The top Saudi clerics have found another person to execute for free speech. We have previously seen a number of people accused of blasphemy for brief tweets or Facebook entries or even reading a book or speaking insulting thoughts at prayer. There is now a campaign to execute 23-year-old journalist Hamza Kashgari for a tweet that he sent to Mohammad on his birthday about Kashgari’s faith. There is no evidence that Mohammad is actually one of his followers but Mohammad’s followers are pretty ticked and labelled Kashgari an “apostate” who must be killed for his offense to Islam.
You are probably thinking the tweet must be pretty darn bad to fit serious blasphemy into 140 characters or less. Yet, Kashgari is being charged over a fake conversation that he had with Mohammad, who is not even listed as one of his “followers” on Twitter. Kashgari (who has apologized) wrote “On your birthday I find you in front of me wherever I go. I love many things about you and hate others, and there are many things about you I don’t understand.” As also tweeted “No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”
The faithful even created a festive Facebook page with nearly 10,000 members dedicated to executing the journalist — declaring “The Saudi people demand Hamza Kashgari’s execution” already has nearly 10,000 members.
The committee of top clerics confirmed that these people are only doing what is right and told Saudis that “Muslim scholars everywhere have agreed that those who insult Allah and his prophet or the (Muslim holy book) Koran or anything in religion are infidels and apostates.” They called on him to be “judge[d] based on sharia law,” which demands death for those who insult Mohammad or the religion.
Other clerics repeated prior warnings that good Muslims do not Tweet. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah al-Sheikh announced that Twitter is “a great danger not suitable for Muslims… it is a platform for spreading lies and making accusations.”
Once again, these stories show the perils of the effort of the Obama Administration to establish standards for the criminalization of anti-religious speech with Muslim countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Source: Washington Post
“-I could also say, “You are never going to get regulations that aren’t influenced and controlled by the very same people you are trying to benefit, essentially writing legislation to their own benefit and expense of everyone else,” but that doesn’t stop you from trying. I would rather focus on freedom, which is beneficial to everyone, than trying to thread the impossible needle of perfect regulation.”
Specious reasoning. If you make the penalty severe enough, you’ll remove the enough of the graft from the system to get better than nominal function. Again, perfection is your standard on this issue, not mine.
“-I currently cannot do that because the way bigger businesses screw me over is by having the government do their bidding. I have to appeal to the government. If they did it themselves it would be much easier to take them to court.”
Easy has nothing to do with it. That’s why lawyers are highly trained specialists. And if you can prove collusion? Sue the government too.
“-People die everyday under government regulations.”
Again, a presupposition of perfection is being made by you.
“Government is notorious for its substandard quality and business practices. It is infamous for waste, corruption, bloated bureaucracies, and graft.”
Specious reasoning. Government isn’t business. Also a false equivalence. of all the inefficiencies you named, only one – bloat, is not directly related to monied interests interferring with the proper function of government. Corruption and graft requires a minimum of two parties.
“Anyway, without licensing requirements it is still against the law to kill or hurt others. If you or your product does that and it is proven in court, you go to jail for life. What more deterrence could you want?”
Apparently you don’t understand tort law either. Torts don’t provide jail time as penalties. You also apparently don’t care about a few people dying so some nozzle can bolster their profits by cutting corners in the first place instead of having to do the right thing from the get go.
“- Ahh, so I can’t force my Christian beliefs on people to give to charity if I talk about Jesus, but I can force my Christian beliefs on people to give to charity if I don’t talk about Jesus. ?
1. I don’t want to force my religious beliefs on anyone. Nor do I want to force my morals on anyone through government, except don’t kill and don’t harm others.”
Then why bring up Jesus at all. He’s irrelevant to this conversation. We have a secular government.
“2. SO how is it okay then to force my morals of giving to charity on others? I’m totally lost on this one.”
Charity and programs by the government to promote the general welfare are not the same thing even if they share a common goal. One is a voluntary function, the other is a defined purpose of government that may be paid for with tax dollars (which again are not theft no matter what Rothbard said).
“’Don’t talk about Jesus, but make them give to charity. It’s in the constitution.’
‘If you want to give to charity?’
– I do”
Good for you! However, charity isn’t enough. It also still doesn’t preclude the collection of taxes and spending those taxes in the pursuit of promoting the general welfare.
“That doesn’t mean that government isn’t in the public health business”
-It shoudn’t be.”
Then you shouldn’t have said . . .
“-That is a legitimate service of government in a national disaster situation. You cannot use that to justify any form of government involvement in medical treatment.”
Because, yeah, you can justify government involvement in public health issue. None of you Libertarians can apparently distinguish between public health, health care, health care providers and health care insurance. For profit health care insurance is a parasite that draws its profits from denying coverage. This means people die so some schmuck can get his bonus. So unless you think that’s fair, that makes providing government involvement in providing universal health care insurance not only a valid public health concern but a necessary one as well. Just so, regulating use of toxins in products is a valid public health concern too. As is food safety. And water safety.
“-Somehow I expected more from you than the argument, “if ya don’t like it here, GIT OUT!” I once heard that asked of Ralph Nader (Why don’t you leave) during a question and answer after a really good speech, to much applause. I thought it disgusting then and disgusting now. His answer was that his mother taught him to try to make things better where he sees problems, not run away from them. I agreed.”
I don’t give a damn what you think is disguising. You obviously don’t understand social compacts in general let alone ours as defined by the Declaration and the Constitution if you don’t realize your participation in American society is entirely voluntary once you reach the age of alienation. If you have a problem with paying taxes here and the way they are spent? You are indeed free to leave. People in countries like North Korea don’t have that option. They have to sneak out or die trying.
“-Yes, that would be fascism. Good thing libertarians believe in the rule of law, and having the rule of law governed over by an actual government, as outlined by the Constitution. If you would like to learn more about what are positions really are, not what is currently in your head, I’d recommend reading a couple of books.”
“and exactly the sort of fascism that would result if Austrian School and Libertarian ideals were put into practice on a state level. ”
-No it wouldn’t. You don’t seem to know what ‘libertarian ideals,’ are. Rule of law is pretty high on the list.”
