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
MM:
I have been listening to Tom Woods all afternoon while working. Very sharp guy. He destroys the common memes of the left.
Gibberish is gibberish, slick.
If you don’t like me calling your gibberish gibberish, stop spouting gibberish.
And you’ve proven you don’t know how government and law works.
“That whole right to property thing in a free market is total b.s. -BAHAHAHAHAHAHA”
Do you have a handlebar mustache to go with that laugh, Snidely?
Your right to property isn’t guaranteed by the free market, dipstick. It’s guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution which created . . . oh, what’s that thing called again . . . GOVERNMENT, including the the ability to create and enforce laws. In our case, specifically laws that regulate interstate commerce. But don’t let that slow you down, zealot.
“Hilarious, because “asshat businessmen” today, I mean RIGHT NOW, are doing this through writing the very regulations that you think make things more fair!”
The solution isn’t do away with the law.
That’s a recipe for disaster.
The solution is remove the business men from the equation of formulating it, forcing elected representatives to going back to their Constitutionally mandated function of representing the best interests of the people instead of the vested profit interests of business – vested profit interests that would gladly sacrifice your rights if it made them a profit. Corruption isn’t a problem solved by abdicating rules. Corruption is solved by better rules that ensure true democracy. Abdication of rules leads only to anarchy and tyranny and in the case of Austrian School “economics” that tyranny would be economic tyranny.
Just like you are trying to do now, avoiding the crux of my last post by simply labeling it “gibberish.” Go on now, why don’t you give it another go:
““Hilarious Example follows:
An absence of rules, be it in chess, baseball, business or society, will lead to anarchy. No rules means no restraint or repercussion for bad actions. People will try to get away with whatever they think they can get away with if it benefits them and many of them don’t care if someone else gets hurt in the process. Some of them even prefer it that way. Why? Because that’s human nature.”
-”Ahh yes, but who makes the rules in chess or baseball or society? Do we have federal regulations telling us that we cannot castle when our king is in check? Do we have federal regulations telling us that after three outs teams must switch between batting and fielding? How about federal regulations that tell us what time to go to work and what time to come home? What about whether or not one should troll on the internet? Clearly we do not, for the latter at least. Yet, are the rules followed. I would say quite often they are. Is there anarchy at every Scrabble tournament these days due to absence of federal regulations? And your point is?”
“You also apparently don’t understand rules define systems and that in a democracy, the people make the rules.”
-Wonderful, wonderful stuff. First black markets function exactly like free markets, now the rules of the game Monopoly are the as the rules of the federal government. Just off the top of your head, how many people are sitting in jail right now have been convicted of cheating in Monopoly?In Chess? How many cheaters in baseball have been put to death by the government? See the difference yet?
-People voluntarily choose to play a game of chess or baseball. They abide by self determined rules, and most of the time everyone plays by them. If someone breaks a rule they are thrown out of the game, not in jail. Is this what anarchy is like to you? Should we actually be throwing these people in jail and legislating the ‘laws of chess?’
-People abide by rules in chess games for the same reason that when I go to a farmer’s market in a strange town I do not steal all the produce and burn it down (even though it would 1. make me richer (greed) and 2. I could get away with it (no one knows me). People want to engage in trade and commerce peacefully. Your chess game example was a perfect example for why we do not need the federal government involved in trade either. We can trade peacefully and freely without it.
-Voluntary agreements among people are VERY different from federal regulations imposed upon people against their will and with penalty. Especially when the special interests end up controlling and writing the regulations overtime in the industry they are supposed to be regulating, creating more just, making fair, etc. When government puts its power in play in any industry, the most powerful players will take that power for themselves and use the legal authority of government to destroy their competition, create an UNFAIR playing field, and line their own pockets.
Oh, and there is plenty of history of this exact thing happening for you to look at. But of course this time this regulation will be different and good…blather, blather, blather. This is precisely why we need a constitutionally limited federal government, which would mean less regulation, which would result in less corruption, which means more competition, that leads to lower prices for all, etc.
-Good intentions, especially when implemented by force of government on free people against their will, usually lead to bad consequences.
“Keep reading, keep trying.””
