RE: Ahem !
><<Who draws the line between crime and not crime?>>
>
>The original social contract (the constitution,
>whatever) would define the
>self-evident crimes: murder, assault, theft,
>etc.
<<Oh I'm sorry, are those self-evident?>>
A crime is defined as something unlawful Murder is defined as the unlawful
taking of a life. Theft is defined as the unlawful taking of property. Since murder
and theft are unlawful, then they are crimes. QED
However, let’s play with this for a minute. You are saying that the current US
system of government is preferred. This system takes as a truth "which is
self-evident" that "governments are instituted among Men" to secure "certain
inalienable rights", one of which "among these is Life". Additionally, the US
Constitution, which was established to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" contains
the fourteenth amendment, which says "No State shall make or enforce any law
which whall abridge the privlieges or immunities of citizens of the United States,
nor shall any State deprive any person off life, liberty, or property, without the
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection
under the laws."
Protection from being killed, physically attacked, or ripped off are thus the
organic, or basic, law of the political unit of the US government (that is, the
Constitution), as distinguished from law created by legislative acts. Thus, by
simple definition they are fundamental laws. Fundamental laws of the United
States.
<<Are humans instilled with fundamental laws>>
I was talking about the social contract, for example the constitution, which by
definition is the fundamental law of a political unit.
We could argue that since the "Founding Fathers" had both the time and ability
necessary to study and understand the theories behind these "fundamental
laws", and thrashed them out in the Federalist Papers and other forums of
debate, that they were thus far better experts in this matter than you or I, and
that we could be confident that there were indeed "fundamental laws" based on
their conclusions. However, we could counter that the Fathers only represent
the Western concepts of such, and that these fundamentals do not hold true to
human beings in general. So we can we determine if they are indeed general to
humans?
Consider that most human beings do not want to be attacked, or be killed, or be
the ripped off. Note I say "most". We can say "Well, what about people who
want to be killed, or want to be attacked, or want to be ripped off?", but that is
merely committing the fallacy of the "lunatic fringe" by pushing the idea to a
radical extreme just to short-circuit the progression of the argument. Let's look
for now at being killed. This is simple survival instinct. Organisms in general do
not want to die. Sentient human beings would thus be even even more loath to
be killed, since sentience, by most definitions, includes the knowledge of
mortality. What about not being attacked? Again, this is survival instinct. Most
motile organisms subjected to unexpected physical violence usually recoil, then
either fight or flee. Even the most hardened masochist usually cannot resist the
instinctual impulse to recoil at an unexpected blow. Why is there such an
impulse? Becuase harm can occur. That is, physical damage which can reduce
the survivability of an organism.
Now the univeral fundamental of property seems a bit more problematical. In
some cultures there is, or has been, no concept of property. However, these
cultures are in tropical regions, where food is plentiful year round and clothing
and shelter are unnecessary. Strikingly, in those regions where food is not
plentiful year round, and the climate is harsh enough to require clothing and
shelter, there is a concept of property. Property thus would be another aspect of
the survival instinct. For example, in the American West, horse theft was a
capital crime. Why? Because the horse was the essential tool of most
inhabitants of the area, and a necessity of travel in a huge land, and its theft
threatened the victim's survival.
<<or are you just reading off the Ten Commandments? >>
Absolutely not! Besides the overly close realtionship with business, there is
already a religious agenda inherent in many of the government's laws. Consider
the following past laws that had their sole basis in religious dogma.
A man may rape his wife: (Yes, it can be done.) (I Corinthians 7:4)
The arrest of crossdressers: (I Corinthians 6:nine)
The outlawing of birthcontrol (including use of IUDs, condoms, pills, sponges,
spermicides, diaphrams) (Genesis 38:nine)
Places of business shalll not be open on Sunday (The blue laws): (Exodus
8:11)
Witches shall be killed: (Exodus 22:18)
Legal concept that Blacks are born to be slaves: (Genesis 9:22-27)
The passage of anti-semitic laws: (Matthew 27:25)
Persecution of homosexuals: (Leviticus 18:22 and others)
Allowed the right of wifebeating: (Ephesians 5:22)
Justified slavery in general: (Ephesians 6:5)
Prevented the use of Max Ehrlich's vaccine of syphillis on the afflicted (Romans
1:32)
Persecuted long haired weirdos (I Corinthians 11:14)
Forbade the use of anesthesia for women in childbirth. (So they experience
more pain. "In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children." Gen 3:16) I note that the
"standard" way to bear a child is for the woman to lie on her back and try to push
out the child solely with muscle power. This is extremely painful. If a woman
has the child in an upright sitting or squating position, allowing gravity to help,
the birth is much quicker and less painful. This is the way the old midwives
(sometimes persecuted as witches) did it. The laying down position, probably
the most inefficient and painful way to deliver a child, was introduced by male
physicians after governments or religious authorities (Hard to tell the difference
sometimes.) removed midwives from the childbearing business. Was the
introduction accidental stupidity on the part of the male doctors, or deliberate
malice based on misogyny?
