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
“you arent ever going to restrain greed. And what is wrong with wanting more than you have if you earn it honestly and dont screw a bunch of people in the process?”
That’s a big and unrealistic if. Also, that’s a simplistic argument. You aren’t ever going to restrain homicidal urges either, that doesn’t mean their aren’t perfectly valid public policy reasons for restraining them by making acting upon them illegal. The reason for restraining homicidal urges is to avoid revenge killings and blood feuds. The reasons for restraining greed are much the same. Greed is not a victim-less crime when it goes wrong. Your statement is again predicated on your false assumption that all businessmen act honestly and your anti-law bias rooted in your von Mises espoused nonsensical economics. History shows that a certain percentage of businessmen don’t and won’t act honestly without the law to provide a brake on their behavior in the form of punishment for bad acts and restricting some behavior from the onset in the form of regulation. Even then, regulation and criminality won’t deter the worst sociopaths of the lot, merely provide for punishment when and if they are caught and brought to justice.
As far as the taxation issue goes, if you benefit more from society – which those who make profits do – you should pay a greater share of the maintenance costs of society. That’s equitable. To buy into that Rothbard horseshit of taxation as theft is simply revealing a desire to be a free rider; reaping all the benefits of society but paying none of the costs. If you earn more? You should pay more. Why? Because it’s fair. You live better than average because you benefit more than average from the shared infrastructure of society – including markets and the protection of property rights. If you’ve got a problem with that? It’s your problem. A problem rooted in greed. Of course, Warren Buffet and the billionaires and millionaires lining up behind him calling for increased taxes on the wealthy could be wrong. But they’re not. Greed is a vice with no ceiling and just so is the selfishness that fuels it.
Gene H:
you arent ever going to restrain greed. It is human nature to want more than you have. And what is wrong with wanting more than you have if you earn it honestly and dont screw a bunch of people in the process?
The problem is when people steel and cheat to get something more for themselves. That isnt right and that is why government is necessary; to protect people’s rights.
Greed has actually brought abundance to our country and a high standard of living and an increase in life span. So I am not sure how bad it really is.
You arent going to control human nature except by force and so you may as well let the market go and prosecute bad actors instead of assuming all business people are bad actors and need to be controlled.
By necessity you think everyone is greedy when in reality they just want to keep a little more of what they make.
“Actually, no it isnt. I didnt see John D. using a tommy gun to suppress competition as Al Capone did in Chicago during prohibition. The real analogy is between socialism and Al Capone. Both use force, one government the other a gun. The effect is the same, higher prices for all and shortages plus much destruction.”
Again, your bias against law is showing. Black markets precisely run by unregulated supply and demand. They are outside the law, ergo, the only mechanism at play is supply and demand.
Also, if you think Rockerfeller was above violence? You’re deluding yourself. He used violence. He just had enough purchased political clout to get the government to do it for him – another fascist using the state against the people. As the owner of The three largest companies (Colorado Fuel & Iron Company, the Rocky Mountain Fuel Company, the Victor-American Fuel Company) involved in the Ludlow Massacre of 1914, Rockefeller got the Colorado National Guard to attack striking workers resulting in a 10 day long battle that resulted in between 69 and 199 lives (depending on who did the counting). Killing yourself or getting others to do your dirty work, both Capone and Rockerfeller used violence.
Bron,
Capone didn’t use force. He used persuasion. 🙂
Gene H:
“The argued for market laissez-faire economic model is still the same as that found in black markets. It leads to economic tyranny of the strong over the weak.”
Actually, no it isnt. I didnt see John D. using a tommy gun to suppress competition as Al Capone did in Chicago during prohibition. The real analogy is between socialism and Al Capone. Both use force, one government the other a gun. The effect is the same, higher prices for all and shortages plus much destruction.
I might also point out that John D. brought the price of lamp oil so low it allowed the poor to have light and ended the hunting of whales for oil. John D. single handedly saved the whales and helped the poor. And he wasnt even an altruist but someone who was rationally self interested.
I often wonder why anyone would be against helping the poor and saving the whales.
“I know you did, it just got me to thinking about confirmation bias as applied to the market.”
I noticed it didn’t get you to thinking about the confirmation bias created in laissez-faire economics through the vested profit interests though. If it had, the second part of my answer wouldn’t have been necessary as you’d have noticed that the rejection of socialism or any regulation by laissez-faire capitalist does indeed create a confirmation bias but that bias is predicated on their maintaining power and maximizing profits which is a function of both greed and egomania rather than the more traditional method of creating a confirmation bias via dogmatic adherence to a belief. It’s a slight distinction, but it is a distinction with a difference and nonetheless a confirmation bias. Not all bad actors in a laissez-faire environment are going to be Objectivists although the tenets of that belief would by its very nature appeal to many of them. As much as I loathe greed and ego worship, Objectivism is not the only path to that end.
Gene H:
“I didn’t say free markets have confirmation bias. I said you do.”
I know you did, it just got me to thinking about confirmation bias as applied to the market.
“The only reason there is a black market is because of the force of government.”
Irrelevant. The argued for market laissez-faire economic model is still the same as that found in black markets. It leads to economic tyranny of the strong over the weak.
“Marijuana prohibition, just like alcohol prohibition, is a failed policy. Only socialist and fascist forms of government create legislation that attempts to prevent people from acting of their own free will even if it harms no one else or their property.”
Fallacy of argument by non-sequitur and false equivalence. Prohibition fails for the same reason just laws are necessary: human nature. That prohibition creates conditions for black market exploitation is a separate issue from both the market mechanism and the topic of minimizing the attractiveness of black markets to criminal elements.
