Harmful illusions bedevil ideas about free markets and imprisonment: professor

Nice. It took me a while to get the connection between "the Myth of Natural Order" and the increased need for punishment. I was too focused on the problem only in markets. It could apply to how one raises children as well. I summarize for myself like this: You either install regulations to prevent an activity, or you punish them after-the-fact when they violate a law. Putting the cookies up on a higher shelf is usually more efficient.

I want to get a bumper sticker that says, "Free Markets are not Free!"

QC must be sleeping, bummer:( i have a bag full of troll food:)

Mr. Harcourt makes a very unpersuasive argument... Two points... First; Mr. Harcourt seem to suggest those who argue in favor of free markets are laissez faire capitalist. Very few free-market philosophers or advocates has ever argued for a free market that's totally free of regulation.

Second point; Mr. Harcourt arbitrarily claims that the "explosion in the U.S. prison population" that started 1973 was due to a scaling back of social institution and as a means to discredit the civil rights movement, yet never mentions the increased GOVERNMENT REGULATION in the form of anti-drug laws and the fact that drug law violators constitute a huge percentage of those incarcerated.

@kehvan: You're second point is very good. One might note that the anti-drug laws were (in part at least) an effort to discredit the civil right movement.

As for your first point, many of today's most vocal free marketeers are followers of Ayn Rand who was an explicitly laissez-faire capitalist. I think "very few" overstates your case.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that our legal-penal system is an abomination solely created and maintained by lawyers to enrich lawyers. We jail people who are no threat to society and have not harmed society in any way and we release those that are and will harm it again. There is no justice in the US, just a self-serving legal system.

The author posits a relationship that is idealistic in nature and fails to take into account human nature and an empirical understanding thereof.

It's really just an effete conspiracy theory.

Empirical observation and good experimental science are slowly but surely working their way into the humanities and social sciences but they still have a long way to go and this kind of thinking simply illustrates their ignorance.

Perhaps it's trifling but it continues to intrigue me that what was developed and distributed (and often ridiculed)as neoconservative ideology is now apparently widely attributed to a neoliberal cant - which to my mind has arisen out of nowhere over the past 5-10 years and is most likely a defensive tactic to deflect attribution of the ideas and, by so doing, criticism of the neocon movement. Curiouser and curiouser...

Is this an attempt by the left at discrediting Hayek? Harcourt presents a false paradox: people are not being put into prison for acts against freedon of commercial trade regulated by the government. People are being put into prison for selling toxic narcotics to any thirteen year-old who will pay for them. Harcourt then tries to join the explosion in the prison population with...what? A call for the government to takeover every aspect of society, because he says government is misrepresented as inneffective? Then the slammer by saying that it's all racism. Typical, tired, poor.

The author posits a relationship that is idealistic in nature and fails to take into account human nature and an empirical understanding thereof.

Any attempt to revive that mythical "human nature" is nothing but an appeal to be irrational.

freedon of commercial trade regulated by the government. People are being put into prison for selling toxic narcotics to any thirteen year-old who will pay for them.

If this were true: Why are there so many more than in other countries? Why are there so many 13 year-olds who want narcotics?
Why are no war criminals in jail?

I've always thought the American concept of freedom was one of the greater paradoxes of life. Don't try to understand it or you'll get a migraine.

If this were true: Why are there so many more than in other countries? Why are there so many 13 year-olds who want narcotics?

Same reason there are so many 13 year olds who want alcohol and cigarettes:

1) Negative behavior is actually romanticized by hollywood and the entertainment industry.

2) Negative behavior and gateway drugs (alcohol, tobacco,) are actually encouraged by the government. If they wanted to ban them, they could have done so at any time, but they make too much tax money off this stuff, and so the government actually wants everyone addicted to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.

Why are no war criminals in jail?

Apparently, war criminals in modern times have more rights than a U.S. citizen. The U.S. sat around and watched Gadahfi, ANOTHER lunatic dictator, slaughter innocents for decades, and does nothing about it. If you are a head of state, then you have "diplomatic immunity" and can be as evil as possible without consequences.

