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
Again, Greenspan never was nor is my poster boy or the poster boy for the austrian school. That is your strawman. Again, if you want to talk about the work of people who do influence me, then please quote von mises, hayek, or rothbard instead of just calling them idiots. Seeing that you clearly do not understand nor have read any of their work, I doubt that you can come up with anything any deeper than, “he is stupid.” Surprise me.
“Here’s a writing hint too. Learn to say more with less.”
Again, coming from you this is pretty funny.
I’ll repeat the question since you still won’t give a “cogent response.”
In the original post on the topic you said: “That prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market is the gorilla in the room that you miss.”
Note the absence of anything on supply and demand or the mechanic of the market, none of which I am asking about.
Now please explain how “That prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market is the gorilla in the room that you miss,” makes sense using these definitions of these terms:
Vocabulary Words Defined:
Free Market- 1. Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.
Prohibition- 2. A law or regulation forbidding something.
Too bad for you he held himself out as your poster boy then, isn’t it?
Because not only was he so stupid as to think fraud shouldn’t be a crime, his personal money making machinations show him to be a hypocrite as well.
By the way, because you still don’t get this, Greenspan was not a representative of the Austrian school or is someone who represents my ideas!!! When he built his career as an economist pre-fed he had some pretty sincere and good ideas. When they dangled the keys to the printing press in front of him he went full on Keynesian and completely wrecked our economy. We are suffering the consequences today. How else can one explain the behavior of a man who basically wrote, “Interest rates should not be manipulated or controlled, that is how bubbles form. The market should be allowed to do this.” and then went on a 20+ year career of manipulating the interest rate and getting filthy rich in the process!
You’re free to say all the insipid nonsense you like.
Above the law and outside the law are still equivalent and yield comparable results in action.
Here’s a writing hint too. Learn to say more with less.
@ Bron,
Love it. He still doesn’t address the question I ask. Instead he tries to change it to the “mechanics of the market,” rather than addressing how the black market is a perfect example of a free market like he said it was.
@ Gene,
You didn’t say the mechanics of supply and demand are the same in your ORIGINAL post on the topic.
You said: “That prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market is the gorilla in the room that you miss.”
I’m still waiting for a “cogent defense” of this statement. Of course supply and demand still applies, that is not the question! Hahaha.
Again, here are the definitions of the two terms in question:
Vocabulary Words Defined:
Free Market- 1. Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.
Prohibition- 2. A law or regulation forbidding something.
How again is the black market of alcohol during prohibition a “truly free market”? And no, I am not asking if supply and demand applies. I am asking how the black market is supposed to be a perfect example of a “truly free market,” which means FREE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
Oh yeah, I forgot, reason, logic, using properly defined words, and phrasing questions clearly are examples of trollish behavior. LOL
Good luck Sir H!
P.S.
Oh, and I’ll come back as often as I like whenever I like, or are you guest censoring who posts on this blog now as well?
@Bron, funny how he also defends his position of Von Mises of a sociopath. This guy is incredible! I would love to see some of the cases he takes on, defending the indefensible. But also isn’t there a law against misrepresenting (lying) the opinions of others in court? Just like he misrepresents our opinions, he completely misrepresents what Von Mises stands for. Anyone who has read him knows this, but of course he will stand by “I have read Von Mises” as well when clearly he hasn’t, or has comprehension problems.
Gene H.’s argument @ Bron: “Bron, you are soooo immature.” LOL, again, look in a mirror sometime Gene.
Signing off.
Ooooo.
More tiresome drivel.
You two have way too much time on your hands.
“But of course Bron, Gene H. mentioned nothing about market mechanics or any of that blather in the original phrase. What he did was equate the black market wholly with the free market. He still hasn’t backed down from that equation, nor has he made any coherent defense of it.”
Really?
I’ll let the readers be the judge of whether the logic of “A black market is still a market without rules expect those imposed by the nature of transactions which is going to be supply and demand. The difference between a criminal market and a laissez-faire market is simply this: a criminal knowingly and purposefully breaks the law and a laissez-faire capitalist wants legal dispensation to be above the law. One results in punishment, the other does not. Laissez-faire capitalists want to be legal criminals” follows.
