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
WOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
That is the sound of my points about psychology, sociology and their interaction with law and the purpose of government going above your head.
Violent crime increased during prohibition because suppliers had no oversight. They didn’t sue a competitor for their practices. They just shot them. Just like fraud would increase without oversight in other areas. Like it did with the CDS debacle made possible by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Also, regulated and centrally planned are not the same thing but then again, you started early with false equivalences. Don’t stop now.
The rest of your drivel is more throwing out the baby with the bathwater nonsense. The answer to poor regulation isn’t doing away with regulation. It’s better regulation. Regulation not written by people with vested profit interests in skewing policy and law in their favor but rather providing a level playing field for all. That’s what they call in legal circles . . . justice: an equitable and egalitarian outcome.
People who worship money are predictable.
My interest is in justice first, profit is secondary or tertiary at best.
@ Bron,
Yes, absolutely. The banks would not have acted like they did if they didn’t know they would be saved at taxpayer expense (both in getting effed in the azz by their subprime mortgages and then again with the taxpayer bailouts). It is insulting to my intelligence that they think they can keep doing it again and again driving our economy to the ground and we won’t wake up and realize it before it is too late. But, sometimes I think they are right. Not enough of us will wake up in time to make any difference. By the time they do we will be in the throes that Greece is in now.
Book suggestion for you Bron. If you haven’t read it yet, The Creature from Jekyll Island was a spectacular book. It described to a T the mechanism of FDIC and bailouts and how the corporate-government collusion works to destroy the economy, and it did so WAY before 2007 happened. Get the 5th edition though, and he talks about 2008 as well. However, he described exactly how it happens before it happened in earlier versions. Startling. I read it right after the crisis and I can honestly attribute that book as the’ final drop that broke the dam’ in my mind so to speak.
Monsr. Madeleine:
I have told him the same thing for a long time, he doesnt believe me.
If those banks had been told 50 years ago, you screw up you die [in the sense that their will be no FDIC or government bail-outs] I am pretty sure we would not have had to endure the housing bubble or any number of financial booms and busts.
I think Rothbard postulates that the reason for the booms and busts across the entire economy is the control of interest rates by government [the Fed], he thinks in a free economy no one area would be crippled all at once. Appliances might take a dive but car sales would be fine or cars might take a dive but housing would be doing well.
Capitalism creates wealth and wealth eliminates poverty. You would think progressives would want to eliminate poverty, I think the rank and file do, but the ones at the top? They want power, same with the right but to a lessor degree.
Again, why would people who could afford it choose to drink Godawful bathtub gin (at higher prices than the good stuff was pre-prohibition) before or after prohibition? They didn’t before and only a few crazy hangers-on did afterwards (usually because their county or state made laws to keep prohibition alive).
The alcohol market was laissez-faire before prohibition, and bathtub gin was not invented during that time. Quality was high, prices were low, and people drank a ton of it. Prohibition ruined the alcohol market in America.
There is a distinct difference between black markets and free markets. I hope to God you can see this now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_gin
Gene H:
you are very good at what you do, or at least I imagine so. I dont expect to “win” against a lawyer who is trained with words and uses them on a regular basis.
It is just god damn interesting, that is all.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
That is the sound of my point going above your head.
Violent crime increased during prohibition, because of prohibition. Violence was a crime before prohibition, it had nothing to do with the fact that more violence was now against the law.
Alcohol related theft increased as well for the same reason. Why steal it when it is easy and readily available at your corner drug store?
The quality of the product was much much higher before prohibition AND before the FDA. As Bron has pointed out, it wasn’t because of the FDA that some people created higher quality products (including wine, beer, and whiskey) than others, it was due to competition and economics! Fine wines, beers, and whiskeys have been available since WAY before the FDA. Cheap wines, beers, and whiskeys were available too- not because they were trying to jip consumers, but because not everyone can afford the fine stuff…
The poor quality was caused because of the government prohibition- why spend time making quality stuff when there is a good risk of it being destroyed?
The high crime was because of the prohibition- Everyone has to hide from the government, no open sales, drinking beer is illegal so the whole organized crime mechanism grew.
High prices were caused by the government’s prohibition. Scarcity, as you said.
So the ultimate government regulation, prohibition, caused high prices, poor quality, and high crime. Yes, absolutely.
“Applying a hands off strategy will only guarantee bad acts, poor quality and price manipulations by suppliers.”
WRONG-WRONG-WRONG!
– A more hands off approach to the economy without a centrally controlled market always produces the most diverse and higher quality goods at a lower price. If you want to look at how well a centrally run socialist economy runs, please review the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ economic records.
In America do you think quality brewers, distillers, and wine makers wouldn’t continue to make fine quality products at low prices if there were no centralized government regulations??? Just like they did BEFORE prohibition and the FDA’s existence??? By all accounts, as Bron has pointed out, the quality of the beer people drank before prohibition was better than afterwards. Don’t believe me? go to a place like Germany or Belgium that never endured the awful socialist policy of alcohol prohibition and what do you find? Beers and breweries that are hundreds of years old still being brewed to this day. And are they better than our modern post-prohibition beers of America? Absolutely. That is how the American beer market looked pre-prohibition.