Kehvan was only partly wrong; no free marketeer has ever at any time promoted a society in which there is no law. If Harcourt understood Hayek at all, he would know that Hayek wrote that freedom does not consist in the absence of rules, but in the rule of principle. All free market economists since Adam Smith have insisted that free markets cannot exist without someone protecting the property of individuals from theft, fraud and violence.

Free markets absolutely require the rule of law based on the principles of the right to life, liberty and property. But the state must restrict itself to enforcing those rights and no more, else the state destroys liberty and free markets. Protecting those rights means punishing those who violate them. You will never find a free market writer who disagrees, even Ayn Rand.

Your attitude is precisely what Kehvan was talking about fundy. Hayek's, and many American's views of liberty are narrowly individualistic and extremely antisocial. This is reflected in both market ideology and penal ideology. Modern American conservatism is nothing more than psychopathy.

No free marketer actually suggests 'unregulated' market, or the abscence of law.

Instead, this is what they say:
1) free markets spread peaceful coexistence (smith)
2) government employees cannot know enough to regulate markets (mises/hayek)
3) insurance companies are better at regulating the market than government (rothbard/hoppe)
4) That bureaucracies become naturally corrupt and seek rents, and harm markets. (veblen, schumpeter, Sorel, michels, burnham)

5) That rule of law (rule of the COMMON LAW) is superior to regulation of markets than is legislative and regulatory law. (Hayek, Bastiat)
6) economic calculation (dynamic prices and their role in planning), and the natural incentive for self interest, are actually POSSIBLE in a division of knowledge and labor (mises, smith) and economic calculation and incentive are IMPOSSIBLE otherwise.
7) that regulatory law accumulates to the point of causing market failure
8) that all monopolies are CAUSED by state intervention.

These are arguments against the PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE, and the PRETENSE OF BENEVOLENCE by the political bureaucracy. In contrast to the POSSESSION OF KNOWLEDGE by private actors with market incentives. They are arguments to privatization.

free markets spread peaceful coexistence (smith)

Smith is a classical economist, rather far from a free marketeer.

government employees cannot know enough to regulate markets (mises/hayek)

Which is myopic, and has been proved inaccurate time and time again.

insurance companies are better at regulating the market than government (rothbard/hoppe)

And this is demonstrably false.

That bureaucracies become naturally corrupt and seek rents, and harm markets. (veblen, schumpeter, Sorel, michels, burnham)

This statment includes corporate bureacracy and isn't exclusively an economic paradigm according to your cited sources.

Curt, I had a nice breakdown typed out for the rest fo your commentary and the post timer ate it *shakes fist*

The contractual obligation regulatory limitation has been found to be entirely ineffective without subsequent regulation of terms and definition. You cannot have a functional highway without rules of the road, congruently, you cannot have a functional economy withouot rules of market trade.

Too much government is a bad thing, but so is too little.

Skeptic, you're exactly right! We must have an appropriate amount of government. Mises and Hayek always insisted that government is necessary and good as long as it stays within it's sphere of expertise: it should protect life, liberty and property. Those provide the "rules of the road". What the government should not do is pick winners and losers.

Changing to the analogy of football, Hayek and Mises insist on having rules for the game and referees to enforce them. Referees represent the government. What Hayek and Mises did not want was the referee choosing who wins the game, which government intervention in the economy beyond its main role does.

Fundy, I agree with what you have above, however I think you need to stop reading Hayek and von Mises and tip over to the classical economists. A proper syncretism of economic ideology is requird for social health.

A proper syncretism of economic ideology is requird for social health.

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron. How do syncretize classical liberty: liberty from political tyranny and the socialist concept of equal wealth distribution by the govt?

"... while, democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Hayek, Road to Serfdom, p. 77, from de Tocqueville.

skeptic: "A proper syncretism of economic ideology is requird for social health."