I do understand what “lip service” is though, unlike you who still doesn’t understand that extra-legal and ultra-legal are equivalent states. Too bad Libertarians don’t understand the Rule of Law or the function of government as defined by the Constitution. Sure, many of them they think they do. Doesn’t make it so.
As to your suggested reading? You have no idea either what I’ve read or how many times I’ve had this exact same argument with Libertarians, so save your suggestions.
“-Good luck. It seems to me that Jon Corzine feels pretty safe and snug here in America under our current system.”
Argument by non sequitur and false assumption. You seem to think I don’t think Corzine should go to prison for a very long time if found guilty or that I don’t think the current systems need to modified to provide better, i.e. more just, outcomes. I just know for a fact that giving business a pass on regulation isn’t the way to do it.
“Might I suggest: First repealing all unconstitutional federal laws and allowing all criminals who did not harm others or others’ property (including stealing it) amnesty (I’m a radical, I know). Furthermore, requiring the president to stop all uses of undeclared force around the world? Third, impeaching the president for ordering the murder of American citizens who he forbade their right to trial?”
Moving the goal posts. You’ve proven several times you don’t know what the Constitution and the precedent surrounding it means, so just because you don’t like something doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Second, if you’re talking about amnesty for drug possession? I have no issue with that. The futility and injustice of drug laws is one of the few areas I agree with Libertarians. Third, I’ve already said I have no issue with impeaching Obama for his Constitutional abuses, but in for a penny, in for a pound. That process must start with putting Bush/Cheney and their cohorts on trial for treason, suspending habeas corpus and ordering torture (just as egregious Constitutional violations as what Obama did by claiming the Imperial right to order the assassination of citizens without due process).
If I had my way, most of those currently in Washington (and on K Street and Wall Street) would be in or well on their way to prison for a very long time, but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Yoo, Bybee, Paulsen and the rest would be at the front of the line.
“You’re never going to get rid of businessmen willing to bribe to avoid regulation or shape to their ends. The solution is to make it a risk averse proposition to try to buy or sell influence.”
-I could also say, “You are never going to get regulations that aren’t influenced and controlled by the very same people you are trying to benefit, essentially writing legislation to their own benefit and expense of everyone else,” but that doesn’t stop you from trying. I would rather focus on freedom, which is beneficial to everyone, than trying to thread the impossible needle of perfect regulation.
“f you don’t want legal recourse, don’t go to court. Every time some guy bigger than you screws you over, just suck it up, buttercup.”
-I currently cannot do that because the way bigger businesses screw me over is by having the government do their bidding. I have to appeal to the government. If they did it themselves it would be much easier to take them to court.
“If a brewer makes can’t pass inspection, he can’t sell his goods. The reason for this is that minimum standards are required when making consumable products to prevent deaths before they occur. Deterrence of crimes or torts by regulation is just a valid reason for laws as defining crimes crimes and torts proper. Your solution is to let people die and then sue. How very humanitarian of you.”
-People die everyday under government regulations. Government is notorious for its substandard quality and business practices. It is infamous for waste, corruption, bloated bureaucracies, and graft. Anyway, without licensing requirements it is still against the law to kill or hurt others. If you or your product does that and it is proven in court, you go to jail for life. What more deterrence could you want?
“Too bad for you not everyone is a Christian, you’re prohibited from forcing your Christianity on others by the force of law and our governments provision of public social services (which can be paid for by tax dollar) in pursuit of of the general welfare of society – and they must be presented in a secular and egalitarian manner – is both defined as the purpose of government and required to take that form by the Constitution.”
– Ahh, so I can’t force my Christian beliefs on people to give to charity if I talk about Jesus, but I can force my Christian beliefs on people to give to charity if I don’t talk about Jesus. ?
1. I don’t want to force my religious beliefs on anyone. Nor do I want to force my morals on anyone through government, except don’t kill and don’t harm others.
2. SO how is it okay then to force my morals of giving to charity on others? I’m totally lost on this one.
“Don’t talk about Jesus, but make them give to charity. It’s in the constitution.”
“If you want to give to charity?”
– I do
“That doesn’t mean that government isn’t in the public health business”
-It shoudn’t be.
“Unless, of course, next time there is an epidemic, you want the Salvation Army to take care of the quarantines instead of the National Guard”
-That is a legitimate service of government in a national disaster situation. You cannot use that to justify any form of government involvement in medical treatment.
“You are free to leave at any time is you don’t like paying them.”
“If you disagree with how taxes are spent, try to get that changed or leave the country and quit paying taxes.”
-Somehow I expected more from you than the argument, “if ya don’t like it here, GIT OUT!” I once heard that asked of Ralph Nader (Why don’t you leave) during a question and answer after a really good speech, to much applause. I thought it disgusting then and disgusting now. His answer was that his mother taught him to try to make things better where he sees problems, not run away from them. I agreed.
“The solution to governmental dysfunction – short of situations meriting rebellion – isn’t to do away with government and replace it with private industry. That is what Mike S. likes to call (rightfully so) Corporate Feudalism; a sort of mild fascism”
-Yes, that would be fascism. Good thing libertarians believe in the rule of law, and having the rule of law governed over by an actual government, as outlined by the Constitution. If you would like to learn more about what are positions really are, not what is currently in your head, I’d recommend reading a couple of books.
“and exactly the sort of fascism that would result if Austrian School and Libertarian ideals were put into practice on a state level. ”
-No it wouldn’t. You don’t seem to know what “libertarian ideals,” are. Rule of law is pretty high on the list.
“In a democracy, the solution to dysfunction is bolstering democracy to ensure that the government is working for all people, not just the oligarchy of influence peddlers. You put those people in prison, strip their assets and restore government’s responsibility to represent the best interests of all the people. That’s the first step to making government work better.”
-Good luck. It seems to me that Jon Corzine feels pretty safe and snug here in America under our current system.
Might I suggest: First repealing all unconstitutional federal laws and allowing all criminals who did not harm others or others’ property (including stealing it) amnesty (I’m a radical, I know). Furthermore, requiring the president to stop all uses of undeclared force around the world? Third, impeaching the president for ordering the murder of American citizens who he forbade their right to trial?