“And fuck your vocabulary. I’ve already answered using your vocabulary ”
-And no you have not. You have tried to “move the goal posts” and divert, changing the parameters talking about mechanics, supply and demand, extra-legal and ultra-legal instead of actually using the terms as defined to explain.
The likely reason you haven’t tried to do so is because if anyone with the comprehension of a 6 year old reads the definitions they will realize that you cannot justify your prior statement.
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.
“Gibberish like, “A free market still provides a right to life, liberty, and property. The difference between a free market and a regulated one is that the government claims the right to take your life, liberty, or property if it so chooses.”
A free market doesn’t guarantee a damn thing except eventual abusive practices. The difference between a free market and a regulated market is asshat businessmen with no regard for anything other than profit can do whatever they please in a free market.”
Thanks for proving my point that you don’t know what you are talking about!
That whole right to property thing in a free market is total b.s. -BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“The difference between a free market and a regulated market is asshat businessmen with no regard for anything other than profit can do whatever they please in a free market.”
Hilarious, because “asshat businessmen” today, I mean RIGHT NOW, are doing this through writing the very regulations that you think make things more fair! If they had no right to use the force of government to stifle their competitors or line their own pockets, how exactly would they be able do whatever they please?
Again most of what you say is again pure gibberish.
Gibberish like, “A free market still provides a right to life, liberty, and property. The difference between a free market and a regulated one is that the government claims the right to take your life, liberty, or property if it so chooses.”
A free market doesn’t guarantee a damn thing except eventual abusive practices. The difference between a free market and a regulated market is asshat businessmen with no regard for anything other than profit can do whatever they please in a free market.
Thanks for showing how little regard you have for the Constitution and Bill of Rights though.
And fuck your vocabulary. I’ve already answered using your vocabulary and you still don’t get that extra-legal and ultra-legal are the same things and lead to the same outcomes. You should not try semantics if you don’t know how to use them. The same market mechanism are at play in a black market and free market with the only difference being the factor of prohibition affecting price. You still haven’t proven otherwise. Psstt! Mr. Economic Genius! Price is only a component of market mechanics, not the market mechanic proper. I guess you don’t understand that either.
Just like you don’t understand what a monopoly is, Game Boy.
Also, your argumentum verbosium is getting old. Since your not saying anything meaningful, try using less words.
@ Bron, Thanks.
Did you also see the Peter Schiff Video and my book recommendation?
Tom Woods is excellent. The fact that Gene here would likely label him a sociopath, idiot, or both reaffirms that he is in fact excellent.
“And again I refer you to the events leading to the creation of the FDA when the marketing of food and drugs could be accurately described as laissez-faire.”
-“And again I refer you to how life differed under prohibition for alcohol consumers, was quite worse in fact, than before the FDA and prohibition which was a laissez-faire market You never acknowledge this difference no matter how many times I repeat it, instead you continue to blindly assert that the ‘mechanisms are the same.’ Supply and demand applies to all markets, that is irrelevant. Free markets are not the same as black markets, as clearly shown in this example.”
-“And how many times do I have to tell you, “of course supply and demand applies in both black markets and free markets, that doesn’t make them similar…” Absurd”
“What’s absurd is you don’t read the word “unregulated” and understand that word applies to manufacturing, distribution and sales of goods. And apparently you’ve never heard of the Commerce Clause either.”
-That is not even close to a cogent response, still waiting. Just because the distillers doesn’t get a permit or a license to use his still and a health inspection sticker from the federal government during prohibition does not mean alcohol production was unregulated during that time anymore than not getting taxed for selling it across state lines or not. The ultimate regulation is in play here!
A refresher course:
“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.”
-Now, what part of that definition of a free market makes you think that in one The Federal Government claims the right will hunt distillers, brewers, wine makers, shippers, truckers, bars, and secret stores down, Destroy their property, and put them in jail?
-A free market still provides a right to life, liberty, and property. The difference between a free market and a regulated one is that the government claims the right to take your life, liberty, or property if it so chooses. In a black market it chooses to. And in a free market, NO ONE (not even government) can take those things from you.
-Simply look at how the market functioned pre-prohibition, or how book sellers, writers, and publishers do now with little regulation. One might even call it laissez-faire.
-I repeat: “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.”