Come back when you can prove that unregulated supply and demand isn’t the same market mechanic currently found in a black market environment and precisely the market mechanic laissez-faire capitalists endorse (like Greenspan – you two should really learn what the word “example” means in addition to words like “logic”, “evidence” and “rhetoric”).
Because you still haven’t.
As to von Mises being an idiot about human nature? Anyone who cannot see the manifest danger in letting greed run rampant, that markets don’t provide just outcomes and that markets are susceptible to blatant manipulations by he who controls the supply is an idiot. Unchecked greed inspires any number of crimes and torts. The justice system (which includes laws and regulations) exists to provide just outcomes. That’s why we have both a legislative and judiciary branch of government instead of simply an executive and a free market.
I’m done feeding you two trolls.
You two boys enjoy wallowing in your own Austrian School filth.
*********
Bron,
Too bad for you what I actually use are the DSM IV and the WHO criteria when discussing sociopaths. If you don’t want to be considered a sociopath or possessing the emotional maturity of a teenager, then maybe you shouldn’t follow the teachings of a demonstrable sociopath. It has also been my experience with you that you believe in the rule of law only insofar as you can personally benefit from it. Then again, with you following a mantra of selfishness as a virtue, that is completely expected.
But just because someone writes for the blog doesn’t absolve the person from all troll-like behaviors… For instance, I often find that trolls are the first to attack someone on a thread, and are often the last to respond so as to claim victory by being the last man standing, even if they have nothing important to say like, “still waiting for a cogent response. you are a clown. von mises is an idiot.”
I have a blog and I wouldn’t engage in that kind of commentary on it. I guess since he isn’t the owner of the blog he has no need to censor himself.
Still, just look at the first posts for all three of us, and if one didn’t know who wrote for the blog as a guest sometimes and who didn’t, who would be the most troll-like of the three?
“Bron
1, February 10, 2012 at 10:04 am
This is getting pretty bad. And it is only going to get worse. We are going to have to fight these people all over again in a few years and they will only be more bold having sent us packing from both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda isnt the problem, it is their life philosophy which is the problem. Although I dont think I would call it a philosophy of life.”
“Monsieur Madeleine
1, February 10, 2012 at 10:33 am
@ Bron,
Most speech is protected speech in this country. See Bradenburg. But are you suggesting merely tweeting ‘D.A.’s suck’ is an arrestable offense? My how far we have sunk.”
“Gene H.
1, February 10, 2012 at 11:36 am
id707 to Bron, “Sometimes I wonder from what sort of telescope you view this world.”
From what I can tell, it’s an Ayn Rand “Übermensch 2000″ model with a von Mises/Rothbard motor drive.
The optics are precision ground to ensure wide field distortion and near perfect myopia. The drive system is notable because it’s only capable of tracking objects sideways or backwards.”
I’d say those are not only in chronological order, but in an order of logical thought.
Yours is purely a comment on the article and our society.
I attack you slightly with a misinterpretation of what you said (apologized the very next post) after asking you a question. But first I cite a court case and talk about protected speech.
Gene here says nothing about the article, adds nothing to the discussion, and immediately comes out swinging. He doesn’t address anything you said. However (as usual from what I can tell) he just attacks your reasoning ability and labels you with scholars whom he thinks will make you guilty by association on this board. That, to me, is a tell-tale sign of a troll.
I see… This makes sense as I often don’t find the guest posters as quality as Mr. Turley himself.
@Bron, I think you did an excellent job. Mine will be superfluous, but I want to play.
6. Believes that rights come from his or her creator, not from his or her government.
7. Believes that theft, even under the guise of government, is still theft.
8. Believes “thou shalt not kill” applies to governments as well as to people, and that it is a good rule to follow.
9. Believes that preemptive wars are offensive, not defensive, despite the Orwellian language.
Monsr. M:
he does that a good deal, it took me a long time to understand that he just engages in lawyer tricks. His typical MO:
he at first tries to offer some dismissive proclamation, such as he did about black markets, if that fails he changes the subject to argue something he is sure to win, like calling out Greenspan, he throws out something which is indefensible and says it is your position, he caught me on that on more than 1 occasion and had me chasing my tale all over the map, if that fails he resorts to name calling and if that fails he just says he won and you are an idiot.