“– Influence who? How? Sure, a lobbyist for a corporation is going to make more than an accountant as the corporations are much more willing to spend money on lobbying because they can buy themselves lower taxes, beneficial regulations that drive out competition, and subsidies instead of just paying taxes! But that is influencing government who are regulating things they shouldn’t be involved with, like fucking farm subsidies, marijuana prohibition, corporate bailouts, tax breaks, regulations that kill small business (their competition), etc!”
Just like Bron, you are incapable of understanding that graft and bribery are crimes that by their very definition require at least two parties. You’re never going to get rid of government or regulation. You’re never going to get rid of businessmen willing to bribe to avoid regulation or shape to their ends. The solution is to make it a risk averse proposition to try to buy or sell influence.
“Do you mean grift? But what can they grift but their own business earnings? They are not allowed to steal from others by themselves still. But they also cannot use someone else’s force to steal from their competitors by lobbying the government for high licensing fees, high cost equipment (to make things healthier or some other blather) etc etc. The only thing they have the opportunity to steal from is their own pocket.”
No, I mean graft. For someone allegedly concerned with influence peddling you don’t seem to know anything about it. Graft is (as a noun) practices, but especially bribery, used to secure illicit gains in politics or business; corruption. As a verb it is to make money by shady or dishonest means.
“If government quit trying to help me compete and just let me compete I would be doing a lot better. Every time they try to help me they end up fucking me harder. I don’t want their help!”
If you don’t want legal recourse, don’t go to court. Every time some guy bigger than you screws you over, just suck it up, buttercup.
“- What is wrong with freedom from oversight and the threat of legal retribution…UNLESS you harm someone else or their property? Why do brewer’s need government licenses? If they make bad product, no one will buy it, but if they harm someone, they are not free from legal retribution. You aren’t allowed to hurt people in a free market!”
If a brewer makes can’t pass inspection, he can’t sell his goods. The reason for this is that minimum standards are required when making consumable products to prevent deaths before they occur. Deterrence of crimes or torts by regulation is just a valid reason for laws as defining crimes crimes and torts proper. Your solution is to let people die and then sue. How very humanitarian of you.
“-I disagree. I believe that drug abusers need help, and I believe that charity and religious organizations would fill this gap better. Rather than using force to take money away from non-abusers and give it to the abusers I think it is always better to allow people to donate money themselves, otherwise you are infringing on their own personal liberty.”
Your bad assumption – just one among many – is that I’d advocate using tax funds generated for this purpose from anything other than “sin” taxes; paid by the substance users themselves.
“Furthermore, help for drug abuse is hardly necessary for the protection of life, liberty, or property.”
Except to act to prevent or deter all that crime done in the name of drug addiction; from homicide to theft.
“And the government has an extremely poor record on helping out the drug abusers: mandatory minimums, imprisoning for life, hooking them on methodone, etc. Why should a drug abuser trust them now?”
That’s because up to this point they’ve treated drug abuse as a crime problem instead of a public health problem.
“As a Christian I know that Jesus would want me to help those who have problems. Just like he visited with beggars and washed the feet of prostitutes, I too believe in helping those who struggle.”
Too bad for you not everyone is a Christian, you’re prohibited from forcing your Christianity on others by the force of law and our governments provision of public social services (which can be paid for by tax dollar) in pursuit of of the general welfare of society – and they must be presented in a secular and egalitarian manner – is both defined as the purpose of government and required to take that form by the Constitution. If you want to give to charity? I encourage you to do so. That doesn’t mean that government isn’t in the public health business, because it is and it is by the terms of the Constitution. Unless, of course, next time there is an epidemic, you want the Salvation Army to take care of the quarantines instead of the National Guard and take the lead on finding a cure instead of the CDC. And if the SA, in their Christian magnificence, decides they don’t want to take care of Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus or homosexuals, that’d just be dandy, wouldn’t it?
“Taking my money from me involuntarily to help others is theft though,”
Rothbard nonsense. Taxes are not only not theft, they are required to make any form of government function and have been since forever. Rothbard didn’t have a clue as to how social compacts work and social compacts are the very basis of every form of government. In addition, in the United States taxing and spending are Constitutionally defined powers. You are free to leave at any time is you don’t like paying them. Just be prepared to pay taxes wherever you land. Because they’ll have them there if there is a government.
“and most of it goes towards bombing brown people in other countries anyway.”
If you disagree with how taxes are spent, try to get that changed or leave the country and quit paying taxes.
“Why do you trust them to do the right thing with my money tomorrow after all the evil they have done the last 100 years?”
Your assumption is again bad. I don’t trust the government. As a citizen in a democracy it is my duty to watch what they do and fight them when they do wrong.
“Furhtermore, we are eliminating the goodwill part of society by placing the burden on government to take care of the least among us the personal responsibility and natural good will that occurs in a society is being destroyed.”
Bullshit. Private charities are running stronger than ever and Americans have a very good track record of funding them in good times and bad. And all that’s despite having public assistance programs in various forms in place for many years now. Using tax monies to do social good doesn’t stop private citizens from doing social good. Imagine that.
“All that to say this. If the government miraculously changed its tune about imprisoning the most people in the world for non-violent crime then I would absolutely support some form of state funding for drug abusers.”
Who said anything about funding abusers? That’d be you. I said fund treatment instead of propping up the prison industrial complex with laws designed to keep their beds full and do nothing to mitigate the societal damage of drug use (indeed these policies exacerbate the problem).
“Not because I truly believe it will actually have a positive result, I don’t, I think charities do a better job than social workers, but because I believe in compromise, and there are bigger fish to fry than that.”
And that’s nothing but opinion.
“The costs of treatment compared to imprisonment are minuscule as well, it is an easy place to compromise.”
And that cost savings is realized by government as well and even better than by private industry. Government doesn’t have a profit motive. That doesn’t mean We the People shouldn’t be interested in efficient provision of government services, only that there is no need to skim money from budgets to enhance profitability for either bonuses or to meet shareholder expectations.
