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
Meet Tom Woods
He is another so called “idiot” that you are sure to hear a lot more of if you continue to vociferously troll libertarians on the Turley blog. Here he is giving a speech entitled “Our Wise Overlords Are Just Here to Serve Us.” The meat of the talk begins at 7:20. Targets include the Military Industrial Complex among other fine governmental institutions.
Black markets do not equal free markets. It is Interesting you are unable to see the difference between the two.
If you’ll notice in the definition of the term laissez-faire there is the word minimal, as in minimal regulation. A free market does not mean “no regulation.” You have a right to your property in a free or laissez-faire economy. The government is a constitutionally limited one. As Bron said, government limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. So whether greed or not is the motivation, people still cannot hurt others in a free market whether by producing dangerous products or by violent competition. We do not need a specific regulation or law that states that pacemakers must actually work or that planes must actually fly. If they don’t work or fly the manufacturer gets sued, the consumer goes elsewhere, and the business fails (unless that business is friendly with the government and gets a taxpayer bailout).
However, the market absolutely keeps adulterated products largely out of the market. Again, I refer you to the pre-prohibition period of alcohol consumption in America when the alcohol market can be accurately described as laissez-faire. Now, when the government gets involved like they did with prohibition, what happened to the products? They became dangerous. If someone became injured they couldn’t sue because they would have to admit they were breaking the law as well! The product became adulterated, paint thinner and all sorts of industrial and strange things that should not be in drinking alcohol. Again, there was no way to be sure what was on the label was inside the bottle (they faked labels too) because if they lied, they still could not be sued. Violence erupted over turf wars, etc. No property rights can be enforced if the property is illegal, etc. etc. etc.
In a free market competition drives out the over priced, the poor quality, and the adulterated or dangerous (the courts help with the dangerous as well). Would you make the mistake of purchasing mislabeled paint thinner twice when it is on a grocery store shelf and many other brands are affordable and readily available? I doubt it. You would also likely file suit (being a lawyer). What if you very much enjoyed alcohol but it was prohibited and there was a 50/50 shot every time you made a purchase in the store’s secret basement that it might be the ‘real stuff?’ Probably so.
Again, the government created black market for acohol during prohibition diminished the quality, raised prices because of scarcity, and more violent crime.
I think it annoying when people get on article comment sections and threads with the intent to ‘provoke’ people who are having reasonable discussion unprovoked and on topic. There is a word for that I use and it is ‘troll.’ But here we are in the unique position of the troll being a contributor to the blog and also seemingly having internet bipolar disorder on the same thread. At least it is unique.
Again, I refer you to the ideas of extra-legal and ultra-legal. No regulation is no regulation no matter if the cause is criminal avoidance of prohibition or dispensation to be free of liability in your market transactions. The mechanics of a laissez-faire market and a black market – once you get past the cause of the mechanic – are exactly the same; unregulated free markets where supply and demand are the primary drivers (after profit of course). The results will be the same too: abusive practices. In an extra-legal enterprise, the abuses may take different forms (i.e. crimes against people and/or property, turf wars, etc.) than in an ultra-legal enterprise (i.e. fraud, adulterated products, etc. but more extreme actions are no out of the realm of possibility (see both the Ludlow Massacre and the Battle of Matewan)), but they will happen none the less. They will happen because they provide benefit for suppliers, usually in the form of either competitive advantage and/or increased profitability. Humans without restraint are capable of horrid things and not all humans posses equal restraint. Greed is a powerful motivation to do evil and/or stupid harmful things for those with inadequate control of themselves and/or an ethical set of operational principles. Sociopaths have no restraint at all except their desires to satisfy themselves. Psychopaths can have no restraint at all in addition to completely irrational motivations. If we all had equal restraint, laws would be a lot simpler if they were necessary at all. As a social species, good laws act to protect us from self-predation and bad laws – those that don’t defend people and/or reward bad behavior – are systemic errors that can and should be corrected. Law is a complex system as it reflects society and society is inherently complex itself. Complex systems, unfortunately, are simply more mathematically prone to error. This means error correction for those systems must be more vigorous than for simpler systems or instability arises. If instability reaches a tipping point, chaos ensues and civilizations fall.