Socialism is also not the equivalent of fascism. A just form of socialism, such as socialist democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries, works for the people. This is considered a good thing if you’re pro-democracy and the truth of the matter is the generally higher standard of living and levels of citizen happiness found in these countries in addition to their comparatively robust survival of the global economic downturn brought about by unregulated capitalism.
“in a free market people get rich by providing better goods and services cheaper than their competitors, lowering prices and increasing technology for everyone.”
Only in part. They also get rich by monopolizing market share either economy of scale (like Wal-Mart) or by anti-competitive market practices (like Microsoft has implemented to varying degrees of success over the years). They also get rich by cutting corners on materials, safety and by passing hidden costs on to others absent regulation.
“They don’t get rich and million dollar bonuses from tax payer bailouts. Even still, I bet you will argue in favor of the latter.”
You would bet wrong. “Too Big to Fail” is a myth propagated by those who stood to benefit from looting our treasury to make the public pay for their privately incurred risk and reward themselves for their ineptness and outright criminal behavior. This, however, needs to be distinguished from bailing out manufacturing interests. The service economy, including the financial services sector, is an illusion. The only real power a country has the ability to produce tangible goods. Germany didn’t fear America’s entry into WWII because of our financial and insurance services. They feared our entry into the War because we had vast untapped manufacturing potential. We didn’t kick their ass because we had innovative investment options. We kicked their ass because we could manufacture planes and tanks faster than they could. Also, historically, bailing out manufacturing interests has been an investment that paid off. The loans have been largely repaid and jobs (re-)created. That being said, their should be a prime requirement on any publicly funded bailout that prohibits the payment of any executive bonuses whatsoever until the loans are repaid in full.
None of this changes that laissez-faire economics is a disastrous idea that not only ignores human nature, but rather plays to the worst in human nature: greed. Greed isn’t good. Greed is stupid. It must be constrained just as much as the impulse to kill with physical violence must be constrained.
Furthermore, in a free market people get rich by providing better goods and services cheaper than their competitors, lowering prices and increasing technology for everyone. They don’t get rich and million dollar bonuses from tax payer bailouts. Even still, I bet you will argue in favor of the latter.
The only reason there is a black market is because of the force of government. Marijuana prohibition, just like alcohol prohibition, is a failed policy. Only socialist and fascist forms of government create legislation that attempts to prevent people from acting of their own free will even if it harms no one else or their property. It doesn’t work, hence the black market. it does drive up prices, increase violence, and wastes government funds while the people continue to purchase goods and use them.
Bron,
I didn’t say free markets have confirmation bias. I said you do.
“if the market was allowed to work, it would reject socialism hands down.”
Of course it would. The free market mechanic is “interested” in only one thing: profit without constraint. Just like in a black market – which I remind you once again is the free market dependent solely upon supply and demand you refer to so dreamily – those earning the most have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If they have to follow rules, it limits both their power and their profitability. Again, your blind faith is betrayed by the facts of human nature.
“Socialism can only be instituted by force of government.”
Laws and rules can only be instituted by force of government. The form of the market is irrelevant as long as it is constrained from abusive practices. Constraint – whether it be in the form of a socialized market sector or in regulation – is contrary to your laissez-faire economics. Laissez-faire economics which by their very “hands off” nature are pro-anarchy and pro-tyranny.
Your analysis is as usual simplistic and informed by your dogma rather than by the facts of both human nature and complex systems.
But you keep searching for that golden bullet rationalization that confirms that being a selfish greedy elitist ass makes someone a virtuous person.
We need someone to provide the bad examples around here.
Speech in the this country may be protected, or not. In any case it is being monitored by you know who:
http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/
and not just journalists.
Gene H:
concerning confirmation bias:
the free market doesnt have a confirmation bias because it is based on millions of people making thousands of individual decisions.
I just figured out why liberals are so afraid of it, if the market was allowed to work, it would reject socialism hands down. Socialism can only be instituted by force of government.
“No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”
—————————————
“Off with his head!”
idealist707:
I learns reel good. No matr wut Gene H sez. He doen no nutin anyways.
Learns me sumpin good. Eyes allredy axed wut books yu thot wer gooden, but yu nevir ansered.
Weel I gotz to go and pley wit my dawg Blu and reed ma bible an kleen ma gun cuz weer goin snipe huntin in the mornin wit da preecherman and da kernal.
Sinsarley,
X
(caus eye don kno how to spel ma name)
Gene H:
What is confirmation bias? There are at least 1,000 ways to skin a cat.
“maybe he is teachable.”
Good luck, id707.
I’ll just say you aren’t the first one to attempt that task and leave it at that.
TalkingDog at 3:39, You got that right! The only difference is the amount of civil power the various fundies have in their own countries.
Gene H.
he got that anyway. and replied on same red thread, maybe he is teachable.
Bron says:
….”It is typically found in Cuba, the Old Soviet Union and other countries which embrace stupidity as an ideology.”
Like the USA where you are a chief priest of the cult.
Naw, boooooriing….!
Do you usually hang out here, or did the DoJ send you to fish?
Come on, don’t miss the chance to have the last word. Small kids usually insist, as do teenagers, and senile dementias as they fall asleep, etc.etc.
Bron doesn’t study, id707. He simply regurgitates whatever appeals to the confirmation bias rooted in his Objectivism. His beliefs dictate his knowledge, not the other way around.