How much regulation do you think the Belgian government puts on their brewers who arguable make the best brews in the business? Hardly any! Is that why their beer is SO TERRIBLE!
Again, the freer the markets, the better. I can’t believe some of the absurd arguments you are making here.
Another example of this is the book sellers that I provided somewhere above. The book selling, writing, and publishing industries are minimally regulated, one could even say it is laissez-faire, as you are so fond of saying. How is the quality of the books on the market today? How are the prices? How are the availability and scarcity? What about crime? Are people committing violent acts to get books? Are people trying to prevent others from selling at cheaper prices by force? Or is the market allowed to compete? Is there a monopoly?
You really cannot comprehend the difference between a prohibited market and a free market, and it is utterly shocking to me.
“Laissez-faire capitalism is a lot lot Communism”
LOL- I think this is hopeless.
Then again:
“I’m all for deregulation that opens competition.”
-Maybe we are making inroads after all…
@ Gene, just so you know, Rockefeller was NOT a proponent of free markets. He used the force of government to force out his competition!!!
“But who has rigged laws via graft to promote anti-competitive legislation? Big businesses. Because it is in their best interests in the pursuit of profit. I’ve even shown you studies before that demonstrate that the costs of doing business are unfairly skewed against the little guy and stated I was against those kinds of unjust laws, but noooooooooo, you couldn’t hear that through the dogmatic noise running through your head.”
EXACTLY!!!
Get the government out of the way! Allow competition. Without the government’s power of coercion that can be influenced by lobbyists, monopolies CANNOT exist! Without the government’s ability to interfere and choose winners and losers in the marketplace prices will drop and the best producers will succeed! If a better producer comes along, he will replace the old one. But if we allow these regulations that stifle competition, like we have throughout our history, then the big guys will always use the government to establish themselves a monopoly, keep prices artificially high, and quality and consumption will suffer. This is just a milder example of the same effects prohibition had on the alcohol industry.
If the government is allowed to intervene in markets, and the big businesses always have the most power and money to influence said government, then who will the regulations always benefit? And the little guy, and competitors will always lose.
Maybe there is hope after all. Or, maybe I should have just stopped at “I think we are talking past each other here, and will have to agree to disagree. ” I’ve got a feeling your next reply will be telling.
” the more players, the more diversity, the better.”
Also, monopolies can and do form in markets by market mechanics. I point to what LK said earlier about Rockefeller and Standard Oil.
Bron,
The robustness of competition has nothing to do with preventing abusive practices for profit. Again, you cannot make the distinction between good and bad laws. I’m all for deregulation that opens competition. An economy is like an ecosystem – the more players, the more diversity. But who has rigged laws via graft to promote anti-competitive legislation? Big businesses. Because it is in their best interests in the pursuit of profit. I’ve even shown you studies before that demonstrate that the costs of doing business are unfairly skewed against the little guy and stated I was against those kinds of unjust laws, but noooooooooo, you couldn’t hear that through the dogmatic noise running through your head.
Bron,
Don’t hate the player, hate the game. You’re trained to design structures. I’m trained to argue – with rules of order or without. Even though I have yet to see you win an argument against anyone let alone me, I bet you could design circles around me in building a dam or a water treatment plant and yet I don’t hold that against you. I expect it of you.
Gene H:
“Which, being ultra-legal, you would also find in a laissez-faire market.”
Only if you wanted to starve, the evidence is pretty clear that people dont provide exceptional food or service because the health department told them to, they provide safe food and service because they want to make money. The more restaurants, the better the food and service. The local health department didnt do shit to protect the public, competition protects people. A health department is needed when there is only one or 2 restaurants for the people to choose from and both are regulated by government. But then the health department employee is paid off to look the other way.
Welcome to your socialist, regulated future.
Monsr. Madeleine:
You make an excellent point about beer pre-prohibition. There were literally thousands of what we call micro-brews today. We are only now re-discovering our rich beer history.
Until I was in my late 20’s I thought beer was only yellow and tasted like shit, my first real beer was an eye opener. Everywhere people are free, they flourish. Look at food in this country, it is incredible and very good. People do all types of creative things with food now, I dont know if this necessarily has anything to do with freedom but I doubt you can go to the Old Soviet Union and find an Indian/Southwest fusion [Indian from India].
These people dont seem to understand that freedom liberates people to achieve their potential, they think a free meal and free health care is what liberates people. All it does is liberate people from the necessity of thinking, which is all people have to make a living, their brains. Most government regulations put restraints on market realities and so give incorrect signals to rational people. No wonder the economy is in such chaos, there is no rationality.
“The difference is that the black market was an awful market, filled with crime, poor quality, and high prices”
Which, being ultra-legal, you would also find in a laissez-faire market.