These laws are no longer with us. But how many other laws have been
legislated by the government whose only justification is religious dogma?
They’re probably ones you accept blindly, without questioning why. Please think
about it.
<<Since when has any crime been "self-evident?">>
I refer you to the above discussions.
<<What if I consider theft perfectly within the law?>>
Given that the definition of theft is the unlawful taking of property, you are then
posing the ridiculous question “What if I consider the unlawful taking of property
within the law?” Let’s change “theft’ to “steal”. Then you consider it perfectly
legal to steal from someone, and conversely consider that it is perfectly legal for
someone to steal from you. You can move into someone's house when they are
absent, and then when you leave, someone else can move in and take it from
you, assuming they can bypass locks and other protections you have initiated.
Or they are legally allowed to practice the ultimate theft of the house by
detroying it, say by bulldozing it or burning it down. Or you put down your
briefcase, then someone is perfectly within the law to take it. So you follow him
around until you can steal it back. That seems characteristic of anarchy, which
we both have previously agreed was a invalid system.
<<There are people who think society "owes" them one and that they're only
taking back what is rightfully theirs by stealing. Who is right? >>
Some people may think the world is flat, but does thinking it make it so? People
may think that stealing is legal, but is it so? Refer to the previous discussions.
Theft is by definition unlawful. If a society considers theft lawful, it is anarchy.
(Laws in an anarchy. Interesting concept. ) In today’s society, however, people
who steal are considered criminals.
Merely because one has a delusion of entitlement doesn’t make them right. How
can anyone lay any sort of claim on the fruits of my labor without my consent?
That’s slavery, pure and simple. If I spend six months and six thousand dollars
building a computer system, then someone takes it, they’ve not only taken the
system itself, but the time and effort I spent building it, and the time and effort I
spent earning the six thousand dollars in the first place. My time, my effort, my
money. How can you make any sort of rational claim that are you entitled to
that? Please explain.
<<And how would it be any different than the current system?>>
The current system has become very susceptible to the influence of the rich and
powerful. How many rich and powerful people are in jail for theft? How many for
murder? Is it that the rich and powerful are less likely to commit crimes? Or is it
that the rich and powerful have more influence in the government? For example,
recently the San Diego City Council voted to move ahead with the “public use” of
developing a downtown ballpark. project and officials are now ordering people
from their homes. The land taken by the city will go to some of San Diego’s most
politically connected, who will build the ballpark and a 26-block “entertainment
center” where the residents’ homes and livelihoods now stand. Donald Trump
tried the same in Atlantic City when he wanted to level a block of family
businesses so that he would have more room next to his casino for a parking lot.
>The police would
>investigate,
>and probably do a good deal
>better job than normal since
>they weren't chasing down
>kids experimenting with junk like kids
>always do, or harassing some
>girls dancing
>nekkid in front of some guys
>with testosterone poisoning.
<<Oh, but what if those acts are considered fundamental, self-evident crimes?>>
These actions cannot considered fundamental or self-evident in the US. They
are not prohibited by the Constitution, which by definition is the fundamental law
of the land. However, they are sometimes considered illegal by legislative acts,
which are quite different from the basic fundamental laws of a society.
<<Are they not?>>
They are considered illegal today, but what is the basis for deciding? How were
these determined to be crimes? Let’s take drugs for example. Through most of
the last century all drugs were legal and available from many sources, such as
an apothacary or a pharmacy. In the late 1800s, industry imported many
Chinese to perform the hard, demanding work of building railroads. One
“benefit” the workers received was opium. Once the railroads were completed,
the west had a substantial population of Chinese. The government passed laws
against opium so as to help fight the “Yellow Menace”. The law against opium
was not to protect kids from getting high on opium, but to have an excuse to
oppress Chinese-Americans. Even if most Chinese were not hooked on opium,
simply being Chinese would make you far more likely to be caught up in raids
looking for opium, and even though none might be found, excuses for arrests
and deportations could still be found. (Sound familiar?)