Sometimes he does have interesting viewpoints but on matters economic he isnt very educated. Most of the time it is like explaining calculus to a 4 year old, the 4 year old understands motion and maybe time but the rest? You just get a blank stare or babbling.
Although here he is not a troll, he guest posts for the owner of the blog. You and I are the “trolls”.
Monsr. M:
How many more sociopaths are out there? Sociopath being defined by a person who believes in free markets and free people and the natural right to the sweat of your brow.
He has taken the concept sociopath and redefined it so that now a person who believes in human liberty and freedom and anyone who thinks their life and work belongs to them and not the state is by definition a sociopath.
Here is Hare’s revised point checklist for sociopaths:
1. believes in the rule of law.
2. believes a man owns himself.
3. believes that we have natural rights which cannot be abridged by government.
4. believes that a person’s work is his life and so he has a right to the products of his work which no man has a right to.
5. believes government has only 3 functions; protection of life, liberty and property.
Any others you could add would be helpful, I want to make sure I can plainly identify my kind.
@ Bron,
and again here, you are spot on.
“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.”
But of course Bron, Gene H. mentioned nothing about market mechanics or any of that blather in the original phrase. What he did was equate the black market wholly with the free market. He still hasn’t backed down from that equation, nor has he made any coherent defense of it. But how can he? That would be like trying to defend the statement that equated heroin abuse with crack abuse, or defending with evidence how von mises is an idiot.
@ Bron, there should be a tag around Gene H.’s name that says, don’t feed the troll. I keep trying to quit, but it is addictive!!! I can’t! LOL. I guess it is because he so outlandish and inflammatory with his proclamations that my responses aren’t cogent and his are superior and von mises is an idiot (lol) and I love greenspan (rotfl) and his defense that black markets equate free markets but i’m incoherent, blather blather, lol lol. Okay okay, I’m truly going to try to quit feeding the troll…. after one last request for him to defend his position without building strawmen or avoiding the evidence of terms defined I provided.
Aloha.
@ Gene H.
I’m still waiting for a “cogent defense” of this statement.
“That prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market is the gorilla in the room that you miss.”
– Gene H. providing his example of a truly free market
@ Bron,
I couldn’t agree more.
“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.
You usually quote everything that is said and then respond to it, I noticed you changed up your usual quote and response tactic when I posted the below, instead choosing to selectively quote and respond and then attempting to align me with Greenspan. Why not have a real go?
“Fine. I’m glad you have doubled down on the whole “prohibition is the perfect example of a truly free market” idea because it is so easy to refute. Just remember, I tried to get you to read Von Mises or at least look up the definition of ‘free market’ to no avail. I know, I know, you have “read” Von Mises. If that is truly the case, your comprehension needs work.
Before I define these terms for you, I truly hope that this is a moment that will encourage you to resume your studies and to read a broader range of material at a deeper level. Perhaps try Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. It is an easy read that can really help you along your educational path. Of course, you will probably just dismiss Hayek like you dismissed Von Mises, “Von Mises is an idiot.” So eloquent and truly a “proven” statement and “totally backed up just like all your assertions.”
Alas, I wish you good luck.
Vocabulary Words Defined:
Free Market- 1. Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.
Prohibition- 2. A law or regulation forbidding something.
As you can see, your previous interpretation below is clearly inaccurate, incongruent, and was in fact quite ironic to suggest alcohol prohibition is a good example of a free market since it is a good example of the exact opposite.
“That prohibition merely creates the opportunity for a truly free market is the gorilla in the room that you miss.”
– Gene H. providing his example of a truly free market
“What I said is precisely correct: the only governing mechanism of a black market is the same mechanic that laissez-faire economics endorses – supply and demand. This is true no matter what condition creates a black market. When the condition is artificially high prices due to prohibition? Supply and demand rules. When the condition is artificially low prices by tax avoidance? Supply and demand rules.”
