The King and I have a bit of a back and forth going in the comments section which I have left there in case it is getting too off in the weeds. I have little enough interest in my own arguments, so I don't expect you to show up and cheer for my increasingly esoteric points.
But still, a little more.
What King and I have both done is restated the other's arguments in ways with which the speaker doesn't agree. I did it with this:
But I find it extremely comical that an economist can overlook how corporations enjoy the protections of government — particularly through lobbying, political back scratching and the courts.
Then King responded:
Good heavens, no. I don't overlook it. I call it "rent-seeking" and I abhor it. [NOTE: Don't bother clicking on his link unless you have 10 bucks or you're an academic with a JSTOR account.] Economists have long recognized its existence and the inefficiency of it. Where Charlie and I might disagree is how to cure it.
And he returned the favor:
He would argue that there are not enough government restrictions on economic activity and seek political solutions to put more on.
Good heavens, no. I'm not the prototypical lefty that the right loves to hate. I didn't argue for government restrictions on the email gatekeepers. But I also fail to see how their action is "economic activity" or how the user who wants to receive or send widely published material using their service is violating terms of their agreement. I abhorred their practice and called them on it, but I didn't call my Congressman.
My issue with such activity is that it's political; it represents private interests using their economic power (money and control of assets) to suppress, in this case, ideas. In other cases, it may be to exploit a vulnerable population. This is not the same, as the professor implies, as being against commerce and corporations.
In fact, unlike college professors who study business — a useful, but not strictly essential activity — I have conducted it, risking my capital, losing sleep, creating jobs, providing services and paying taxes to support public universities and their tenured salarymen who enjoy, in the words of a professor friend, "the best part-time job in the world."
So when I criticize particular business practice, it comes out of familiarity with and regard for what business contributes to society and the genuine contempt an honest business person has for the sharpster and the greedhead, the chiseler and the freebooter.
So King and I are not so far off in some areas. We are probably pretty close on business taxes, trade barriers, corporate rent-seeking and most government subsidies for economic development. But I do think government ought to seek to restrain exploitation of employees and customers and seek to prevent poisoning the earth in the name of economic activity. I don't believe the Chamber of Commerce and fine print in financial documents are a sufficient brake against plunder or usury. I don't think handing billions to William McGuire so he can personally redistribute it and standing by while children and families circle the drain is a good bargain for society. I don't think trimming a few similarly flaming capitalist wicks will bring our economy to halt.
We also would agree that the email contract is small potatoes. I didn't make it "an example of government protection of corporate power." I simply offered it as a mundane example of how corporations routinely wield power, and that those who see the government as the sole enemy of liberty should not be so blithe about the glories of living in a free market economy.