Libertarianism may be a nice dream. I even understand the attraction of some parts of it given the current level of dysfunction in our government. But it is a dream nonetheless. The solution to governmental dysfunction – short of situations meriting rebellion – isn’t to do away with government and replace it with private industry. That is what Mike S. likes to call (rightfully so) Corporate Feudalism; a sort of mild fascism and exactly the sort of fascism that would result if Austrian School and Libertarian ideals were put into practice on a state level. The Libertarian party is just as much about influence peddling as any other party. Partisan politics is a joke, no matter what the name of the party. “I’m only going to use the red tool box!” “No! I’m only going to use the blue tool box!” “No! I’m only going to use the gold tool box!” Screw that. I’m going to use whatever tool works to render the most benefit to the most people. Relegating civil rights to the states and privatizing social services – both large components of the Libertarian platform – isn’t going to help anyone but the profiteers and it would only harm a lot of people. Removing regulation just for the sake of removing it on the pitifully bad presumption that markets are a mechanism for justice isn’t going to help anyone but profiteers and its will only harm a lot of people. If you’re so concerned about the brown people and the sick people and people getting harmed, you’d realize that.
I’m a progressive. I want to make government work for We the People. I don’t have a party. That I’m a liberal is secondary (or tertiary) to this fact.
In a democracy, the solution to dysfunction is bolstering democracy to ensure that the government is working for all people, not just the oligarchy of influence peddlers. You put those people in prison, strip their assets and restore government’s responsibility to represent the best interests of all the people. That’s the first step to making government work better.
From earlier: “Some people would argue that buying influence is the main reason sociopaths and the generally amoral go into big business; profit.”
— Influence who? How? Sure, a lobbyist for a corporation is going to make more than an accountant as the corporations are much more willing to spend money on lobbying because they can buy themselves lower taxes, beneficial regulations that drive out competition, and subsidies instead of just paying taxes! But that is influencing government who are regulating things they shouldn’t be involved with, like fucking farm subsidies, marijuana prohibition, corporate bailouts, tax breaks, regulations that kill small business (their competition), etc! If government quit trying to help me compete and just let me compete I would be doing a lot better. Every time they try to help me they end up fucking me harder. I don’t want their help!
Also from earlier: “Laissez-faire economics is freedom from oversight and the threat of legal retribution…”
– What is wrong with freedom from oversight and the threat of legal retribution…UNLESS you harm someone else or their property? Why do brewer’s need government licenses? If they make bad product, no one will buy it, but if they harm someone, they are not free from legal retribution. You aren’t allowed to hurt people in a free market!
“Laissez-faire economics is freedom from oversight and the threat of legal retribution for business without the cost of graft.”
– Do you mean grift? But what can they grift but their own business earnings? They are not allowed to steal from others by themselves still. But they also cannot use someone else’s force to steal from their competitors by lobbying the government for high licensing fees, high cost equipment (to make things healthier or some other blather) etc etc. The only thing they have the opportunity to steal from is their own pocket.
“My reasons for being against prohibition though are much simpler than State’s Rights (which Libertarians still have a fantasy understanding of): human nature and the idea ownership of your own body. You should be able to ingest anything you like as long as you understand the risks (informed consent). I also don’t think suicide or prostitution should be criminalized either”
-Dude, I don’t know what libertarians you have been debating or reading in the past, but most libertarian scholars start off with the fact that our rights are natural born and come from our creator, not from government. (Try Bastiat’s “The Law”, also in The Declaration) That is the philosophical underpinning for allowing people to make their own choices concerning their bodies, because we believe we own our bodies, not the state, and as long as we do not harm anyone else or their property we are free to do as we please. The fact that national prohibition is unconstitutional just adds to the fact that it is wrong. And if a government exists that claims the right to restrict personal choice, then it is better for it to be constitutional, even if it restricts personal liberty. It is also a legal mechanism to push for more personal freedom, see advocacy.
“The social damage caused by drugs – including alcohol and tobacco – are not mitigated by a legal solution because they aren’t a legal problem. They are a medical problem.”
– I could not agree more.
“Just so, if prostitution were decriminalized, it would need regulation in the form of mandatory health screenings and the like to deal with STDs. Drug abuse is best addressed by education (paid for by taxation) and mitigation of damages through quality control (which no distributor or processor will implement without regulation if it cuts into their profits).”
-I disagree. I believe that drug abusers need help, and I believe that charity and religious organizations would fill this gap better. Rather than using force to take money away from non-abusers and give it to the abusers I think it is always better to allow people to donate money themselves, otherwise you are infringing on their own personal liberty. Furthermore, help for drug abuse is hardly necessary for the protection of life, liberty, or property. And the government has an extremely poor record on helping out the drug abusers: mandatory minimums, imprisoning for life, hooking them on methodone, etc. Why should a drug abuser trust them now? As a Christian I know that Jesus would want me to help those who have problems. Just like he visited with beggars and washed the feet of prostitutes, I too believe in helping those who struggle. Taking my money from me involuntarily to help others is theft though, and most of it goes towards bombing brown people in other countries anyway. Why do you trust them to do the right thing with my money tomorrow after all the evil they have done the last 100 years? Furhtermore, we are eliminating the goodwill part of society by placing the burden on government to take care of the least among us the personal responsibility and natural good will that occurs in a society is being destroyed. All that to say this. If the government miraculously changed its tune about imprisoning the most people in the world for non-violent crime then I would absolutely support some form of state funding for drug abusers. Not because I truly believe it will actually have a positive result, I don’t, I think charities do a better job than social workers, but because I believe in compromise, and there are bigger fish to fry than that. The costs of treatment compared to imprisonment are minuscule as well, it is an easy place to compromise.
“So stop arguing. The bottom line is that the market doesn’t create and enforce remedies for things like killing people. The law and government does. The idea that the market provides just outcomes? What you’ve just said is as delusional as Greenspan’s fraud statement. The business of government is justice (among other things as spelled out by our Constitution as informed by the Declaration). The business of business is profits.”
– I will if you will : )
Yes, I know, but again, the free market is not without rules. It is an economic system, not a form of government. I believe the form of government in the real world that suits the free market best is a constitutional republic with our own constitution. Yes, murder is a crime. No, I don’t have to buy government licenses or endure government inspections for my business. If my quality drops, the consumers will notice and my competitors will put me on the street. If my product harms someone, I can be sued and lose my business that way, or even be put in jail. No, I do not have to compete with bigger businesses who have lobbied themselves a shit ton of government subsidies to help themselves outcompete me. Yes, I cannot take a gun and shoot my competitor in the head… The free market is an economic system, it can operate within a government system that supports it.
