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
Re-read the statements of your laissez-faire guru and fellow Objectivist Greenspan regarding fraud and rethink the stupidity of the statement “laissez faire capitalism does not mean you can ride roughshod over your neighbor’s rights.” The mechanisms for insuring rights of others aren’t abused in business? Regulation. Regulation like Glass-Steagall. Regulation like those promulgated by the FDA. Regulation restricting transactions and shaping supply and demand. Corporations don’t have neighbors or a conscience. Their sole driving purpose is maximizing profit. They are a legal fiction behind which socipaths can avoid responsibility for their bad actions.
That you realize this problem and he doesn’t only further illustrates that Objectivism appeals to sociopaths and the emotionally immature. Truth be known, on a bad day, you do sound like a sociopath, Bron. You can’t help it. Your belief system is fundamentally sociopathic. On a good day, however, you merely sound like a confused teenager. Today is a good day.
When you first came here, it made you question your prejudices about liberals in general. It’s one of the reasons you decided to stick around. The hope is that, one day, you’ll see that some of the things you bemoan about society are precisely created by a great many of your beliefs you hold with so little examination other than they serve justify greed and selfishness.
There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path, but first, you must see the path and realize you aren’t the only one on the path.
All I want to know is, if the Austrian school of laissez-faire economics is so brilliant, how come they don’t apply it in Austria?
laissez faire capitalism does not mean you can ride roughshod over your neighbor’s rights. And it also doesnt mean that government doesnt play a role. It does and must play a role to protect individual rights and property.
Well Hell must be chilly today, Bron. Something we can agree upon. The politicization of science is a horrific disservice to society.
But if you think government has a role in markets, you aren’t truly a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. That’s the problem with you, Bron. You latch on to propaganda and/or ideas that sound good to you without thinking it through. You aren’t for laissez-faire capitalism. You’re for rational regulation – better laws, not no laws. What you fail to realize is that is far closer to my position than not. I’m for better regulation, not just more for the sake of more.
Gene H:
there is nothing wrong with using objective science to determine what the safe level of arsenic in drinking water can be and to mandate that level for water being used for drinking. Government does have a role in the market to keep individuals safe as long as the science is objective and not political. And by political I mean either right or left. The right wanting to make it easy for corporations in disregard of objective science and the left wanting to make it harder for industry in disregard of objective science.
And if there doubt then err on the side of human safety. Although keeping a drug off the market that will save hundreds of lives because one person had an allergic reaction and died isnt good either.
Apparently you don’t know the meaning of the qualifying term “more likely than not”, Bron. Had I said, “Jefferson was a democratic socialist”, I would have been committing the Historian’s fallacy. Jefferson probably didn’t know about socialism. He died in 1826. The political and economic theories of socialism (in the works of people like Leroux, de Saint-Simon, Owen and Fourier) didn’t come about until about the same time as Jefferson’s death. If I recall correctly, the term socialism wasn’t used until Leroux coined it in 1834.
“There are reasons to criticize Mises but saying he is full of shit because he believes in free markets isnt one of them and is circular reasoning. He is full of shit because he believes in free markets, why does he believe in free markets, because he is full of shit.”
Except of the criticisms of his naivety about human nature, that he was unscientific in his pursuit of economic theory, and that socialism is destined to fail when some degree of socialism is required for any form of government to operate other than in his Libertarian fantasy world. He’s not full of shit because he believes in free markets. He’s full of shit because he believes in unregulated free markets.
“Have you called him a sociopath yet, I cant remember or is that just me? I guess if I am a sociopath because I believe in free markets and in an individuals right to his own life, then Mises must be as well, as well as everyone else who works for living who thinks they are entitled by natural right to the sweat of their brow.”
No. You’re a sociopath because you’re an Objectivist. Objectivism is a sociopathic belief system. I don’t know if von Mises was an Objectivist or not, but he was certainly an idiot about human nature, much like Objectivists.
Gene H:
“However, what one can say is. . .that had Jefferson lived on to this day he would more likely than not be a democratic socialist. . .”
I am sure there are similar posts but I have to get to work.
Bron,
Lie and distort all you want. It’s what is expected of you.
None of which changes the fact that unregulated supply and demand is the mechanic of a black market and that unregulated supply and demand is the mechanic of choice of laissez-faire capitalists. The actions result in the same outcomes. As far as ” I think we could also say that government regulation, which really is nothing more than a degree of prohibition on a particular good or service creates artificial demand for either alternative products or higher price products” goes, you can also file that under “duh” too, Bron. Limiting or refining supply and demand is the very nature of regulation. The key is making sure the regulation serves a rational public interest. You still can’t distinguish there is a such a thing as good law and bad law so your solution for the marketplace is to do away with laws altogether. That’s throwing out the baby with the bath water because that simply invites abusive practice and social malaise – just like you find in black markets. Laissez-faire economics is as irrational a choice as communism and just as blind to human nature.