In the first place, it's not ideology; it's science. I'm not calling you a Marxist, but you have absorbed the Marxist way of thinking: there is no truth, only ideology. Marx was an idiot. Drop his nonsense and recognize that objective truth does exist outside of the natural sciences and we can know it through logic and evidence.

What's best for society is to know the truth about how economies work. I'm very familiar with the classics, Keynesian, monetarist and neo-classical econ, having earned an MA in econ. I studied Austrian econ only after learning the others. I evaluated them on the basis of logic and evidence. The truth is found in Austrian economics.

SH has no difficulties using science to justify his atheist religion, but when it comes to his ideology, control of others, science no longer applies.

FTR:

The punitive society we now live in has been made possible bynot caused by, but made possible bythis belief that there is a categorical difference between the free market, where intervention is inappropriate, and the penal sphere, where it is necessary and legitimate, writes Harcourt. This way of thinking makes it easier both to resist government intervention in the marketplace, as well as to embrace the criminalization and punishment of any disorder.

So a belief that it's legitimate for the government to have free reign over economic matters and, hence, nearly every aspect of your life will somehow REDUCE the idea of criminalization and punishment in the "penal sphere"?

What a tool...

"The real explosion in the U.S. prison population began around 1973"
The first baby boomers were in the mid twenties with millions more to follow. Abortion was made legal in 1973.
The drug culture expanded along with laws to restrict heroin and other substances. The 26th amendment was passed in 1971. Dirty Harry (1971), Death Wish (1974). Coincidence?

"embrace the criminalization and punishment of any 'disorder.'""

'Disorder' is in the eye of the beholder. Classical liberals would classify theft, fraud, violence (murder, rape, assault, etc) as disorder' and the govt has the responsibility to minimize this disorder in order to maximize the political liberty and economic opportunity for all.
When socialists classify economic entrepreneurship as 'disorder' and criminalize this activity, political liberty and economic opportunity suffer.

The authors don't understand free market economics.
Free markets regulate themselves or they collapse.

In the first place, it's not ideology; it's science. I'm not calling you a Marxist, but you have absorbed the Marxist way of thinking: there is no truth, only ideology

If you think economics in it's current state is science, you've already gone down the rabbit hole. THe various economic frameworks are all ideologically based and tied to cultural imperative. There's a reason why communism was so easily adopted in China and will most likely never rear it's head in the US to any significant degree. Economics is intimately tied to culture. Predicting either of which is sociology. Read a few sociology papers and tell me if you think it's all science.

SH has no difficulties using science to justify his atheist religion, but when it comes to his ideology, control of others, science no longer applies.

Lots of strawman arguments in so few sentences. Are you running out of gas or did you post this before FOX ran a new story to fill your head with more mindless bullshit?

"you cant blame the millennials completely for their problems. They, after all, did not choose to grow up in a society eroded to the point of nothingness by nihilistic social permissiveness. They did not choose to be educated by a system that prizes self-esteem over achievement and taught them that fulfillment of their dreams was a right to be provided by others. They did not choose to enter an economy hobbled by a welfare state that grows fatter with every unfulfilled desire. They did not choose to enter a job market rigged against them by a recession built from the inability to accept limits on societys wants.

Read more: http://dailycalle...Fb5XrAlr
"

There's a reason why communism was so easily adopted in China

Easily adopted? The Chinese in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and the USA adopted capitalism quite easily.
Communists/socialists/fascists murder people who refuse to accept their ideology.
What is most distributing is how readily classical liberals, people who valued individual liberty and limited state power, could be swayed to support socialism.

Hayek described that quite well in his discussion of why the 'intellectual' supports socialism.
http:/aetds.hnuc.edu.cn/uploadfile/20080316211019875.pdf

Economics is intimately tied to culture.

When hundreds of cultures are dropped into the USA culture of liberty, they seem to adapt their culture quiet well to a more classical liberal economy.