Hemp had many uses in the US in the 1700s and 1800s. One of these was for
newspapers. In the early part of this century, newspaper magnate William
Randolph Hearst acquired a patent on a process to make newsprint from wood.
Not long after, his newspapers were full of news about a deadly threat to
America’s youth: Hemp! Public outcry (and lavish deals and bribes to
legislators) caused the banning of hemp from the US, even though the type of
plant used for newsprint did not have any narcotic properties. Newsprint is now
made from wood, and a byproduct of the process of bleaching the paper so that
it’s nice and white is the chemical dioxin, which has probably killed far more
people than old US variety hemp. Additionally, hemp would be far more
renewable than trees.
Similarly, in the thirties during the depression, hordes of unemployed men rode
up and down the railways of the country seeking work. Most communities did
not want them around. Since the men were penniless, they could not smoke
tobacco. Instead, they smoked the plant that gave “hobo jungles” their name:
Marijuana. In short order, a new campaign convinced everyone of the crazed
effects of pot. (Watch the movie “Reefer Madness”. The effects portrayed are
exaggerated to the nth degree.) Marijuana was made illegal, authorities could
raid the locations near the railroad where the jobless men camped, and, like with
the Chinese, even if there was no pot, a reason for arrest and sentence to a road
gang could be found. (Sound familiar?)
Note that LSD was made illegal when its users, the hippies of the peace
movement of the 1960s, were considered by some to be threats by the
governent. Now some Blacks are claiming that possession and selling of crack
cocaine is subject to higher penalties than powdered cocaine, because crack is
used more by blacks.The incarceration rate of black men in the US is staggering.
Could indeed US history be repeating itself for the fourth or fifth time?
<<Who are you to decide?>>
Somebody decided that they were illegal. How was that decision made? On the
basis of the fundamental self-evidents found in the Constitution? Or on some
other basis? Perhaps racial prejudice?
>For
>stuff not covered
>by the contract, the judiciary would
>have to come in and
>determine whether
>some of the more weird and
>ambiguous cases were crimes based
>on the
>question "Was harm done by this
>action?"
<<Again, what is harm?>>
The loss of or damage to a person's rights, property, or physical or mental
well-being.
<<Who defines it?>>
The law. For example, section 18 of the United States code defines “harm” as it
pertains to the United States.
<<Please, give me some irrefutable proof of what harm is. >>
I have to determine what you will accept as irrefutable proof. I need a “given”.
From your threads, I take as “given” that the US government and its systems of
laws are accepted by you as valid. Therefore, if I can prove what “harm” is using
the US government and its systems of laws, I assume that this will constitute a
valid, thus irrefutable, proof to you. So:
First, under US law, an “intentional tort” is a deliberate act that causes “harm” to
another, for which the victim may sue the wrongdoer for damage, including
compensatory damages and general damages. Compensatory damages cover
actual injury or economic loss, are intended to put the injured party in the
position he/she was in prior to the injury, and typically include medical expenses,
lost wages and the repair or replacement of property. General damages are
intended to cover injuries for which an exact dollar amount cannot be calculated.
General damages are usually composed of pain and suffering, but can also
include compensation for a shortened life expectancy, loss of the companionship
of a loved one and, in defamation cases (libel and slander), loss of reputation.
Note that acts of violence, such as assault and battery, are also intentional torts
(as well as crimes). Consent is a defense to virtually every intentional tort. The
law will not compensate persons who knowingly allow someone to injure them.
However, consent must be given freely and voluntarily to be effective. Consent
induced by coercion, duress, undue influence, or chicanery is not legal. Nor is
consent legal when given by a legally incompetent person, such as a child. Consent to intentional torts
involving grievous bodily harm is also deemed ineffective in a number of
jurisdictions.