Also, you’re new here so you should know something about me. When it comes to argument and rhetoric I am strategically and tactically flexible, but I do things with purpose when it comes to argument and debate (including provoke). I won’t elaborate much on my methods as the ones here who need to know them do know them and why I use them. And that is all I have to say about that.
Finally a well reasoned and well thought out argument leaving out all the derisive name calling like idiot, clown, sociopath, drivel, etc. I do appreciate it, and wonder why we couldn’t have done this from the beginning…
I think our goals are the same, but we both believe the other’s tactics will lead to different consequences.
I must, however, turn this back around on you:
“You think you’re right all you like. I know you’re not because your economic and political theory is based on manifestly incorrect assumptions about human nature and the role of government in society. A foundation of sand may make for a pretty castle, but not a stable one.
Castles made of sand fall into the sea eventually.”
As evidence for your economic theory not being made of sand, I would like you to finally give a “cogent response” to this below, as well as answer the pre-prohibition-prohibition-post-prohibition and book selling examples you so smoothly have avoided in the latter portion of this discussion.
“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.”
“’If that’s your idea of logic, I can see the problem right now. Deregulation won’t hurt big business a bit.’
Ahh, so when you think of deregulation, you think that means MORE subsidies to corporate interest, MORE taxpayer bailouts.’
Again, you put words in my mouth. When I think deregulation, I think no corporate subsides or bailouts for non-manufacturing industries (and then only in an emergency), but mostly I think of removing or reshaping legislation that causes the biases against smaller businesses providing competition. That’s what a level playing field means.
“’It will simply free them up to use their vastly superior resources in new uncontrolled and nefarious ways free from threat of legal retribution. Baby, meet bath water.’
They cannot free themselves from threat of legal retribution without the force of government in an unfree market to make regulations that do so! There is nothing to influence!!!!”
Exclamation points don’t mean you understand. Laws including regulations provide the stick be defining the crime or otherwise discouraged or prohibited behavior. Removing the stick will simply free the beasts as I said. The trick is to have a better sticks, not drop all your sticks.
“‘“If you did, you’d understand the dangers of greed as a motivation when left unchecked.’ If you understood economics, you would realize that the market checks itself via competition.”
I do understand economics and what you say is a fantasy. Competition provides no check on bad acts motivated by greed (or other socially maladapted motivations). In fact, without a check it usually rewards bad acts made out of the motivation of greed in the form of unjust profits. Adulterated products reward short term profits by cutting costs. Fraud even more so. Shoddy design and manufacturing processes are another area where profits can be enhanced by cost savings. That is hardly a comprehensive list of the crimes greed can be a motivator for that can result in excess profits. Greed isn’t good. It’s not even smart. It’s just blind acquisitiveness. Avarice is considered a bad thing by most schools of religious and philosophical thought and for good reason. It leads to bad things and people get hurt. However, the roots of Libertarianism are firmly rooted in the ideals of the exception to the greed is evil commonality of other belief systems: Objectivism. Where selfishness is a virtue and the acquisition of wealth a prime goal in the worship of the self. Society isn’t individuals though. It is by definition a collective; a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. It provides a faulty premise – a weak foundation – to build upon when you don’t recognize the value of others. Libertarians and Objectivists are dedicated to the proposition that all men are not equally created and thus don’t deserve equal treatment under the law. This is evidenced by the seeking of special dispensation in the form of immunity from liability for market transactions. Too bad for you, this country was founded upon the proposition that all men are created equal under the law. You speak of freedom, but your politics and economics guarantee economic tyranny.