“Hilarious Example follows:
An absence of rules, be it in chess, baseball, business or society, will lead to anarchy. No rules means no restraint or repercussion for bad actions. People will try to get away with whatever they think they can get away with if it benefits them and many of them don’t care if someone else gets hurt in the process. Some of them even prefer it that way. Why? Because that’s human nature.”
-“Ahh yes, but who makes the rules in chess or baseball or society? Do we have federal regulations telling us that we cannot castle when our king is in check? Do we have federal regulations telling us that after three outs teams must switch between batting and fielding? How about federal regulations that tell us what time to go to work and what time to come home? What about whether or not one should troll on the internet? Clearly we do not, for the latter at least. Yet, are the rules followed. I would say quite often they are. Is there anarchy at every Scrabble tournament these days due to absence of federal regulations? And your point is?”
“You also apparently don’t understand rules define systems and that in a democracy, the people make the rules.”
-Wonderful, wonderful stuff. First black markets function exactly like free markets, now the rules of the game Monopoly are the as the rules of the federal government. Just off the top of your head, how many people are sitting in jail right now have been convicted of cheating in Monopoly?In Chess? How many cheaters in baseball have been put to death by the government? See the difference yet?
-People voluntarily choose to play a game of chess or baseball. They abide by self determined rules, and most of the time everyone plays by them. If someone breaks a rule they are thrown out of the game, not in jail. Is this what anarchy is like to you? Should we actually be throwing these people in jail and legislating the ‘laws of chess?’
-People abide by rules in chess games for the same reason that when I go to a farmer’s market in a strange town I do not steal all the produce and burn it down (even though it would 1. make me richer (greed) and 2. I could get away with it (no one knows me). People want to engage in trade and commerce peacefully. Your chess game example was a perfect example for why we do not need the federal government involved in trade either. We can trade peacefully and freely without it.
-Voluntary agreements among people are VERY different from federal regulations imposed upon people against their will and with penalty. Especially when the special interests end up controlling and writing the regulations overtime in the industry they are supposed to be regulating, creating more just, making fair, etc. When government puts its power in play in any industry, the most powerful players will take that power for themselves and use the legal authority of government to destroy their competition, create an UNFAIR playing field, and line their own pockets.
Oh, and there is plenty of history of this exact thing happening for you to look at. But of course this time this regulation will be different and good…blather, blather, blather. This is precisely why we need a constitutionally limited federal government, which would mean less regulation, which would result in less corruption, which means more competition, that leads to lower prices for all, etc.
-Good intentions, especially when implemented by force of government on free people against their will, usually lead to bad consequences.
“Keep reading, keep trying.”
“And how many times do I have to tell you, “of course supply and demand applies in both black markets and free markets, that doesn’t make them similar…” Absurd”
What’s absurd is you don’t read the word “unregulated” and understand that word applies to manufacturing, distribution and sales of goods. And apparently you’ve never heard of the Commerce Clause either.
Hilarious Example follows:
You also apparently don’t understand rules define systems and that in a democracy, the people make the rules. But then again, we currently have a corporatist oligarchy bought and paid for by your pals in industry. A corporatist oligarchy you would make stronger by removing them from government oversight instead of working to restore democracy. Pure genius on your part.
“Yes, quite clearly, following all the above examples discussion, federal prohibition only affected the pricing of the alcohol, not the availability, or quality. And heaven forbid I mention it actually created a monopoly on alcoholic spirits.”
A monopoly? Spoken like someone who doesn’t know what a monopoly is. Yeah, all those gangsters were shooting each other and civilians in turf wars because there was only one gangland boss, bootlegger and distiller in the country. Clearly none of those turf wars were caused by competition. That makes sense. 🙄
Then again, history doesn’t mean much when you’re simply going to make it up if it’s inconvenient to your Austrian corporatist agenda.
MM:
thanks for turning me on to Tom Woods, he is good. Brilliant too.
My kind of sociopath. He believes in people and profits.
Tis a poverty of mind who conflates sociopathy with liberty, property and individual rights.
MM:
great video. I especially liked the last few minutes.
How could you be against people being free and enjoying life as they want to live?
Monsr. Madeleine:
“I found that government is often the cause to the most injustice in our society.”
A big amen from the choir on that statement.