Second, US law ascribes to "Res ipsa loquitur”, a legal doctrine or rule of
evidence that creates a presumption that a defendant acted negligently simply
because an accident that caused “harm” occurred. The presumption arises only
if the thing that caused the accident was under the defendant's control, the
accident could happen only as a result of a careless act, and the plaintiff's
behavior did not contribute to the accident. Under US law, negligence is usual
grounds to bring a tort case, thus securing compensatory and general damages.
Third, under US law, the deprivation of any rights secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States is automatically assumed to cause
person or persons affected by that deprivation to suffer “grievous harm”. (Which
is a whole lot more than just harm”.)
Therefore, “harm”, in US law, is the loss of or damage to a person's rights,
property, or physical or mental well-being without their consent. QED
<<I would maintain that a government assesses what is acceptable to a society
and writes laws according to that.>>
A government is not an enity. It is a group of people making decisions. They
are subject to the influence of special interests and their own prejudices.
Therefore the laws are liable to reflect those. Read the congressional record
and see how many laws are passed to benefit just one particular business at the
expense of all the others. The laws are twistedly written so as not to name, say,
XYZ Manufacturing at 1905 Cash Lane. (“The contract shall be available to be
bid upon by all corporate entities in the State of Maryland, in the City of
Baltimore, on the east side of the street named Cash Lane, between the
addresses of 1903 and 1907.” I am not kidding.) Consider how many laws are
passed to further one particular religious agenda, or one group’s view of
morality.
.
<<Society finds that dancing naked in front of someone's house is inacceptable,
therefore there is a law against it.>>
Is that really why there’s a law against it?
<<Harm? Well I could maintain that it is morally harmful to my children.>>
Children are bombarded with sexual images every day in today’s society. Many
advertisments contain models in clothes that are in effect more naked than
naked. Many people maintain that these images are what is morally harming
children today. These images, however, are not against the law. So why is
nakedness illegal? If you’ve seen people naked at a nude beach, or at a nudist
colony, it is not that pretty. It is not arousing. You realize that the models
having perfect, trim, sexy bodies are products of airbrushes, volatile makeup,
and are chosen from a hundred or more photographs.
<<The society could too and does.>>
Why does it find it unacceptable, and why is it illegal? I’ve attached a separate
post detailing probable reasons why. I consider it an important point and prefer
it not to get lost in the shuffle. If this additional posting is considered ‘flooding:,
please advise me and I will remove it.
>Guilt by "Would
>a reasonable person
>have realized that harm would be
>done by this action?"
<<Yes, if I consider it harmful. You may not, but I may. >>
Then you would be required to prove harm just as in a court of law today.
>Then the punishment
>would be determined by "How much
>harm was done by this
>action?"
<<Is that not what the courts do already?>>
Yes.
<<What if I position a sniper rifle at your front door with a motion censor to take
out birds but you accidentally get killed?>>
If you create a physical danger of harm to others you are responsible. And if
you create one on my property you’re also guilty of criminal tresspass.
<<What if somehow I have no malicious intent?>>
Malicious intent, or lack of it, would determine the type of crime. Killing
someone with malice aforethought, killing someone in the heat of passion, and
killing someone accidentally are considerd three different crimes.
<<What is to prevent others from doing the same? >>
The police.
<<And if I decide to build a meth lab right next to your house and it blows your
entire family away in the explosion, it is not my fault right?>>
Of course it’s your fault. You created a physical danger. Please explain how it
could not be your fault.
<<I don't even get a slap on the wrist because I was trying to make
methanphedamines (sp?) but accidentally killed your family.>>
If drugs were legal, then you are not arrested for making it, but you are arrested
for creating a physical hazard that could cause harm to others, and for being
responsible for the deaths of the familty.
<< No crime huh? >>
Yes, it is a crime. Why do you think that causing the deaths of people by
creating a physical hazard is not a crime? Under today's law it is perfectly legal
for to perform any number of highly dangerous procedures in your home. What
if your neighbor has decided he needs a variety of various alcohols, and so
begins sythesizing them in his garage with Grignard reagents? The combination
of magnesium shavings and ether over an open flame is not the safest
procedure to be around. However, thankfully both methamphetamine
manufacturing and the Grignard reactions have strong distinctive odors that
carry a long distance. In either case you can smell it and summon the police to
investigate a possible hazardous situation. If the neighbor is creating a
hazardous situation, the items are confiscated and he is liable for a fine and/or
arrest. However, since the Grignard reaction is legal, it is far cheaper for me to
go purchase any type of alcohol that I might have a need for rather than
manufacturing it myself. The same would be true of meth labs. A run is very
quick to make. Most addicts make enough for themselves, a few friends, and
maybe some to sell to others as desperate as they. Now addicts hate nazi meth.