-Gene H. expounds upon his knowledge of supply and demand, black markets, and free markets
There is nothing free about a market that is under government illegality. Why would I buy alcohol of low quality and at a high price from a mobster in a basement and risk getting arrested or worse if I could instead walk to the convenience store and plop $6.00 on the counter for a six pack that is name brand? I wouldn’t. Freer markets work much better than ones more restricted by governments, which is what prohibition is truly a good example of.
Of course I am a fraud and can’t back up any of my assertions etc. etc. blather, blather. I’ve read your correspondence with Bron, and I got to say you may also want to re-read your copy of The Constitution or take that class on Constitutional Law one more time (just not if it is taught by Barack Obama : ). Of course, you will continue to call him an idiot, just like Von Mises, just like Hayek, just like me.
Of course Bron could take the time to quote you the federalist and anti-federalist papers to let the founders speak for themselves, but I hope he sees that would be a waste of time on you.
See you around the bend.”
Oh, I’d like to add, I’m sure this is not a “cogent response” according to Mr. H. Haha. However, this is perfectly cogent for himself, “Hayek?
Really?
Why not refer to Rothbard while you’re at it. Not even Bron is stupid enough to buy into Rothbard’s nonsense, but if your peddling von Mises and Hayek, more than likely you think Rothbard is just peachy.
You clowns are all just alike.”
Haha, double standard? but will he actually address the ideas of von mises, hayek, and yes rothbard or will he continue to call them idiots and clowns. : ) I think we have already seen the answer to that one.
@ Gene H.
“Bron,
Lie and distort all you want. It’s what is expected of you.”
Actually, I believe you should look in a mirror from time to time. Why don’t you tell us more about how the black market of prohibition, a sever government regulation of alcohol, is the perfect example of a truly free market, a market in which no regulations by government exist? No, you would prefer to lump us in with Greenspan and have a false debate than actually address your fallacy.
@ Gene H.
Please stop building strawmen just to tear them down. I never mentioned Greenspan, so why do you insist he is my guru? I despise him. He sold out, cashed in, and created the mess we are in. Next you will accuse me of supporting Bernanke. Ridiculous. Instead of building strawmen of arguments you can win, how about you respond to my definitions of the free market and prohibition which quickly and soundly prove how wrong your understanding of the free market is. OR you could perhaps quote mises or hayek and then comment on how wrong they are since I expressed support of their ideas. But no, you won’t do that because you can’t do that. They are right! You don’t understand them! Instead, you just say they are stupid. Very very deep thinker you are.
Just some quick quotes of Greenspan and then the Bernanke.
As Alan Greenspan wrote before they bought him off,
“This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the ‘hidden’ confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.”
-Alan Greenspan, 1966. Which Alan Greenspan do you believe?
“Mr. Chairman
An advocate of the loose monetary policies espoused by his predecessor Greenspan, Bernanke has worked hard to make the Fed more understandable and transparent. He has worked hard to explain his actions to the public, holding town hall meetings, writing op-eds and testifying frequently before Congress.”
-Time Magazine, proudly displaying their hard hitting and excellent journalistic tendencies selecting him for ‘Person of the Year.’ At this time Ben Bernanke was fighting very hard- to not have a transparent audit of the Federal Reserve.
@ Mike A.
Notice how the majority laughed at the minority opinion, BEFORE THE CRASH….Schiff is a student of the Austrian School.
@ Mike A.,
The real question is which school of economics saw the bubble and which one created the bubble and saw nothing?
Often the most popular ideas are also the most incorrect.
Without the prevalence of ignorance on monetary policy in this country we would have never had this economic crash. The people wouldn’t have allowed their politicians to destroy the economy if they were informed. Not being informed it happened and only the Austrians saw it coming and tried to stop it. Now the same Keynesians who caused the crash and didn’t see it coming are the ones trying to fix it. Woe is me.
Mike A.,
Good point. 😀