Also, because a proposed solution wasn’t delivered by a pretender who got elected President doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid solution. Merely that it wasn’t implemented. And why would that be? It couldn’t possibly be because the same special interests control both parties through the campaign finance and lobbying systems and that Obama never had any intention of following through on his promises. Just like the same kind of money backs your boy Paul. When the system gives you the same shit in a different suit, you change the system. There are two options to do this: democracy or revolution.
You think that my salient feature is that I’m a liberal. It isn’t. My salient feature is that I’m an actual progressive. I seek change for the better that benefits everyone. That I seek this change be applied in a democratic and egalitarian manner is influenced by my liberalism, but the point of my progressivism is to fix the systemic malfunctions that plague society to the greatest degree possible, not exacerbate existing problems. Perfection (or utopia) is not possible, but that does not mean the pursuit of it is invalid as an aspiration. You’ll never reach the stars if you don’t aim for them in the first place, but if you do, maybe you can reach the moon or Mars or beyond. It’s the same principle in play with my progressive liberalism.
Deregulation in the laissez-faire sense would only exacerbate both the economic and social problems already present by removing the threat of legal retribution for bad acts. Fixing the system and making sure regulations are both just and rational won’t. Again, your desire is admirable. It’s your proposed methods that are flawed.
Precedents are valid law. That’s the purpose of the English Common Law system upon which ours is based.
You think you’re right all you like. I know you’re not because your economic and political theory is based on manifestly incorrect assumptions about human nature and the role of government in society. A foundation of sand may make for a pretty castle, but not a stable one.
Castles made of sand fall into the sea eventually.
Reblogged this on RevolutioNation and commented:
This week Saudi Arabia (Eurasia) is our friend. Iran (Eastasia) is our enemy.
Not being a smartass here, but don’t you mean ‘new precedents?’
“Also, new law gets made in court every day.”
If not, I would like you to explain further how laws are written in courts. I need to learn this. I thought only the congress could make laws legally and the executive branch often does so illegally.
“As I said earlier in this thread, many of them have their heart in the right place. It is their heads that are on wrong. Just like yours.”
LOL, I feel the exact same way about liberals, as I am a former liberal, I understand their heads pretty well.
Maybe we should just *handshake
“If you did, you’d understand the dangers of greed as a motivation when left unchecked.” If you understood economics, you would realize that the market checks itself via competition. Often when government gets involved with the power of coercion the evil of the most powerful inevitably finds its way into those positions.
“The way to deal with big business abuses isn’t deregulation. It’s putting big business back on the short leash of better regulation. The only body capable of that is government and the way to cure government’s current malfunction in that area is to remove money from the political and legislative equation by campaign finance reform, shutting the revolving door between lobbyists and office, repealing Citizens United and setting forth other Constitutional amendments that put the legal fiction of corporations back in their proper place in society of commerce and not determining policy and writing law.”
Sounds exactly like Obama’s campaign speeches in 2007, of which I agreed wholeheartedly. What happened? None of it. Asking the federal government to limit itself and close it’s revolving door (and money machine), even through a candidate for president who promises reform, isn’t going to work. BHO is the most obvious and recent example. It will continue to grow. We must take the increasingly monarchy like power from his position and restore constitutional limits. We don’t need new regulations to do it, just use the first ones written that established this country.
“But you obviously didn’t think to ask what is driving the malfunction and malfeasance of government, did you? It would seem that you have no idea how corrupted both the campaign finance and lobby systems have become since the repeal of FECA and the advent of Citizens United.”
-Because before that our elections were freer of corruption and manipulation?
“If that’s your idea of logic, I can see the problem right now. Deregulation won’t hurt big business a bit.”
Ahh, so when you think of deregulation, you think that means MORE subsidies to corporate interest, MORE taxpayer bailouts.
“It will simply free them up to use their vastly superior resources in new uncontrolled and nefarious ways free from threat of legal retribution. Baby, meet bath water.”
They cannot free themselves from threat of legal retribution without the force of government in an unfree market to make regulations that do so! There is nothing to influence!!!!
We are talking past each other. You truly do not understand what I am saying.