“-But how do we get them all? ”
Perfection is not a requisite.
Also, you’ve mistaken me for somebody who is for prohibition of marijuana or any naturally occurring drug. My reasons for being against prohibition though are much simpler than State’s Rights (which Libertarians still have a fantasy understanding of): human nature and the idea ownership of your own body. You should be able to ingest anything you like as long as you understand the risks (informed consent). I also don’t think suicide or prostitution should be criminalized either although I draw the line at organ selling. Organ selling should be illegal for other very valid public policy reasons. The social damage caused by drugs – including alcohol and tobacco – are not mitigated by a legal solution because they aren’t a legal problem. They are a medical problem. Just so, if prostitution were decriminalized, it would need regulation in the form of mandatory health screenings and the like to deal with STDs. Drug abuse is best addressed by education (paid for by taxation) and mitigation of damages through quality control (which no distributor or processor will implement without regulation if it cuts into their profits).
This is a distinct issue from product liability, other torts, and the regulation of business practices.
“-I don’t see what we are arguing about. You basically just defined the free market. It indeed does not mean “do whatever the fuck you like.” Like kill people. It does not allow for the killing of people. It does allow for almost anything to be bought, sold, and produced. Almost. Slavery is still illegal. Can’t sell people. Or buy them. I guess you can still produce them…”
So stop arguing. The bottom line is that the market doesn’t create and enforce remedies for things like killing people. The law and government does. The idea that the market provides just outcomes? What you’ve just said is as delusional as Greenspan’s fraud statement. The business of government is justice (among other things as spelled out by our Constitution as informed by the Declaration). The business of business is profits.
OR push to get an executive agency set up to regulate (legislate) whether or not alcohol could be created, bought, sold, and or how.
“Or, if you want marijuana to be prohibited then you should move to a state or municipality that has that law on its books (though obviously people will still be smoking), but that has no constitutional business being regulated at the federal level.”
Too bad for you that you don’t understand Constitutional law as evidenced by your complete misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause in that statement.”
As far as the commerce clause goes, it was established for this purpose (your words): “Free” doesn’t mean free to do whatever the fuck you like, but that’s a point almost no Libertarian understands. With rules in place, legitimate businessmen could move into the market sector and simply out compete the organized crime element who were unable to avail themselves of legal remedy for disputes or traditional sources of capital and faced diminishing returns with no reduction of risk.”
It was not established to prohibit goods and services from coming to the market, and it absolutely was not written so that goods and services, such as marijuana, that are produced and sold within the confines of one state (not crossing state borders) could be regulated. Absolute hogwash. Here is a precedent for that. When the women and the christians wanted to implement alcohol prohibition (mainly to punish the immigrants) they got an amendment passed. They DID not cite the Commerce clause and simply get a law passed.
“Too bad for you that you don’t understand Constitutional law as evidenced by your complete misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause in that statement.”
-I know many people that would disagree with you there. Specifically with what you are implying your interpretation of the tenth amendment to be.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/11/18/new-10th-amendment-lawsuits-against-feds-filed-in-california/
“Buying influence? You solve that problem by putting the grifting businessmen in prison and taking all their money and assets when their caught doing it. And I do mean all.”
-But how do we get them all? Were the Feds able to get all the bootleggers? How are they doing with the drug lords of today? And those are just the easy ones to point out, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. I guess we could also add How G.E. got subsidized more than it paid in taxes last year, the knowledge that the many large companies spend more on lobbying than in taxes, and the massive corporate welfare that has gone on the last 4 years in general as examples of grifters roaming wild and free using mechanisms in government to get filthy wealthy at our expense. In reality you put one grifting businessman in jail and 3 more fight to take his place. Better to eliminate the mechanism that allows grift within the system. Ala subsidies for one.
Again, check out The Capture Theory of Regulation.
“Free” doesn’t mean free to do whatever the fuck you like, but that’s a point almost no Libertarian understands. With rules in place, legitimate businessmen could move into the market sector and simply out compete the organized crime element who were unable to avail themselves of legal remedy for disputes or traditional sources of capital and faced diminishing returns with no reduction of risk.”
-I don’t see what we are arguing about. You basically just defined the free market. It indeed does not mean “do whatever the fuck you like.” Like kill people. It does not allow for the killing of people. It does allow for almost anything to be bought, sold, and produced. Almost. Slavery is still illegal. Can’t sell people. Or buy them. I guess you can still produce them….
“Here i will agree with you, so what fits into that category? Regulating the manufacture of widgets? Nope. A well regulated militia? I could debate that, but I’d rather just throw it into the government camp. Our court system? Absolutely. That about covers it. See, we need constitutional law. But to get there, we must deregulate almost every aspect of our lives, from no child left behind, to section 1021 of the NDAA, to marijuana prohibition, etc. Or, if you want marijuana to be prohibited then you should move to a state or municipality that has that law on its books (though obviously people will still be smoking), but that has no constitutional business being regulated at the federal level.”
Too bad for you that you don’t understand Constitutional law as evidenced by your complete misunderstanding of the 10th Amendment and Commerce Clause in that statement.
You should really learn what a period is and how punctuation works. You should also work on that false equivalency thing. Manners are not laws.
“You have yet to provide any evidence of real world examples that chaos similar to that of black markets appears in free markets”
1929 and the events leading to the current situation with CDS. The first was mostly caused by no regulations requiring banks to have adequate capitalization and the second largely by the removal of the restrictions formerly found in the Glass-Steagall Act.
“Since you seem so convinced that people are evil and will digress into a band of wild monkeys without a strong state, then tell me, who makes the rules in the federal government?”
Not all people are evil and will digress into a band of wild monkeys without a strong state, but the ones that are and will can do enough damage to both individuals and society as a whole to merit having a government strong enough to protect good actors when possible and punish bad actors when possible. In a true democracy, the people make the rules. We will always make the rules. Law shapes society. Laws are made by people for people just as much as a toaster is. That humans are imperfect is irrelevant to their ability to engineer systems with greater or lesser degrees of perfection. Your question is infantile and unrealistic. Who else is going to make the laws required to keep peace and pursue justice? Machines? Dogs? Carrot cakes?
