded us such prosperity, and a swing too far in either direction would destroy that prosperity. If I seem more worried about unrestrained capitalism than I do about excessive socialization, it is only because the former is currently the more immediate threat to our nation's stability.[ April 24, 2004: Message edited by: Matthew Grieco ]

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:14 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by lafollette:
Dictators and oppressive regimes can only support themselves by exploiting property.<hr></blockquote>Unless, of course, they decide to simply kill you (while allowing your heirs to keep the house, naturally).

lafollette · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:15 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
Incorrect. They establish the country as one gigantic trade zone. That the Constitution makes the nation one economic unit does not lead inevitably to that trade zone being "free."<hr></blockquote>
I have to disagree with you. "Free trade" doesn't exist outside the bounds of certain basic rules -- for example, intellectual property rights are absolutely necessary in order for patents and copyrights to work, but no serious person will tell you that the enforcement of patents makes trade (among persons, U.S. states, or nations) any less free. "Free" trade is trade without undue restraints. And that is precisely what the Constitution created among the states. Dictionary.com's definition: "free trade (n.) Trade between nations without protective customs tariffs."[ April 24, 2004: Message edited by: lafollette ][ April 24, 2004: Message edited by: lafollette ]

lafollette · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:18 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
Unless, of course, they decide to simply kill you (while allowing your heirs to keep the house, naturally).<hr></blockquote>
But what state has the apparatus necessary to kill you without the powers of taxation or conscription? And how could they kill you in your own home without violating the sovereignty of your property (your land, your front door step, and ultimately, your own body)?

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:20 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by lafollette:
"Free" trade is trade without undue restraints. And that is [b]precisely what the Constitution created among the states. [url=http://"http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free%20trade"]Dictionary.com[/url]'s definition: "free trade (n.) Trade between nations without protective customs tariffs."[/b]<hr></blockquote>If that is all you mean by free trade -- that states cannot impose protective taxes and tariffs on interstate commerce -- then we are agreed. That is settled law. But it seems there's a great deal more to your conception of "free trade" than that. After all, the prohibition you correctly describe only applies to state governments, not to Congress.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:21 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by lafollette:

But what state has the apparatus necessary to kill you without the powers of taxation or conscription? And how could they kill you in your own home without violating the sovereignty of your property (your land, your front door step, and ultimately, your own body)?<hr></blockquote>I suppose that if you're a Montana survivalist and never leave your own property, they can't. But few of us choose to live that way.

lafollette · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:29 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
If I seem more worried about unrestrained capitalism than I do about excessive socialization, it is only because the former is currently the more immediate threat to our nation's stability.<hr></blockquote>
July 4, 1776: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.The pursuit of happiness does not derive from the social contract. It exists independent of, and prior to, the social contract. Governments exist only to preserve that right.Review some of the complaints levied in the Declaration of Independence:"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.""For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world""For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent""He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people"I don't know how much clearer I can make this: The people who created our government believed that property rights were preeminent. They exist prior to, and independent of, the government -- whether it's democratic, republican, dictatorial, communitarian, monarchical, or otherwise. 1776 was a tax revolt. The rights to free speech and a free press derived from property rights. They are themselves property rights. Your "unrestrained capitalism" is a fictitious monster -- an apparition. Free exchange is the very thing that preserves all the other rights you cherish.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:34 pm

That was 1776.This is 2004.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:34 pm

Fair warning: This topic has pretty much played out.

lafollette · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:38 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
I suppose that if you're a Montana survivalist and never leave your own property, they can't. But few of us choose to live that way.<hr></blockquote>
Did you really need to say "Montana survivalist" just to make your point? You're resorting to innuendo and connotations instead of refuting my argument. Tell me how you can claim the right to not be killed by anyone without making a claim on the right to own your body. Your self, your labors, and your rights all derive from that basic principle of ownership. Without that ownership, you can forget claiming the right to speech. And that's where this whole discussion began.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:39 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Fair warning: This topic has pretty much played out.<hr></blockquote>I concur. Lafollette, like so many conservatives, believes that we must look at everything through the lens of 1776. I, like so many liberals, do not. This impasse is unlikely to break.

lafollette · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:48 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Fair warning: This topic has pretty much played out.<hr></blockquote>
I think the marketplace of ideas will bear out that I'm right. I've enjoyed it, but I'm willing to let it retire. Your board, your choice.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:51 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by lafollette:

Did you really need to say "Montana survivalist" just to make your point? You're resorting to innuendo and connotations instead of refuting my argument. Tell me how you can claim the right to not be killed by anyone without making a claim on the right to own your body. Your self, your labors, and your rights all derive from that basic principle of ownership. Without that ownership, you can forget claiming the right to speech. And that's where this whole discussion began.<hr></blockquote>Out of respect for blanp's warning, this will be my last post unless this thread returns to topicality. Lafollette, you are welcome to hold forth via the comment buttons on my blog if that is your pleasure.The basic problem with your argument here is that you simply declare something to be a property right and leave it at that. You can call the right not to be killed (or the right to free speech) a property right, but that's a meaningless declaration without some specific reason why they should be viewed as "property." If every right is a property right, then your argument that property rights are paramount is meaningless because there's nothing for them to be more important than.What caused the American Revolution is meaningless today. What matters is the Constitution. I have the right to free speech because the Constitution says that I do and because the Supreme Court has (unevenly) reaffirmed that right time and again. To believe that there is some greater Platonic Right in the ether is dangerously naive. Rights do not come from nature, nor from God. They endure at the pleasure of the law as abided by one's fellow man. When we place our faith elsewhere, our rights dissipate.

Testy Copy Editors

Partisan papers

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links