Opinions on Anti-ESG bills

[Brett85]

State bills that restrict ESG have become popular with conservatives. However, I find myself increasingly at odds with conservatives on this issue, as I support free markets and believe that some of these bills violate free market principles.

For example, in some states one of the provisions in the bill increases regulations on banks. The provision prohibits banks from discriminating against their customers based on their "credit score," political views, etc. I don't like the idea of banks discriminating against people when it comes to loans because of their political philosophy. However, I really don't want the government to be involved in the issue either. I think if a bank is discriminating against conservatives, then conservatives should simply boycott that bank. Conservatives should choose to do business with a different bank. Any bank that chooses to discriminate will lose customers as a result and will simply be hurting themselves financially. That's my opinion, but in Kansas a good friend of mine introduced a bill that contains that provision which prohibits discrimination by banks. I've been under some pressure to support it even though I don't agree with it.

What are everyone's opinions on this? Thanks.

 

[acptulsa]

You are right.

But ESGs do violate the NAP. When there's collusion, when there's pressure to form a cabal that pressures companies to participate, then consumers lose the ability to regulate this crap themselves.

Your resistance is correct. But it would go over better if you had a less intrusive, but still effective, solution to the problem. One legitimate function of government according to libertarian principles is keeping the playing field level. If banks that don't bow to the pressure are forced into a position where they can't compete and survive, that is a problem.

Once drug makers couldn't advertise prescription drugs. Was that too restrictive? It looked that way at the time. But since then, Pfizer used its advertising budget to pressure the media into refusing to report on the fact that an experimental therapy was killing them. Just because governments love "cures" worse than the disease doesn't mean there's no less invasive way to treat it.

 

[Brett85]

You are right.

But ESGs do violate the NAP. When there's collusion, when there's pressure to form a cabal that pressures companies to participate, then consumers lose the ability to regulate this crap themselves.

Your resistance is correct. But it would go over better if you had a less intrusive, but still effective, solution to the problem. One legitimate function of government according to libertarian principles is keeping the playing field level. If banks that don't bow to the pressure are forced into a position where they can't compete and survive, that is a problem.

Once drug makers couldn't advertise prescription drugs. Was that too restrictive? It looked that way at the time. But since then, Pfizer used its advertising budget to pressure the media into refusing to report on the fact that an experimental therapy was killing them. Just because governments love "cures" worse than the disease doesn't mean there's no less invasive way to treat it.

We did pass an anti-ESG bill last year that I voted for that didn't go as far. That bill mostly focused on prohibiting ESG investing within the state pension system.

 

[CaptUSA]

State bills that restrict ESG have become popular with conservatives. However, I find myself increasingly at odds with conservatives on this issue, as I support free markets and believe that some of these bills violate free market principles.

For example, in some states one of the provisions in the bill increases regulations on banks. The provision prohibits banks from discriminating against their customers based on their "credit score," political views, etc. I don't like the idea of banks discriminating against people when it comes to loans because of their political philosophy. However, I really don't want the government to be involved in the issue either. I think if a bank is discriminating against conservatives, then conservatives should simply boycott that bank. Conservatives should choose to do business with a different bank. Any bank that chooses to discriminate will lose customers as a result and will simply be hurting themselves financially. That's my opinion, but in Kansas a good friend of mine introduced a bill that contains that provision which prohibits discrimination by banks. I've been under some pressure to support it even though I don't agree with it.

What are everyone's opinions on this? Thanks.

Tough subject from a libertarian point of view. As usual, this is a government-created problem that politicians are trying to solve with more government solutions.


First thing to be aware of is that these banks are not operating with solely customer dollars. If they were, there probably wouldn't be a need to deal with this issue. In reality, the banks and institutional investors got tons of money placed onto their balance sheets from central banks. When that happened, the influence of the customer base (the small investors) was dramatically diminished.

So what to do about it? Short of pulling all that money back and returning it to the taxpayers, the answers are hard to come by if you want to stay true to free market principles. Remember, this isn't a free market we're dealing with. There are already laws on the books that require banks to maintain a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and customers. Those laws are being twisted to make room for ESG investments. I'm sure there are legal recourses that can be taken, but standing is going to be hard in the Courts of the same government that created the issues.

I guess this is what happens when you get involved with Marxism... It's really hard to unravel the problems it creates using existing measures. And if you DO use the existing measures, you are signing your own death warrant.

 

[acptulsa]

Tough subject from a libertarian point of view. As usual, this is a government-created problem that politicians are trying to solve with more government solutions.

It is a tough one. I've never known the man to need our help with the easy stuff.

For a great many decades, Oklahoma didn't allow branches of our of state banks to operate. Sounds so not libertarian, but it's a possible solution to this problem. It doesn't preclude competition. We hear a lot about America First. Why not a little Kansas First? The trick is to arrange it in such a way that it does shelter bankers from such pressures, because in the end, local banks will never operate in a financial vacuum.

I'm thinking thwart the feds by taking control out of their hands. And if that's now considered illegal according to federal law, after having been business as usual for so many decades, then here's a fun case for SCOTUS to hear in defense of the Ninth and Tenth.

Depriving them of control and limiting their influence won't deprive Kansans of the service. It will hit the conspirators where it hurts.

Does it surprise you that autoincorrect thinks Kansans don't exist? Kansas does, Kansans don't. Some folks say a man's made out of mud, as the song says. How insulting.

 

[acptulsa]

Here's another example of a long-standing law designed specifically to decentralize power:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...starting-to-lose-their-government-protections

Another is the now-defunct prohibition against one person or entity owning too many newspapers and broadcast stations. I smelled impending doom when they repealed that one. I was right.

Things like that are why even now, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist (for all the good that did anyone; power corrupts).