I used to be a republican and I assume you used to be a democrat. I actually seriously thought about voting for Obama and probably would have if the exchange with Joe the Plumber had never happened.
Gene H always accuses me of being for profit over people, but he fails to realize that people and profit are not mutually exclusive and that what creates abject poverty is collectivism, i.e. government interference in peoples lives, in Africa, in the Middle East, in Asia, here.
People are profit and profit is people. People make profits, one could make the case that being against profit is being against people. It certainly has worked out that way everywhere profit is an “evil” concept.
If he truly wants to free the world of the influence of large multi-national corporations he would make them operate in a regulation free environment with no government assistance of any kind. They would lose their power almost overnight. Progressives always get it wrong on how to curb corporate power, make those c-suckers actually have to compete, that will straighten their asses out.
They give lip service to controlling corporations, they think they hold a whip in a fist of iron. The real fist of iron with a whip is the market, it will beat you until you efficiently produce or you die. Market forces are Sing Sing whereas government regulations are making your kid stand in the corner for 2 minutes for a time out.
Progressives have been coddling big business for so long they just let them suckle at the Nanny State teat. And they tell the rest of us that they are protecting us from corporate greed.
I am starting to think Gene H has a good deal of stock in the market and is merely trying to protect his profits. Rich people have a vested interest in maintaining a regulated market, it protects their wealth as well. At the turn of the 20th century [from the 19th] there was a saying – “rags to riches to rags in 3 generations”. It spoke to the dynamism of the market and having to be on your game to keep your money intergenerationally.
Since You’ve simply started repeating yourself . . .
“And again I refer you to the events leading to the creation of the FDA when the marketing of food and drugs could be accurately described as laissez-faire.”
And again I refer you to how life differed under prohibition for alcohol consumers, was quite worse in fact, than before the FDA and prohibition which was a laissez-faire market You never acknowledge this difference no matter how many times I repeat it, instead you continue to blindly assert that the ‘mechanisms are the same.’ Supply and demand applies to all markets, that is irrelevant. Free markets are not the same as black markets, as clearly shown in this example.
And how many times do I have to tell you, “of course supply and demand applies in both black markets and free markets, that doesn’t make them similar…” Absurd
Hilarious Example follows:
“An absence of rules, be it in chess, baseball, business or society, will lead to anarchy. No rules means no restraint or repercussion for bad actions. People will try to get away with whatever they think they can get away with if it benefits them and many of them don’t care if someone else gets hurt in the process. Some of them even prefer it that way. Why? Because that’s human nature.”
Ahh yes, but who makes the rules in chess or baseball or society? Do we have federal regulations telling us that we cannot castle when our king is in check? Do we have federal regulations telling us that after three outs teams must switch between batting and fielding? How about federal regulations that tell us what time to go to work and what time to come home? What about whether or not one should troll on the internet? Clearly we do not, for the latter at least. Yet, are the rules followed. I would say quite often they are. Is there anarchy at every Scrabble tournament these days due to absence of federal regulations? And your point is?
The most absurd reasoning of the night follows here:
“It’s free of government regulation because . . . wait for it . . . it isn’t regulated other than to be forbidden (which I already stipulated only affects pricing).”
Yes, quite clearly, following all the above examples discussion, federal prohibition only affected the pricing of the alcohol, not the availability, or quality. And heaven forbid I mention it actually created a monopoly on alcoholic spirits.
Golly gee, if it is illegal, that means the government won’t pursue me if I make it and so it is just like a free market? Wrong here again.
“Keep reading. Keep trying.”
Since you’ve simply started repeating yourself . . .
“Whether you want to talk about it or not, the black market and a laissez-faire market are NOT the same in action. You still haven’t proven otherwise.”
“And again I refer you to the events leading to the creation of the FDA when the marketing of food and drugs could be accurately described as laissez-faire. The formation of the FDA was a direct result of the adulteration and misbranding of food and drugs on the American market like diphtheria antitoxin contaminated with tetanus (resulting in deaths), radioactive beverages (resulting in severe illness), Lash lure mascara (which caused blindness) and other contaminated cosmetics, and snake oil medications for a variety of life threatening conditions that didn’t cure anything. But yeah, what’s a few deaths or blindings or people dying from their diabetes because the ‘medicine’ they took was useless if the market will sort it all out eventually.”