It's very impure, nasty, usually burns. (It's made with Drano, for pete's sake!) In
general it's not nearly as good as that manufactured by more conventional
means. But it's the best they can get given availability and price. Compare it to
cigarettes. Most smokers smoke brand names like Camels, or Marlboros, or
whatever, which are flavorful, and treated with various chemicals (yum!) to taste
mild, burn smoothly, and not spark and pop. But people without much money
get the cheap generic kind, which taste awful, but deliver the same nicotine
content. This situation is because of the high taxes on cigarettes, which have
widened the price gap between the brand names and the generic. (And
eventually people will be growing tobacco in their closet under heat lamps.)
Without the taxes, the difference would be inconsequential, and people would be
smoking the more flavorful brands. Same with meth. If it was legal, then safer
industrially manufactured meth would erase all the household meth labs. (Oops!
There goes the competition of a cottege industry. Oh, well...) The possibility of
a meth lab being next door to you and thus causing you harm by exploding is
largely due because of its illegality.
Additionally, consider the unintended consequences of the illegality of meth.
One example: Because the sale of the meth component anhydrous ammonia is
controlled, to get a cup (just one cup, for pete’s sake!) of the stuff addicts broke
a valve off a 40,000 gallon tank of anhydrous ammonia in Collinsville, Texas,
and the leaking of the contents caused the evacuation of most of the town. Also,
once police find a meth lab, the chemicals must be identified. (They’re not in
labeled containers, you know.) Then stabilized in safe overpack containers. If
they are to be used as evidence they must be stored in an adequate, permitted
hazardous material facility. When it’s time to dispose of them, they have to be
readied for shipping, shipped by permitted transport, then disposed of at a
licensed facility. For every meth lab found, the EPA's Local Government
Reimbursement program provides supplemental funding of up to $25,000 per
incident to help dispose of the hazardous substances. The cost of an incident
can exceed that amount, though. (Your tax dollars at work.)
Actually, you shouldn't worry too much about the house next door exploding.
Because of the strong distinctive smell, most meth labs avoid suburban
locations, and are located in isolated areas. Or are mobile, with the run being
cooked in the back of a van, or the trunk of a car, or in the covered bed of a
pickup. The highways are getting more dangerous than ever....
By the way, do any of your neighbors have a well-stocked bar? Two gallons of
alcohol has the equivalent explosive potential of one stick of dynamite.
<<But since when do those rules apply?>>
Since always it seems. Ever live in an apartment complex? There are rules
specific to the community, and you can be evicted if you break them.
<<Afterall if they're applying your standard, or rather lack of one, they will be in
the same predicament.>>
If you rent in an apartment complex, the property belongs to someone else. It’s
his/her property so they can impose additional rules by lease. Many rent
communities have rules that are go beyond those of society. Seniors only, no
children, no loud music, no parties after 10pm, etc. By voluntarily signing a
lease, you agree to give up certain freedoms, and are bound it. But there’s no
physical coercion that says you have to rent in that apartment complex. You’re
totally free to find a property owner that will allow whatever particular activity you
wish to partake in. Singles only, family only, or no noise above a certain level.
<<What if he just likes to blow whistles? What if it annoys the hell out of
everyone?>>
Annoying people is hardly a crime. If it was just about everybody would be in
jail. However, if the victim proved physical harm the whistleblower would be held
responsible for the damage.
<< How do you prove intent?
Same as you do in today’s society: in court through presentation of evidence. If
he didn’t have intent, the punishment would be ameliorated. But if the victim
proved the whistleblower caused physical damage, caused harm, then the
punishment would be harsher. Yes, proof of intent is hard to establish. That’s
why, say, the crime of fraud is sometimes hard to prove. Fraud does not occur
when a person promises to do something, intending to do it, and then changes
his mind and does not do it. Fraud does occur when a person misrepresents his
present intent: If Joe says to Bill "If you'll buy this store, I'm leaving town and
taking my business with me," and Joe’s actual intention is to open a larger,
competing store across the street from Bill, then Joe is making a fraudulent
misrepresentation.
