A question about free markets?

[jrmint]

I was posed this question today:

"who would be responsible for making sure that major corporations aren't cheating on their payrolls, their stock dividends and the other financial interests the IRS investigates? The police?"

Well, if there isn't any money to pay for them, then the police wouldn't be able to do it either. The free-market fundamentalist would like to gut the government's income, eliminate public services, then reintroduce them as privatized services--which we would still pay for somehow, just not through taxes. Imagine a nation like Detriot in _Robocop_. Seriously, OCP (Omni Consumer Products) ran the city, from the mayor to the cops. Look at Blackwater, and their presence not only in Iraq, but in New Orleans after Katrina to help keep the place "secure."

Does Ron have a policy for this?

[Prez4TheNet]

Why do people confuse Ron Paul's and libertarian views with anarchy/no government. Ron Paul specifically said that he would have liked the State's to be responsible for calling up the National Guard in wake of Hurricane Katrina. He is against central planning because it is inefficient and doesn't work and moreover, that is what the Constitution authorizes.

As for the SEC, the only change I see Ron making to that would be to have more congressional oversight. Somebody is going to have to keep tabs on the finances.


People need to start realising that Ron Paul is not an Anarchist and wants to reduce the size of government, not do away with it.

[murrayrothbard]

Look at Blackwater, and their presence not only in Iraq, but in New Orleans after Katrina to help keep the place "secure."

umm, real bad example. In both cases Blackwater was/is being contracted by the GOVERNMENT! Not really a case of "private" security.

[TyTodd]

I'm not sure that I understand the question 100%. But here are some thoughts:

1) If we eliminate the personal income tax but not corporate income taxes (or some amalgam of corporate profit taxes), then there will still be a body around to ensure compliance, it just won't be as large and wasteful as the current IRS.

2) If corporate income tax is also eliminated, which would really be espousing an open market system, then there is no reason for corporations to cook the books regarding profits in order to avoid taxes. In terms of filing for shareholder reports, earnings, dividends, etc. these things are regulated and monitored by the listing exchanges and the SEC, and have very little to do with the IRS.

In a true free market system, the market would self regulate, meaning those companies like Enron that didn't practice sound accounting and transparency would eventually be disposed and destroyed by the market place. The IRS has nothing to do with monitoring this level of fraud and market deception. Many free market thinkers, such as Dr. Paul, even vehemently oppose the Sarbanes Oxley act as it excessive and inefficient in preventing fraud from happening in the future. It is also expensive and discourages foreign entities from listing on our exchanges.

Many would take argument that limiting the regulations on accounting practices, etc. would dramatically increase the risk to investors. This is most assuredly true on some levels, but in a free market, increased risk to investors would mean that the returns on investment would also have to be increased in order to compensate for the change in risk. Meaning, if it becomes risky to hold securities with less regulation, investors are harder to find - both institutional and individual - and companies will increase returns to potential investors in order to attract capital.

I'm sure that some who work in the financial industry can add to my comments, but that is my layman's answer to your question.

[beerista]

I was posed this question today:

"who would be responsible for making sure that major corporations aren't cheating on their payrolls, their stock dividends and the other financial interests the IRS investigates? The police?"

Well, if there isn't any money to pay for them, then the police wouldn't be able to do it either. The free-market fundamentalist would like to gut the government's income, eliminate public services, then reintroduce them as privatized services--which we would still pay for somehow, just not through taxes. Imagine a nation like Detriot in _Robocop_. Seriously, OCP (Omni Consumer Products) ran the city, from the mayor to the cops. Look at Blackwater, and their presence not only in Iraq, but in New Orleans after Katrina to help keep the place "secure."

Does Ron have a policy for this?

Does Dr. Paul have a policy for RoboCop? :confused:

[me3]

There is a forum for asking about Ron Paul's position on Issues...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24

Your question might even have been already answered!

[manuel]

This question doesn't seem to follow. Are you talking about police? That is primarily the function of Counties, Cities, Localities, and States. Police (enforcement of laws) is not a function of the Federal government.

[johnscr]

I was posed this question today:

"who would be responsible for making sure that major corporations aren't cheating on their payrolls, their stock dividends and the other financial interests the IRS investigates? The police?"

Well, if there isn't any money to pay for them, then the police wouldn't be able to do it either. The free-market fundamentalist would like to gut the government's income, eliminate public services, then reintroduce them as privatized services--which we would still pay for somehow, just not through taxes. Imagine a nation like Detriot in _Robocop_. Seriously, OCP (Omni Consumer Products) ran the city, from the mayor to the cops. Look at Blackwater, and their presence not only in Iraq, but in New Orleans after Katrina to help keep the place "secure."

Does Ron have a policy for this?

Not sure how anyone cheats on payrolls and dividends - wouldn't the recipients notice ?
I'll assume you are talking about fraud and/or contractual violations. These would be resolved the same way they are now: through the state court systems.

The IRS only deals with income tax. The constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to regulate corporations.

[jake]

excellent post TyTodd, your assertions are a reasonable analysis of the question at hand

[Richandler]

Um what exactly would they be cheating on on their payroll? The question makes no sense. And yes the police would still exist. State funding is what creates our police anyway.

[vertesc]

The difference between Anarchy and even pure Libertarianism, is that while Anarchy believes in NO government whatsoever, Libertarianism says that government can and should perform the services that are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to the continuance of individual freedom: for a pure libertarian those services are police, an independant judiciary, and a defensive military.

A pure Libertarian might answer your question by saying the law courts and civil suits will be the deterrent. If an employer cheats you on their payroll, you take them to court. If stockholders discover a company cheating on their reports, they hold the company accountable the same way. The key to this is an independent judiciary, and THAT's what the government provides.

Ron Paul might have a different answer, however. He's actually a paleo-libertarian, which means he has a broader idea of the services a government can/should provide. It may include financial oversight... have a look at ronpaullibrary.com if you want to really delve into this one. The point is, civil suits and the judiciary in general were a very successful system of oversight for a long time, at least until we had the SEC in 1933 (IIRC), and the Income Tax. No need for robocop at all. :)

[murrayrothbard]

The difference between Anarchy and even pure Libertarianism, is that while Anarchy believes in NO government whatsoever, Libertarianism says that government can and should perform the services that are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to the continuance of individual freedom: for a pure libertarian those services are police, an independant judiciary, and a defensive military.


well there are those that would say that a "pure libertarian" IS an anarchist...;)

[dircha]

Let me jump in here again. The answer is, again, that a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote to bring about a libertarian society in the span of 2 presidential terms. Ron Paul is not an anarchist in the sense your questioner seems to suppose.

Now, over the long term Ron Paul believes that we should return to the form and function of government prescribed by our Constitution: a very limited federal government, and beneath that a collection of state governments varying in size and scope according to the wishes and values of the states' populaces.

But even over the long term, Congressman Paul is not to my knowledge against public police forces at the state level. I have never heard him suggest that states should replace public police forces with private security companies. These are the kinds of ideas that you might hear in utopian political discussion on internet forums, but they are far removed from the very practical, concrete platform Ron Paul has based his 2008 presidential platform on.

It's as if your questioner is reading through an article on anarcho-capitalism, and taking this to be a representation of Ron Paul's positions. That is backwards in a way. I would be much happier to discuss Congressman Paul's real positions.