“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.”
You can’t change history.
You can’t change that without regulation, abuses will run rampant even if the abuses take different forms.
You can’t change the psychology that greed – the profit motive – will drive these abuses.
An absence of rules, be it in chess, baseball, business or society, will lead to anarchy. No rules means no restraint or repercussion for bad actions. People will try to get away with whatever they think they can get away with if it benefits them and many of them don’t care if someone else gets hurt in the process. Some of them even prefer it that way. Why? Because that’s human nature.
That’s reality.
Whether you can stay in touch with it or not is your problem.
“I am well aware of patent medicines and meant to mention it. But here and now we have all these wonderful regulations driving industry over to China. And yet, do you remember the case last year with the fucking Lead Paint in children’s toys? I sure as shit do. Things like this are happening all the time with our without ‘government’ regulations.”
Move that goal post much? But let’s ignore the fact we aren’t responsible for Chinese law for a now. We are responsible for incentivizing outsourcing. Who pushes for laws that provide incentive to use cheaper foreign labor? Big business. Why? Because it is profitable to them to do so. Who fights against closing those tax loopholes and other incentives to outsource? Big business. Why? Because it is profitable for them to do so. How do they do this? By campaign graft and getting lobbyists to write legislation that’s rubber stamped by their bought off pols.
However, the fact still stands that without regulation, legal recourse becomes difficult, insufficient and/or non-existent. Just because you cannot stop 100% of bad actions doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try and/or mitigate the damages to individuals and society as much as possible. Perfection is an impossibility and to argue otherwise is the argument of children and fools. So it fits you perfectly. People get poisoned all the time, but since we can’t stop that, we should let manufactures be free from regulation and trust the market to take care of adulterated products and other abusive practices? We had that with food and drugs before the FDA. It didn’t work. People died and were injured. Does it still happen? From time to time, but nothing like it would on the scale without regulation.
“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.”
It’s free of government regulation because . . . wait for it . . . it isn’t regulated other than to be forbidden (which I already stipulated only affects pricing). One rule is as close to unregulated as it gets and if manufactures ignore that one rule, its unregulated period. Any process or adulteration the supplier wants to use to increase profitability is an option. “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 [by manufacturing in the first place] and a laissez-faire capitalist wants legal dispensation to be above the law.” Business will engage in abusive practices if left to their own devices if it is profitable to them. Relying on the market to correct this and provide just outcomes is unrealistic as markets are neither self-correcting nor just and they are capable of manipulation by suppliers. Justice isn’t the business of business. Profits are the business of business. Justice is the business of government, even if that justice requires limiting businesses profitability by prohibiting certain practices and transactions.
Feel free to flail some more though. It’s amusing. Almost as amusing as watching a Communist try to justify Communism.
See: The Capture Theory of Regulation by George Stiglitz.
Note: Stiglitz is not an Austrian and is a frequent critic of thr free market, but since I cite him, does that make him an idiot also?
Oh, and it would be called simply “the military industry” if the government weren’t involved, and it wouldn’t take up 60% of our budget. OR we could socialize the entire thing and it would still be cheaper. The problem is when we try to regulate certain aspects and allow both government and industry to collude.
“@ 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?”
When will you ever start reading (or comprehending)?
You now:
“And how exactly does someone sue without a cause of action? If no actions are deemed impermissible, there is no violation to bring to bar.”
Me earlier:
“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).”
Note how you choose to only quote the last two sentences of the paragraph….
““If someone became injured they couldn’t sue because they would have to admit they were breaking the law as well!” And with deregulation you’d end up with the same result of people having no recourse because they had no cause of action against someone immunized from liability by absence of appropriate laws. “Your honor, my wife died because Product X blew up in her face due to substandard unsafe parts being used in the manufacture.” “Too bad, sir. Using unsafe parts isn’t against the law. It saved them money and anything in the pursuit of profit is just dandy. Caveat emptor! Don’t buy their product next time. Next case.””
-A fine example of reductio ad absurdum. Again, no, if the part blows up and kills someone, the law doesn’t have to state: “If product Z is faulty, you can sue the manufacturer.” All the law needs to state is some version of the Biblical commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Have a trial in front of a jury of the manufacturers ‘peers’ and we’ll find out if deserves jail time, the death penalty, or it maybe it was just a freak accident as judged by the jury.