>as if he grabbed a
>kid he knew was allergic
>to
>peanuts and stuffed a peanut butter
>cookie down his throat.
<<What if the kid thought the other kid would like it? You can't prove that he
wouldn't. >>
It’s still physical coercion. That’s harm.
<<Untrue, the government pays for many of the services that normal people
would have to pay for, services that improve the standard of living for people.>>
But people are paying for them through taxes. Money for government programs
just doesn’t magically appear. Or if the government does create money out of
nothing, that will cause rampant inflation.
<<You're not thinking of a good government, you're thinking of yourself.>>
My views are not isolated. The present government, stripped to a far lesser
variety of powers, would be, first, more amenable to the common people and
more likely to protect their rights, and, second, less likely to pursue a religious
agenda.
> Even worse, the experiments
>social
>engineers love to try on helpless
>citizens sap production as well.
<<Like what?>>
Two examples: First, in the early sixties, the government started urban renewal
to get rid of slums. It removed people from neighborhoods with substandard
housing and placed them in temporary quarters. It was then supposed to
destroy the now vacant slums and build high-rise low cost apartments. Many of
the slums were not bulldozed, and squatters subsequently moved in,
perpetuating the slums. In other cases, the slums were bulldozed, then
sometimes cleared, sometimes not, but in either case nothing was built, leaving
large areas of the inner cities either vacant lots or heaps of rubble. Those
high-rises that were built were often substandard themselves, and/or quickly
succumbed to squalor due to bad management and/or other circumstances.
Many people initially evicted have been stuck in “temporary” housing for
generations. (Kinda like, say, Palestinian refugees.) Some renewal did
succeed, granted. Meanwhile, as a whole, crime exploded in the inner cities.
The program did succeed wildly in destroying the concept of “neighborhood” for
entire groups of people, and make squalor worse in the inner ciies. Both of these are
conditions that promote crime.
Second, in the early eighties, many of the mentally ill were deinstitutionalized.
Government money was made available for local programs to see to their
integration into society. The massive discharges did occur, but in the meantime
most of the money was shunted into other local mental health programs, for
example counseling programs for the middle class. The ex-patients were left on
their own, and many became homeless street people. (Ever wonder where
those people sleeping in the streets came from?)
There are many other examples.
> The slashing
>of government would free up capital
>for investment as well as
>increase
>production, generating more wealth, and more
>jobs.
<<For who? Not for Joe-citizen, but for the rich. Why was it the deregulated
industries of the early 1900's negatively affected so many people and only
improved the lives of a few? >>
Because the deregulated industries were actively supported by the government
with subsidies, sweetheart deals, and legislation to protect them from
competition in return for lavish kickbacks. The tax structure and regulations
encouraged gigantism. Existing industries were supported by favoritism, and
new entreprenuership was stifled. Little wonder that only the rich got rich and
the poor got poorer. The business of government was business, not assuring
the freedom of the people so they could improve their lives. Attempts by the
poor to improve their lives, such as by forming unions and co-ops were met by
industry with government sanctioned violence, and often by direct action by
government troops. Killings of strikers were commonplace, industry emboldened
by the Homestead Strike massacre of 1892, and usually no one was brought to
justice for the deaths of workers and their families. Labor unions had been
sorely injured by the liberal use of the federal injunction by industry. However,
they were also somewhat responsible for their own failure because of various
failures to follow up what successes they had, to exploit momentary weaknesses
of certain industrial sectors, and, after WWI, the continued rivalry between the
Communist and non-Communist factions in the labor movement..
<<How is that better than the current system where the standard of living is quite
high?>>
The seeds for today’s increased standards of living were planted in 1932 when
Congress passed the Norris-LaGuardia Anti-Injunction Act, which curtailed the
use of injunctions far more effectively than had the Clayton Act of 1914. This
was spurred further by the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of June
1933. One of the sections of this law stipulated that "employees shall be free
from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers” in selection of union
representatives for collective bargaining. The current system began evolving
when the government began addressing the rights of the people over the
preferential treatment of industry.