“I appreciate you taking the time to write all of that, but a free market is neither chaos nor an absence of rules, so you are arguing past me here, not against my position.”
You still miss the point that entropy increases and rules (or any guiding structure) are the opposite of entropy. They provide order to chaos. Less rules (guides) makes for more chaos when entropy increases. That’s just math. Good luck changing that.
“You keep mistakenly equating the free market with chaos and anarchy… I do think the solution would be for you to (re)read Von Mises.”
I think the solution would be for you to read some science; specifically concerning entropy, complex systems and chaos theory. The mistake here is entirely yours and von Mises. You clearly don’t understand what I mean when I say chaos and he certainly didn’t.
“A free market leans towards no government regulations so goods and services can be traded freely by free people. For instance, your example of how income tax put away Al Capone. (Surely you weren’t making the case that income tax regulations helped put bootleggers out of business because that would be like giving credit to income tax laws for putting, or not putting, out of business most marijuana dealers. It is irrelevant.)”
Al Capone specifically was stopped by income tax. That is what put him out of business. Regulation of the manufacture and distribution of alcohol is what put bootleggers out of business by providing a stable environment and guidelines for free trade. “Free” doesn’t mean free to do whatever the fuck you like, but that’s a point almost no Libertarian understands. With rules in place, legitimate businessmen could move into the market sector and simply out compete the organized crime element who were unable to avail themselves of legal remedy for disputes or traditional sources of capital and faced diminishing returns with no reduction of risk.
“Most libertarians would likely argue against the income tax in a free market system. BUT, if there is an income tax in the system, then I would say a healthy debate among libertarians would be had over if it should be enforced. I would say that if there is going to be an income tax regulation in this country then it should be collected from everyone in a proper fashion.”
Tax policy is a different discussion. As long as you don’t buy into the Rothbard nonsense that taxation is theft and realize that taxation is simply required to operate any form of government and society, we might have something in common to discuss. My point was in Capone’s specific case, he was stopped by tax laws, hard and fast. His surviving competition were slowly choked out by legal manufactures.
“Real world examples: Alcohol prohibition of the 20′s = over regulated state, book sellers of today = laissez faire.”
You’re still missing the point about rules and complexity and you’re engaging in selective reading and false equivalence. No one ever died from drinking an adulterated books. Like I said, for many things, free markets are fine. For some, they are a recipe for disaster.
“The chaos of prohibition was not created by free people freely trading, it was created by too much government regulation.”
The chaos of prohibition was created by people competing without constraints. Again, that the particular manifestations of chaos in a black market and a laissez-faire market are different is irrelevant to their both being bad results and those results stemming from unchecked competition. Fair competition is not the same thing as unchecked competition. Rules are required to define fairness and instill systemic restraints. Take Greenspan for example. He personally thinks fraud is fair because the “market will correct it” and he’ll eventually go out of business if he engages in it. I think if he committed fraud against me and I had no legal recourse to get my money back, I’d beat it out him and that would be perfectly fair. Starting to see the problem without having rules yet? Justice requires equity. Equity requires fairness. It needs to be defined by the law and encouraged by regulation, backed by enforcement. And before your start in about force, laws without enforcement are suggestions and just about as useful when it comes to bad acts and bad actors.
“I believe that society can function without too much government, that people will do the right thing most of the time. I really do. I believe that most people do have a conscience, so in a free society most people would do unto others as they would have done to themselves, and would strive to do no harm.”
Despite the fact that all of human history shows this to be a fantasy? Good for you! One of the mutually derived benefits from government and the social compact is protection from self-predation. That most people are decent has nothing to do with preventing to the extent possible bad acts by and punishing bad acts by those who are evil.
“In a system that allows a few to control the many, then that just invites for the worst of society, those who are power hungry and want to hurt others, to get to the top and wreak havoc.”
Yes. Oligarchy is bad. That’s why were supposed to have a democracy. We don’t now because we have corporatism, which is another form of oligarchy. Corporatism bought and paid for by big business interests like the Koch Brothers and ALEC. Corporatism bought and paid for by businessmen who want to be above the law and when they can’t manage that, they want to write the law. We won’t have democracy under a Libertarian or laissez-faire system either. We’ll have more oligarchy. Laissez-faire economics is freedom from oversight and the threat of legal retribution for business without the cost of graft. The only way to prevent the tyranny of the strong over the weak is to have a government where power vests in the people and protects the weak equally to protecting the strong. If the system is creating oligarchy, then you change the system to restore egalitarian democracy. You don’t further remove the restraints on those currently responsible for oligarchy. Extra-legal and ultra-legal have the same net effect.
“-But the same bad people are making the rules, and the biggest businesses with the most money are always going to find their way into the rulemaking process and privilege themselves against their competition as long as rules are allowed to interfere with their businesses and the marketplace.”
That specious reasoning and sounds a lot like blackmail.
“We won’t corrupt your government to our ends if you just let us do what we want in the first place.”
Screw that. The bad guys win when We the People let them win. As I said, my primary concern is justice which means bad guys get the finger.
“Power corrupts, money talks, and unskilled bureaucrats can always be bought off by highly skilled and wealthy interests. Some would argue that is the main reason unskilled people go into the bureaucracy, to profit.”
Some people would argue that buying influence is the main reason sociopaths and the generally amoral go into big business; profit. Profit comes in other forms beside cash you know. Buying influence? You solve that problem by putting the grafting businessmen in prison and taking all their money and assets when their caught doing it. And I do mean all. They should walk out of prison without a dime. Same goes for those peddling influence too. Both parties should spend 30 years turning big rocks into small rocks and leave the big house penniless. Graft would loose its appeal real quick under those circumstances.
“But back to this example, smaller businesses must pay higher relative operating costs because they cannot buy their input products in mass. Are you suggesting government get involved to change this? That is part of business.”
No. I’m not talking about economies of scale. The studies were concerned with licensing and regulatory compliance costs being unfairly shifted to the smaller competitors. Anti-competitive laws bought and paid for by big industry. Again, a result of graft.
Campaign finance, lobby and criminal law reform are the way to fix the root of that problem too.