Gene H:
“Material misrepresentation.”
It most certainly is not, you have said just that more than once.
Gene H:
you never really bring in any “evidence”, it mostly is rhetoric.
Just like on this thread with Jean ValJean, you only state Mises is an idiot but you really do not explain why other than to say he is in favor of free markets and so is full of shit.
There are reasons to criticize Mises but saying he is full of shit because he believes in free markets isnt one of them and is circular reasoning. He is full of shit because he believes in free markets, why does he believe in free markets, because he is full of shit. Have you called him a sociopath yet, I cant remember or is that just me? I guess if I am a sociopath because I believe in free markets and in an individuals right to his own life, then Mises must be as well, as well as everyone else who works for living who thinks they are entitled by natural right to the sweat of their brow.
Gene H:
“Nothing except for the mechanism of said market which is still . . . supply and demand without rules or oversight.”
A black market is, of course, about supply and demand. All markets are about supply and demand. Someone needs something and someone will find a way to fill that need. However it is not a free market as goverment has restricted the freedom of choice of the consumer. Government has created an artificial demand for the product in that they have limited the legal supply. Since the legal supply is limited, in this case non-existant, the black market fills the gap.
We can make the case that black markets are only created by government intervention in the economy. I think we could also say that government regulation, which really is nothing more than a degree of prohibition on a particular good or service creates artificial demand for either alternative products or higher price products. Which is something we see in the overall economy.
“When you read from an outsiders perspective, Gene H really doesnt say much, it is all purely rhetoric. He never brings in examples although he does use a dictionary pretty well.”
Said the guy who never won either a substantive or rhetorical argument.
That’s also a material misrepresentation in re evidence, btw.
“He even thinks Jefferson was a socialist.”
Material misrepresentation.
About par for your course, troll boy.
Monsr. Madeleine:
you are wasting your time, but it is interesting to watch.
When you read from an outsiders perspective, Gene H really doesnt say much, it is all purely rhetoric. He never brings in examples although he does use a dictionary pretty well.
In fact ask him what Welfare means and then look up the word in a dictionary circa 1800. I find it funny how the left took that word and made it mean payments to people who are down and out. Talk about an agenda, and then 60 years later you have Gene H parroting the philosophical shift in meaning, saying the Constitution was written as a document supporting the Welfare State/Socialism.
He even thinks Jefferson was a socialist. Although he has a minor point as Jefferson in his later years thought the French intellectual movement had merit. I dont know how though, J. J. Rousseau was all in favor of a strong state while early Jefferson feared big government. I guess he was going senile in his later years.
“‘We have a for profit health care industry in this country and it is rife with inefficiencies in the forms of duplicative channels of information processes forced on health care providers. . .’
Yes and it is heavily regulated by government.”
Heavily regulated and poorly regulated are not the same thing. The inefficiency I mentioned that you chose to point to isn’t related to regulation, poorly executed or not. Multiple data processing channels is a direct reflection of a competitive market with multiple players creating a systemic inefficiency. In many market segments, this isn’t a problem, but in health care it is because it costs money to maintain those different channels. Money that could better be spent on patient care. Just so, the bonus and perks structure of present in the for profit health care insurance industry also siphon off money better spent on patient care. These are people’s lives we are talking about and not just executives looking for a payday, but sick and injured people who need medical care to be paid for and to be administered by their doctors in accordance to their patient’s informed wishes, not by some middle or upper management flunky who’s bonus is predicated on raising profits by not paying out a claim.
“Are you serious? Liquor has caused more social problems than drugs have.”
I’m absolutely serious, Bron. The social costs of using liquor are a separate issue, but the regulation and legalization of liquor essentially put bootleggers like Capone out of business. The same thing would happen with drug legalization and regulation. Sure, you’d still have the incidents where someone on a drug does something stupid and/or violent, but the drug war violence in our inner cities driven by turf wars among distributors and along the Mexican border driven by cartel competition would vanish.
The social costs of drug use though are a distinctly different discussion.
Gene H:
“We have a for profit health care industry in this country and it is rife with inefficiencies in the forms of duplicative channels of information processes forced on health care providers. . .”
Yes and it is heavily regulated by government.
Gene H:
“Liquor sales prove my point that a regulated market fosters both social stability and reasonable trade whereas no regulation does the exact opposite.”
Are you serious? Liquor has caused more social problems than drugs have. It is a regulated market in the sense that is taxed federally and controlled by the Feds, in some states it is only sold by state owned liquor stores (beer and wine being sold freely).