Also, just because you studied psychology doesn’t mean you understood it.
If you did, you’d understand the dangers of greed as a motivation when left unchecked.
And sorry! Writing laws and enforcing them are a valid function of government. Making sure they serve the interests of all instead of the narrow interests of the few is part of the vigilance required to maintain democracy and freedom.
“Interesting, and so you think that the regulations we have, such as permits, are what are keeping this from happening now? What about when the market was laissez-faire before prohibition? No answer to that one eh, just more excuses to get around arguments that are above your head, calling it drivel and nonsense.”
No, I call drivel and nonsense drivel and nonsense.
Like this drivel and nonsense:
“What you really don’t seem to get is that lawyers would have more work, not less, in a freer market. People can sue in court in a free market. ”
What you don’t seem to understand is that without causes of action, lawyers don’t work and that people can and do sue in a court in regulated markets. Also, new law gets made in court every day.
“‘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.’
This is the fatal flaw in your argument (besides not understanding most of the points I have made), you think you can actually achieve “regulation not written by people with vested interests in skewing policy and law in their favor but rather providing a level playing field for all.” That sentence PROVES you believe in UTOPIA! This can never happen.”
Spoken like someone who truly doesn’t understand the idea of campaign finance reform or justice. Also spoken like someone putting words in my mouth. Perfect justice is impossible, but maximized justice isn’t.
“Therefore, the logical answer is to deregulate, WHICH HURTS BIG BUSINESS!”
If that’s your idea of logic, I can see the problem right now. Deregulation won’t hurt big business a bit. It will simply free them up to use their vastly superior resources in new uncontrolled and nefarious ways free from threat of legal retribution. Baby, meet bath water.
“I take it by these statements that you are implying I worship money and do not have interest in my fellow man first. You couldn’t be further from the truth. I supported Obama precisely because I wanted change for my fellow man. When he revealed his true self, I looked to answers outside of the two party system. I began to understand our economic system. and I found that government is often the cause to the most injustice in our society.”
But you obviously didn’t think to ask what is driving the malfunction and malfeasance of government, did you? It would seem that you have no idea how corrupted both the campaign finance and lobby systems have become since the repeal of FECA and the advent of Citizens United.
“This is the easiest way of dismissing the libertarian message. I was extremely guilty of it, until I actual studied it. They aren’t proponents of big business or worship money. Their policies empower small businesses, oppose government intrusions into their personal lives (section 1021) and hurt big business monopolies.”
Their policies would enable big business criminals to have freedom from threat of legal retribution and open small business to even greater predation. The way to deal with big business abuses isn’t deregulation. It’s putting big business back on the short leash of better regulation. The only body capable of that is government and the way to cure government’s current malfunction in that area is to remove money from the political and legislative equation by campaign finance reform, shutting the revolving door between lobbyists and office, repealing Citizens United and setting forth other Constitutional amendments that put the legal fiction of corporations back in their proper place in society of commerce and not determining policy and writing law.
However, I’ve stipulated before that there are planks to the Libertarian platform that are attractive to civil rights proponents and I’ll do so again. But the bottom line is still that their economics are based on a fantasy devoid of understanding of both law and human nature in action. As I said earlier in this thread, many of them have their heart in the right place. It is their heads that are on wrong. Just like yours.
“Like it did with the CDS debacle made possible by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.”
True, but Glass Steagall passed in the first place to limit the federal reserve and all those investment interests that shouldn’t have been created by government in the first place. In the 1980’s when everyone had been brainwashed into thinking that Greenspan was a god (all the newscasters talked about him in hushed tones), the economy hadn’t crashed, and people didn’t know what the fed was it was prime time to deregulate the thing. The core of the problem runs much deeper and farther back in history.