I’ve already covered the rest of your post in one form or another.
“but the remainder are either critical to human survival and/or critical to national security and have no business being left to the whims of both the free market ”
Here i will agree with you, so what fits into that category? Regulating the manufacture of widgets? Nope. A well regulated militia? I could debate that, but I’d rather just throw it into the government camp. Our court system? Absolutely. That about covers it. See, we need constitutional law. But to get there, we must deregulate almost every aspect of our lives, from no child left behind, to section 1021 of the NDAA, to marijuana prohibition, etc. Or, if you want marijuana to be prohibited then you should move to a state or municipality that has that law on its books (though obviously people will still be smoking), but that has no constitutional business being regulated at the federal level.
“Good rules wouldn’t lead to the result of the studies I’d previously shown Bron where smaller businesses pay a disproportionately higher relative operating costs. Good rules would ensure that all business not matter of size would either pay the same relative costs. That’s equitable and just. To decide as a matter of public policy to make rules where smaller businesses get the advantage on relative operating costs (the inverse of what we now have)? Is a public policy discussion and I think a fair one. If you’re going to advantage a business, it should be with an eye to fostering competition and inverting the current scenario would almost certainly encourage competition. That’s a valid discussion. But removing the rules? That won’t create a level playing field. That will create a playing field where the biggest dog eats the other ones even if he’s a bad dog who bites people too. Again, that scenario would simply turn the big businesses loose on the smaller ones in a predatory frenzy.”
-But the same bad people are making the rules, and the biggest businesses with the most money are always going to find their way into the rulemaking process and privilege themselves against their competition as long as rules are allowed to interfere with their businesses and the marketplace. Power corrupts, money talks, and unskilled bureaucrats can always be bought off by highly skilled and wealthy interests. Some would argue that is the main reason unskilled people go into the bureaucracy, to profit.
But back to this example, smaller businesses must pay higher relative operating costs because they cannot buy their input products in mass. Are you suggesting government get involved to change this? That is part of business. As the small business gets larger, it can order more bulk items and save money over time. This area should have nothing to do with the government. I am a small business owner and I deal with this. No I cannot compete by making the cheapest widgets, but I can make my widgets better, more quality, and more diverse than the low cost high production widget makers. But how would you change this? Would you force someone who sells inputs to make widgets to everyone at the same price? That would not be fair to him, because it costs more for him to manufacture and ship individual inputs than it does to do many at once.
“But removing the rules? That won’t create a level playing field. That will create a playing field where the biggest dog eats the other ones even if he’s a bad dog who bites people too.”
-No, it wouldn’t. That just means the little dogs need to do something different or improve upon their products so that they offer something better or different than the big dogs’ product. If there are no rules (besides of course right to property and life- it is still against the law to kill the little dog or burn down his business– this isn’t prohibition : ). If there are no rules then the big dog can not create artificially low costs for himself by writing the rules, cannot subsidize his own inputs, cannot get tax write-offs that allow him to overly outcompete his smaller competitors, and cannot force regulations that are expensive to comply with that only he can afford to get rid of his competition. The little dog, as long as he finds that people like his products, can keep competing, happily eating away at the big dog’s portion of the pie of the market share until he reaches the age of 10 (elderly in doggie years). There is nothing the big dog can do about it except try to out compete. He may try to improve his products like the little dogs, but then his costs will go up, and nothing says the little dog can’t also change up his stuff.
A great book I am looking into right now is entitled “Economics in One Lesson,” By Henry Hazlit. Might I recommend it to you without him or me being called an idiot?
*seat down.
“You yourself have admitted that laissez-faire economics is at best aspirational and not attainable in reality. Simply removing rules will only create more chaos.”
I did say the first sentence. You yourself agree that we should fight for our beliefs, even if they are unattainable. However, the second sentence is pulled out of thin air. I believe that people are more capable to govern themselves than you do. I don’t need regulations from faceless bureaucrats telling me to do all sorts of things. I am not regulated to leave the seat up for my wife. Manners exist without regulations. Most of the good things in this world are done without, or despite, the federal government.
“That the chaos (bad results) from black markets and under regulated or misregulated markets comes in differing forms does not negate that both states of being result in bad results.”
Yes, I agree, bad markets are chaotic. What causes black markets? government regulation. You have yet to provide any evidence of real world examples that chaos similar to that of black markets appears in free markets. I have provided example after example of showing deregulation getting rid of corruption and chaos in the market place.
Since you seem so convinced that people are evil and will digress into a band of wild monkeys without a strong state, then tell me, who makes the rules in the federal government? The worst of the monkeys!!!
I appreciate you taking the time to write all of that, but a free market is neither chaos nor an absence of rules, so you are arguing past me here, not against my position.
A free market leans towards no government regulations so goods and services can be traded freely by free people. For instance, your example of how income tax put away Al Capone. (Surely you weren’t making the case that income tax regulations helped put bootleggers out of business because that would be like giving credit to income tax laws for putting, or not putting, out of business most marijuana dealers. It is irrelevant.) Most libertarians would likely argue against the income tax in a free market system. BUT, if there is an income tax in the system, then I would say a healthy debate among libertarians would be had over if it should be enforced. I would say that if there is going to be an income tax regulation in this country then it should be collected from everyone in a proper fashion.
You keep mistakenly equating the free market with chaos and anarchy… I do think the solution would be for you to (re)read Von Mises.
Or at least consider the use of the words “minimal government” in the definition of laissez-faire economics.
Real world examples: Alcohol prohibition of the 20’s = over regulated state, book sellers of today = laissez faire.
The chaos of prohibition was not created by free people freely trading, it was created by too much government regulation.
I believe that society can function without too much government, that people will do the right thing most of the time. I really do. I believe that most people do have a conscience, so in a free society most people would do unto others as they would have done to themselves, and would strive to do no harm. In a system that allows a few to control the many, then that just invites for the worst of society, those who are power hungry and want to hurt others, to get to the top and wreak havoc.
“As far as regulations putting bootleggers out of business, I fail to see how.”