<<You get monopolies in a deregulated industry.>>
The monopolies were a direct consequence of government cronyism with
business. A monopoly is possible only because the government either uses
force to prevent competition, or looks the other way when business uses force or
fraud. For example, much of Rockefeller’s success in building his monopoly of
Standard Oil was secret rebates from railroad shippers, a system that destroyed
his competitors. He devised the fraudulent “oil trust”, and was able to do all this
by lavishing bribes and “deals’ on legislators. In other words, the government
was an active partner with Rockefeller so that he was eventually refining 95% of
US oil.
<<He's probably speaking of how the USA is more laxed with industry than its
European counterparts. You cannot have competition without regulation.>>
Yes and no. Regulation can either stifle or encourage competition. If the rich
and powerful are able to buy the type of regulation they want, I don’t set too
much store to the success of regulation.
<<Awash in temporary money or more money than what could be earn in
investments? You invest to make more money, if you do not invest, you're
spending it as fast as you earn it, and that is not good.>>
That’s precisely what the current social security system is doing.
<<But it also goes into creating more plans like Medicare and Medicaid, socially
demanded programs. >>
The health care industries are making a fortune since Medicare and Medicaid
were enacted. Corruption in both programs is rampant. Money is being wasted
that could be used to provide for those social needs even better.
>If you cut government taxes
>and social security,
>suddenly everyone would have their paychecks
>almost double.
<<But that would simply go back into paying for the services the government
provides anyway.>>
Minus the fees to the middleman, the waste, and the corruption.
<<More importantly it also pays for those who cannot afford it. Governments
should be concerned about their citizens, not just the rich who can afford to live
well.>>
But you’ve just pointed out the consequences of the early 1900s, where the lot of
the citizens was poor precisely because of the rich and the government acting in
concert.
<<But also take into account that most companies make over 800% profits off
their manufacturing costs. And what is to say that these companies will even
invest money back into their employees? They'll be like the corrupted politicians
and keep it for themselves. It is government regulations that require businesses
to provide health plans,>>
Many businesses began to offer health plans and pensions in the late 1800s and
early 1900s not because of any government requirements, but to keep their
workers happy so that they wouldn’t unionize.
<<If anything, employers will be like their early 1900's counterparts, where the
workers are overworked, underpaid, and no benefits. You can't have an
unregulated industry. >>
Take as an example Calvin Coolidge’s administration. Big businesses were
regulated, yes. It was just that the government’s favoritism reflected itself in the
operation of government regulatory agencies. The Tariff Commission, charged
with suggesting reductions in the tariff, or import tax, made its reports reluctantly
and without strong recommendations. The Federal Trade Commission,
established by President Wilson to curb monopolies, looked on favorably when
businesses merged. Investigations and prosecutions of lawsuits against these
combinations were only halfheartedly conducted.
>Even
>with a simple savings account
>they'd make more
>in interest than social security.
<<True, social security has a horrible interest rate. But didn't you just say that
you despise long term investing?>>
No. I didn’t say that. What I said was “If the pay-ins of the previous generations
had been salted away in long term investments, the system would be awash in
money.” I think that would be a good thing.
<< They give the best interest you know.>>
I know.
<<But you're more likely to cause harm if you move only drugs like crack, PCP
and LSD. You may end up running around and killing people from being
dilusional. >>
Unlikely. First, prohibition often causes use of the banned substance to
increase. For example, the Volstead Act (18th Amendment) went into effect
January 16, 1920. In Chicago, by 1927 arrests for drunken driving had
skyrocketed 476 percent. The Act’s repeal didn’t cause much of an increase,
consumption eventually began to decrease, and now distillers of alcohol are
struggling to maintain sales. So consider this: We don’t really have a situation
with users running around right now. It may be that this is the time where the use
of drugs like crack, PCP, and LSD are at their height. So legalizing it will acually
decrease its use, and the number of people running around on a high. The few I
see or hear about running around are usually just out trying to get enough cash
to score anyway. Otherwise they stay home and vegetate.
>No skin
>off my nose whether someone
>needs the occasional puff to
>make it through the week.
<<But do it in a safe regulated institution so you're away from the public.>>
But they’re not out all that much now even though they really have to hustle to
make their next connection. If it was cheap, so they could make their week’s
worth of drugs by a day’s labor, they’d be holed up a lot more than now.
<<Regulation is key.>>
But regulation by whom?
<<Control is key. >>
Who’s in control?
Thank you for the discussion. Your other posts have points I most definitely wish to discuss and I will reply to them when I have further time. But the spouse is calling.