“Also, regulated and centrally planned are not the same thing but then again,”
If the regulation you want comes from the same central source, the federal government in D.C., then yes, that is a form of central planning. “You can only brew alchol of a certain content in this market. You cannot sell marijuana anywhere in this market. Corn, soy, wheat, and cotton will all get government funds (notice, what are the primary crops grown in the U.S.?). What is the number one food source in a groc. store- almost everything in the middle aisles has some component of……. Corn! Without the “central planning” of corn subsidies, this probably wouldn’t be the case. Fast food very much enjoys their corn subsidies they lobby for year in and year out as well. Guess what all the cows that go into their burgers eat. You guessed it, CORN!
“That is the sound of my points about psychology, sociology…”
By the way, I studied psychology and majored in sociology in my undergrad. You have made no mention of a single theory from either field. Just more mindless, meaningless, incoherent, dismissive drivel.
“Violent crime increased during prohibition because suppliers had no oversight. They didn’t sue a competitor for their practices. They just shot them. ”
Interesting, and so you think that the regulations we have, such as permits, are what are keeping this from happening now? What about when the market was laissez-faire before prohibition? No answer to that one eh, just more excuses to get around arguments that are above your head, calling it drivel and nonsense.
What you really don’t seem to get is that lawyers would have more work, not less, in a freer market. People can sue in court in a free market. For instance, take the fracking situation in the state of Pennsylvania (a great story on this was done by This American Life around 6 months ago). The big natural gas companies are coming into small rural towns in Pennsylvania and using their lobbying power to push for legislation that gives them immunity from lawsuits at the town level. They send out mass mailings to the entire town about how awful their mayor or alderman is if they oppose the legislation. Now, who can compete with that? Nobody. So the regulations written are beneficial to the industry. They can effectively destroy their neighbor’s property with air, water, and noise pollution and that neighbor cannot sue!
Now, here is the kicker, if there were no specific natural gas regulations allowed in this situation, just the constitutional right to your property, this type of disaster couldn’t happen! Sadly I don’t know how to stop it. Effectively this type of regulation is adhering to our national constitution as all other laws are allowed at lower levels. People just need to wake up and not allow their rights to be trampled!
“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.”
This is the fatal flaw in your argument (besides not understanding most of the points I have made), you think you can actually achieve “regulation not written by people with vested interests in skewing policy and law in their favor but rather providing a level playing field for all.” That sentence PROVES you believe in UTOPIA! This can never happen. As I wrote above, “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.”
Therefore, the logical answer is to deregulate, WHICH HURTS BIG BUSINESS! That is the big secret, the last thing these corporations want truly is DEREGULATION. They love their bailouts, their fracking destruction immunity, their subsidies, etc. etc. etc.
This is the system as it is now. It is heavily regulated. This is what you get. Do you like what you see? Do you think you can make it better? With smarter regulation? How? Why haven’t we done it yet? It is 2012 man, it is the future! Why haven’t we been able to regulate smarter and fairer yet? You can’t. We never can. Anytime you give someone power over others they can be influenced by those who have the most influence. The solution isn’t to throw that guy out and put a new guy in, he is just as susceptible as the first guy! Eventually you get people running for that position precisely because they want the power and know they can cash in on it! No, no, no. The solution is to get rid of the position! Get rid of the power!
“People who worship money are predictable.
My interest is in justice first, profit is secondary or tertiary at best.”
I take it by these statements that you are implying I worship money and do not have interest in my fellow man first. You couldn’t be further from the truth. I supported Obama precisely because I wanted change for my fellow man. When he revealed his true self, I looked to answers outside of the two party system. I began to understand our economic system. and I found that government is often the cause to the most injustice in our society. For instance, the economic decline and all the people cast in poverty right now, that is the governments fault as it functions in the current regulatory system you support! It failed all of us and people are suffering! This is not how you make society more just, by increasing government power. It is the opposite, empowering the little guy.
This is the easiest way of dismissing the libertarian message. I was extremely guilty of it, until I actual studied it. They aren’t proponents of big business or worship money. Their policies empower small businesses, oppose government intrusions into their personal lives (section 1021) and hurt big business monopolies.
Keep reading. Keep trying.