“And again I refer you to the events leading to the creation of the FDA when the marketing of food and drugs could be accurately described as laissez-faire. The formation of the FDA was a direct result of the adulteration and misbranding of food and drugs on the American market like diphtheria antitoxin contaminated with tetanus (resulting in deaths), radioactive beverages (resulting in severe illness), Lash lure mascara (which caused blindness) and other contaminated cosmetics, and snake oil medications for a variety of life threatening conditions that didn’t cure anything. But yeah, what’s a few deaths or blindings or people dying from their diabetes because the “medicine” they took was useless if the market will sort it all out eventually.”
I am well aware of patent medicines and meant to mention it. But here and now we have all these wonderful regulations driving industry over to China. And yet, do you remember the case last year with the fucking Lead Paint in children’s toys? I sure as shit do. Things like this are happening all the time with our without ‘government’ regulations. This was not a problem with liquor pre-prohibition.
Whether you want to talk about it or not, the black market and a laissez-faire market are NOT the same in action. You still haven’t proven otherwise.
I’m still waiting for a cogent response for this below, troll.
“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”
A fine example of reductio ad absurdum. And how exactly does someone sue without a cause of action? If no actions are deemed impermissible, there is no violation to bring to bar.
“the consumer goes elsewhere,”
What if they have no choice as in the case of market created monopolies? Or patents excluding other vendors of suitable products? They can’t.
“and the business fails (unless that business is friendly with the government and gets a taxpayer bailout).”
Not if proper regulation prevents it.
“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.”
And again I refer you to the events leading to the creation of the FDA when the marketing of food and drugs could be accurately described as laissez-faire. The formation of the FDA was a direct result of the adulteration and misbranding of food and drugs on the American market like diphtheria antitoxin contaminated with tetanus (resulting in deaths), radioactive beverages (resulting in severe illness), Lash lure mascara (which caused blindness) and other contaminated cosmetics, and snake oil medications for a variety of life threatening conditions that didn’t cure anything. But yeah, what’s a few deaths or blindings or people dying from their diabetes because the “medicine” they took was useless if the market will sort it all out eventually.
Safety? “Now, when the government gets involved like they did with prohibition, what happened to the products? They became dangerous.” Uh, the government was only involved in the prohibition. Manufacture and distribution was an extra-legal enterprise. Actually alcohol quality went down during Prohibition because it was more profitable to unregulated suppliers to supply bunk.
“If someone became injured they couldn’t sue because they would have to admit they were breaking the law as well!” And with deregulation you’d end up with the same result of people having no recourse because they had no cause of action against someone immunized from liability by absence of appropriate laws. “Your honor, my wife died because Product X blew up in her face due to substandard unsafe parts being used in the manufacture.” “Too bad, sir. Using unsafe parts isn’t against the law. It saved them money and anything in the pursuit of profit is just dandy. Caveat emptor! Don’t buy their product next time. Next case.”
Whether you want to talk about it or not, the market mechanics of a black market and a laissez-faire market are the same in action and result with the exception I noted earlier about pricing. You still haven’t proven otherwise. It’s interesting to me you can’t see that, but then again, religious devotion is often blind. “Targets include the Military Industrial Complex among other fine governmental institutions.” Yeah, like most Libertarians, you conveniently gloss over that half of the Military Industrial Complex is Industry. Remove the graft in campaigning, reform lobbying and – for this particular problem – revise governmental contracting standards and *poof* the problem goes away. Corruption doesn’t happen because of government. Takes two parties to dance that tango. But you don’t fix the problem by deregulation. You fix the problem by making the dance illegal and have stiff penalties for dancing it.
As to the rest of it, I really don’t care what you find annoying or think of me personally. You clearly don’t understand human psychology well enough to understand the dangers of unchecked greed so a remote diagnosis of BPD from you means . . . absolutely nothing. To me, you’re just another anonymous douche bag with a computer and a bunch of bad ideas to be harshed on. What you find annoying, I find entertaining. You chose to butt in and speak to me. If you don’t like the results, that’s your problem. Feel free to stop talking to me any time you wish. I won’t mind. Really.