Raising taxes on some people is not equivalent to lowering them for others.

The fact that someone made a billion dollars is not proof that money was taken from poor people.

The Zero Sum mindset is too simple, which is why it’s so hard to beat when the medium of discourse is a bumper sticker.

But there’s another example of Zero Sum assumptions that also poisons real thought, and it has to do with Power.

Die-hard liberals will tell you a strong government is a necessity, to protect people from Evil Corporations. Think about the premises they expose in that line of logic, though.

They assume there is a single, stable amount of power and influence available at all times. When one person has it, another doesn’t. And to some extent, this is certainly more true of power than it is of raw dollars and purchasing power. You can make analogies about “rising tides lifting boats” when you’re talking about prosperity, but power is a different story. Isn’t it?

It’s easy to assume that when one entity steps away from Power, there will be a vacuum that is filled by something else. If the King abdicates his crown, he either names a successor or there is a fight to fill the throne. But pitting Big Business and Government on opposite sides of the boxing ring is naive. It’s more like a tag-team wresting match, where Uncle Sam and Robber Baron have been working in tandem for years, and you and I have been Camel Clutched and Drop-kicked (if we haven’t nodded off to the Sleeper hold yet.)

Government and Business don’t fight with each other. They cooperate – and when one gets stronger, it adds to the power of the other. When it happens at a very high and tight level, you end up with a form of corporate fascism. That’s not Zero Sum, that’s a multiplier effect.

The way you beat this team is through splitting them up, so they can’t tag out anymore. And that’s been the strategy of the American Progressive movement for a very long time. It’s easy to understand the motive. “I do have the power to vote for politicians, but I don’t get to vote for CEOs.” So they choose Government.

The reality is that you only get a “vote” every 2, 4 or 6 years. And that vote may have so many variables attached, that the person you elected gets a mixed signal – or even worse, assumes a mandate for an agenda that doesn’t really exist.

But how many times did you buy something today? You made a choice about not just what to purchase and where to purchase it, but whether to make a purchase at all. Corporations (at least ones that operate in a market) are far more sensitive to needs and demands. You “control” them far more than you do a government.

The other reality-check is that you can’t get rid of lobbying influences as long as there is a strong central government. The need to lobby exists wherever there is outsized power to be wielded.

Want to get rid of Corporate Big Greedy Influence in our lives? Vote for candidates who actively seek to limit the power and scope of government. Don’t set out giant honey pots, then complain when the ants show up demanding more than their share.

Power is not a Zero-Sum game between government and enterprise. You can limit the power of both, and return more freedom (and responsibility) to the individual in the bargain.

The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.

The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.

I like that line about Wall Street bankers. I also applies to Move On, and to SEIU.

The fact is that campaign contributions are open and available for all to see. If a company moves in with an onerous amount of cash, that actually has a negative effect. Instead of moving money through PACs, and hiding influence through individual donations, all the giving can be out front for anyone to see.

The final nail, though, is the Times’ supposition that money translates instantly into votes. Martha Coakley raised four dollars for every one garnered by Scott Brown, and outspent him by a factor of five.