Crime? Bad acts only become criminal when laws prohibit or regulate the behavior.
Poor quality? Again, do your history reading on the events leading to the creation of the FDA. And OSHA to a degree.
High prices? You’ve not only ignored that artificial pricing in a black market can go artificially low, but apparently you’ve not heard of artificial scarcity either.
The point isn’t that supply and demand lead to these things, but that unregulated supply and demand does. Why? Because greed encourages them. The whole premise of laissez-faire economics ignores this and lives with the fantasy that markets are rational, capable of just outcomes and incapable of manipulation by suppliers. Applying a hands off strategy will only guarantee bad acts, poor quality and price manipulations by suppliers. A laissez-faire economy has never been done at a state level because it won’t work without disastrous societal consequences. The business of business is profit. The business of our government is promoting social order and stability, justice, providing for common defense and promoting the general welfare of society. Laissez-faire economics will always run afoul of the function of government.
You should keep in mind this is a legal blog, not an economics blog. Most of the people here are all for capitalism as long as it is regulated to prevent abuses harmful to society which, if left unchecked by laws, would most certainly result by the function of human nature. Laissez-faire capitalism is a lot lot Communism: it works well on paper, but it fails when humans and their foibles are added into the equation.
The freer the market the better! In the case of alcohol the monopolies occurred during prohibition, and then diminished but continue on till this day. Look how many brewers existed BEFORE the government got involved and how many exist now.
Monsr. M:
“depending upon the manipulations of suppliers”
Gene’s lame attempt at bringing up monopolies. I told you his eyes glaze over when economics is mentioned.
That stuff about price was quickly gleaned from Wiki or some other place.
How does a supplier manipulate a market which has X number of players? I guess he lowers the price so he can sell a shit load of product. Or he enters into an illegal cabal to restrict trade, in which case he can be thrown in jail.
Isnt it funny how these price fixing cabals are most often road builders bidding state work, who would have thought. 🙂
http://www.alabev.com/history.htm
The Brief History of Beer
@ Bron, no doubt, as I also pointed out multiple times on this thread. However, I think, just maybe, we are about to finally engage in reasonable discussion.
I think we are talking past each other here, and will have to agree to disagree. Though I just have to point out that there are major differences between free markets and black markets, and those differences are rooted in the very definitions of those terms. Your failure, or refusal, to acknowledge this has been frustrating. I have acknowledged that the mechanic of supply and demand applies to both. It also applies to the regulated market we have today that is neither free nor black. That is why it is irrelevant that supply and demand applies the same way to different markets, that is of course a “known-known.”
The difference is that the black market was an awful market, filled with crime, poor quality, and high prices. All of this can be attributed to the government’s regulation called prohibition. Things got better once federal prohibition was lifted. I argue things in the alcohol market would be even better if we completely freed it!
Here is some evidence for that argument. Alcohol prohibition was the major contributor to the extreme rise to power of the mob. The mob arose to meet the nationwide American supply and demand of alcohol. When alcohol was legalized again, the mob moved to other illicit substances (marijuana, heroin, etc). The violence pertaining to the transportation and consumption of alcohol all but disappeared. You mistakenly attribute that decline in violence to the fact that there is some regulation still in place. That is not at all the reason. The cause of the decline is that there is no need to be violent when the market has now been allowed to function. There is plenty of supply to meet the demand. The quality is back. There is no need for violence between vendors or between the police and the vendors, etc. This is a result of the freeing up of the market from regulation, not the reverse. The monopoly the mob had during the prohibition period disappeared and the variety of options began to increase, though most of the varieties before prohibition never returned. Prohibition did succeed in shrinking the varieties of alcohol produced and sold. Hence Lager beer became the main variety that is still sold in America today. This was not the case pre-prohibition.
But case and point, look up what it was like to purchase and consume alcohol before federal prohibition. Then compare that unregulated market to the black market during prohibition. There is a difference there that you have avoided in seeing. They are not the same. Supply and demand applies to all markets in the spectrum of black to free. That is an irrelevant and redundant point to make.
Monsr. Madaleine:
I told you he was good at redirection, he takes one word and changes it or a single phrase which changes the entire meaning but still allows for people who do not read carefully to think he is still arguing the original point.
I think he has claimed victory here, he always tells me I have lost and proclaims victory for himself.
Again, your inability to comprehend that above the law and beyond the law are equivalent states is your problem. The mechanics of both black markets and the laissez-faire ideal are the same in action. One state of freedom is created by extra-legality (criminalization) and the other is created by ultra-legality (dispensation by the removal of liability). That you’re so upset over my pointing this out says it all. I will give you this one difference in the types of markets that isn’t based on the mechanics of supply and demand: artificial pricing. Price is going to be artificially higher in black market based on illicit substances and artificially lower in a black market based on tax avoidance whereas a laissez-faire market might – depending upon the manipulations of suppliers – have a more realistic price. But I already pointed that out.