Ayn Rand Philosophy, Objectivism, Science, Self-interest

[CoccoBill]

They are, which suggests you're defining them differently. In political contexts, when we say regulation and centralization, we mean things that arise from outside forces, meaning laws are passed and the market is changed regardless of the goings on in that market. Structures and standards are natural in markets.

Citation needed, I can't find them.

http://freemarketprinciples.com/principles.php

I digress, but I find your use of "we" here a bit amusing. "We", as in us the economists, who get it. A bit ad verecundiam, don't you think?

Continue with this logic. When you wish to put a check on power, how is this accomplished by using a more powerful power with no checks?

It doesn't have to be more powerful, it just needs to be independent. This actually works quite well in practice, similarly to corporations. Think of the internal audit function. Works much much better than no oversight at all.

Note that I said "theoretically egalitarian." Part of the theory behind communism was that it would empower the masses by using strict regulatory oversight. The results showed that the theory was wrong.

It's hard to find theoretical distinctions between communism and socialism. Marx noted that fully enacted socialism would be communism.

The Soviet Union was as much socialist as Russia is democratic.

A lesson of economics that people don't wanna hear is that greed is good. Greed is why society has food abundance, central heating, cars, smart phones, you name it. It is when greed has government power that it is not good. I can further explain if you don't see the connection.

Greed is also a big reason why societies have crime. Things aren't just good or evil. You're trying to paint the world black and white.

Is your vote more powerful when it's vague and provided once every two years or when it's specific and provided many times daily? Claiming democracy is a good is not a rebuttal to my argument since I'm miles beyond that point already by promoting democracy on steroids.

I don't see how this is relevant to my point.

Why does this mean that the solution must be to make those with power less influenced by those without power? Kochs having lobbying power does not show a problem with them; it shows a problem with the government. Citizens should be able to influence their situation with their capital. You do it, I do it, it's about as normal as it gets. Us doing this, especially when rich people do it, is integral to societal prosperity. It's when the government steps in and gives special favors that this stops being the case.

You jumped over my whole point of there always being those who are more powerful than others. A government is simply a way to keep them in check, to ensure they don't get too much power and influence over others. Lobbying undermines that. And I don't care if there would be even more stuff if free market.

What are these other societies where money is speech?

I first typed only the US, but then changed it since the situation is pretty similar in countries with high corruption.

First off, lobbying and bribery are two totally different things.

Do you find any irony comparing this to tax vs theft or abortion vs murder?

Lobbying is an incredibly good thing; the problem is when government has power over things it shouldn't. The solution isn't to take away the lobbying.

Now you just lost me completely. It's good that those with wealth have a disproportionate influence over others?

There's too much double standard going on. Average citizens have tremendous lobbying power. A member of the NRA pays a tiny fraction of his income for a lobbying juggernaut.

How is this a good thing? Because USA has the highest gun violence stats in the world? I'd go about differently trying to solve overpopulation.

So, you're afraid of the Kochs having too much power so you wish to create an entity with tremendously greater power? Why? Because you get the vote? But you had a much more effective vote back before you constructed the tremendously greater power in the first place. Color me confused.

I only had a tremendously greater power in the first place if I happened to be wealthy.

Most of the time, this is not available. Which means that typically the most familiar with an issue are those most affected by it. This is not always the case, but this reality is why economics teaches it.

If the data is not available, there shouldn't be regulations regarding it.