Because you fail to see the provision of a rational set of rules bringing order to a chaotic system. As rules approach zero in a system, chaos tends toward the maximum. In a black market, there is one rule and one mechanic: the product (or its provisional supply) is illegal, supply and demand governs everything else. It’s as close to the laissez-faire ideal as possible and look how well it has historically worked out. Again, the solution to malfunction in a system isn’t doing away with the rules. The solution is to get better rules and to make sure the rules are applied uniformly and, in the case of laws, maximize just outcomes. You yourself have admitted that laissez-faire economics is at best aspirational and not attainable in reality. Simply removing rules will only create more chaos. That the chaos (bad results) from black markets and under regulated or misregulated markets comes in differing forms does not negate that both states of being result in bad results. Dead from a turf war or dead from an adulterated product is still dead. Only removing rules is throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The solution is better rules. While sometimes that will take the effect of removing rules that unbalance the playing field or prove irrational based on other public policy criteria, more often than not the solution is reformulation coupled with equal enforcement. Good rules wouldn’t lead to the result of the studies I’d previously shown Bron where smaller businesses pay a disproportionately higher relative operating costs. Good rules would ensure that all business not matter of size would either pay the same relative costs. That’s equitable and just. To decide as a matter of public policy to make rules where smaller businesses get the advantage on relative operating costs (the inverse of what we now have)? Is a public policy discussion and I think a fair one. If you’re going to advantage a business, it should be with an eye to fostering competition and inverting the current scenario would almost certainly encourage competition. That’s a valid discussion. But removing the rules? That won’t create a level playing field. That will create a playing field where the biggest dog eats the other ones even if he’s a bad dog who bites people too. Again, that scenario would simply turn the big businesses loose on the smaller ones in a predatory frenzy.
This does not negate that free markets are not the best or indeed the only solution for every problem. Insisting that they are is an article of faith not borne out on the evidence. Both socialized systems and government granted monopolies have their place in society and the economy. The insistence that free markets are the only solution is as dumb as the insistence that a hammer is the only tool in a tool box. The Scandinavian countries have a blended socialist/free market economies and they have by far better weathered out the global economic downturn that either us or the rest of Europe. Bron knows I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: free markets are fine for 95% of the crap we make and sell each other as a species, but the remainder are either critical to human survival and/or critical to national security and have no business being left to the whims of both the free market mechanism and the inherently dangerous avarice that goes with the profit motive. Like health care insurance. Like an energy industry that uses graft to influence policy to the point that wars are started against countries that didn’t attack us so said industry can do some war profiteering. When building a healthy and robust society, profitability (let alone profitability to individuals or corporations) cannot be the driving factor in decision making. Some things that society needs to have done simply cost; their benefits either necessary no matter the cost or incapable of precise calculation because they are nebulous in nature. We should not exacerbate those costs or the problems created by diverting those monies to profits by allowing profiteers to skim off the top.
Chaos doesn’t make better tools or better outcomes.
Better design and deployment does.
@ Bron, I am naturally a political person. Even if my actions had no hope, and I believe these do, I would still do them if I believed in them.
@ Gene, I think the blame rests on the people. Evil always wants power and will take it and abuse it if it is allowed to be abused by the people. As Donald Rumsfeld would say, that is a “known-known.” That is why the people must check those in power and resist their propaganda. One must trust in the morality of their own hearts and pursue its truth with vigilance, not sit idly by. One must be skeptical of those in power’s intentions first and foremost. Sadly when they control what is taught to the majority of our children from 3k to post graduate and everything we hear and see outside of it, it will take a lot of effort to counterbalance. Luckily the message of liberty is one whose truths are self apparent and naturally accepted by those who hear the message. There is no lying or convincing necessary, just plain truth. It has a much more powerful message than that of the establishment, so even if there is less people pushing it (you won’t hear it on TV unless Ron Paul wins a primary and gets 10 minutes to talk) once you hear it, it is hard to ignore it. It lights a fire within the soul of those who had been searching for the truth all their lives but never found it. Once heard, you can’t put it back.
I blame my father, my mother, my grandmother, (my earlier self) etc. Because they allowed this to happen. It is time to take it back. ( I love them, but we are all to blame, and like a cop will tell you, ignorance is no excuse).
@ Gene,
“Also, regulation and decriminalization put bootleggers in general out of business. Capone specifically was put out of business by being found guilty of tax evasion and sent to prison.”
I am with you when you say decriminalization put bootleggers out of business, this is true, just like the Drug Cartels would disappear, along with their violent crime, if we legalized drugs.
But I wouldn’t give the government any credit for the decriminalizaton that led to the end of bootlegging en masse because they are the ones that put them in business when they criminalized it.
As far as regulations putting bootleggers out of business, I fail to see how. They were regulated when they became bootleggers! There was a government rule against bootlegging. That didn’t put them out of business, that boosted business. Even though the government was searching for them, fining them, destroying their property, and putting them in jail. Writing rules did not put bootleggers out of business, not even the enforcement of prohibition did. Legalization and the market put bootlegging out of fashion. Just like today and the drug war. We spend billions on the drug war enforcing the rules/laws/regulations of the drug wars. Has that put the drug cartels out of business? No. Will more or better regulation do it? NO! Would deregulation do it? Most assuredly.
“Most Americans just want to be left alone to raise a family and make a few bucks, they could care less about ideas.” – Bron
“[W]henever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them right.” – Thomas Jefferson
The power in a democracy vests to the people. If the people allow their government to be abused and misused by usurpers, who is more to blame for the situation? The people who could care less about ideas or the bad actors they put in office due to their own ignorance? Or does the blame go at least in part to the propagandists who deceive and steer the ignorant? And who funds that propaganda and to what end if not profit?
MM:
Good luck with that. Most Americans just want to be left alone to raise a family and make a few bucks, they could care less about ideas.
Most of us are frogs in that boiling pot.
My congress critter voted for the NDAA and was proud of it. He should have been ashamed. They get up there and are treated like gods and it goes to their heads. They think they are supermen and above the law, they are almost universally full of shit.
“That is just funny, his belief in government’s capacity for good is unlimited.”
Material misrepresentation.
Also, regulation and decriminalization put bootleggers in general out of business. Capone specifically was put out of business by being found guilty of tax evasion and sent to prison.
But you keep making shit up. It’s what you’re known for and best at.