When hundreds of cultures are dropped into the USA culture of liberty, they seem to adapt their culture quiet well to a more classical liberal economy.

As, for example, the cultures of the Native People. And the African cultures of the slaves.

And the worldwide highest percentage of inmates.

The liberty of the greedy is the suppression of the needy.

Indian tribes in the USA are doing very economically selling cigarettes and running casinos.
Blacks in the USA have opportunities to excel if they ignore those who want to pull them down like Jesse Jackson and liberals.
Commune-ist cultures can even thrive in the USA.

Indian cultures in the USA are diverse. Some are doing very economically selling cigarettes and running casinos. The Cherokee have developed a nation without the reservation.
Blacks in the USA have opportunities to excel if they ignore those who want to pull them down like Jesse Jackson and liberals.
Commune-ist cultures can even thrive in the USA.

skeptic: "THe various economic frameworks are all ideologically based and tied to cultural imperative."

Maybe you are a Marxist. All of the attacks on economics as a science come from Marxists because they can't respond to the devastating attacks on their ideology from science. Economics is a science. Do you have anything to offer other than lame insults?

And the worldwide highest percentage of inmates.

The liberty of the greedy is the suppression of the needy.

Liberty is the dissolution of the claims of the lazy on the productive.

"Karl Raimund Popper was born on 28 July 1902 in Vienna" {an Austrian, imagine that!}
"...and became for a time a Marxist. However, he was quickly disillusioned with the doctrinaire character of the latter, and soon abandoned it entirely."
"The dominance of the critical spirit in Einstein, and its total absence in Marx, Freud and Adler, struck Popper as being of fundamental importance: the latter, he came to think, couched their theories in terms which made them amenable only to confirmation, while Einstein's theory, crucially, had testable implications which, if false, would have falsified the theory itself."
http:/plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Popper's definition of what is and is not science is quite strict. Most articles at physorg.com would not qualify as science by Popper's standards.

skeptic: THe various economic frameworks are all ideologically based and tied to cultural imperative.

Maybe you are a Marxist... Do you have anything to offer other than lame insults?

I rest my case.

The liberty of the greedy is the suppression of the needy.

Liberty is the dissolution of the claims of the lazy on the productive.

The juxtapositioning of "needy" and "lazy" indicates an antisocial mindset.

I am getting really sick of this anti-socialism propoganda... In the meanwhile they are exactly what they claim socialism to be...

If communism is so bad, how come China has one of the fastest growing economy in the world, if not the fastest. (is fastest the correct word here?)
Dont try comparing tyrany to socialism, they are contradictive.
Comparing communism to socialism? They arent the same thing at all. Socialism basicly means to care about people first instead of filling some bankers/lawyers their pockets.

The Socialist Party in the Netherlands actually cares about people.
Made motions so that the military banned spread-ammo and is actively against uranium enriched ammo that make mini chernobyls, both these kill off innocent people.
Is against cuts in education and health care. Is against empty standing offices (we dont have alot of space here).

And there are tons more reasons the Socialist Party actually works as a government.

Actually the reason we have a higher living standard than most other countries is becuase of the great motions the Socialist Party and its fellow socialist parties have made in the past.
The anti-socialism propaganda is really discusting, without any real arguments... dont people realize they are shooting their foot when voting for such discusting parties?

The anti-socialism propaganda is really discusting, without any real arguments

Real arguments to oppose socialism: USSR, NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, ...
"The Soviet System failed because it disregarded reality; namely, the reality that (1) individuals wish to improve themselves and pursue happiness; that information is costly, constantly changing, widely dispersed, and cannot be usefully centralized; and (3) voluntary exchange leads to mutual gain."
"Vaclav Havel's words, as he reflected on the Czech Republic's transition from plan to market: "Though my heart be left of centre, I have always known that the only economic system that works is a market economy, in which everything belongs to someone--which means that someone is responsible for everything."
http:/www.cato.org/events/china/papers/dorn.html

What socialism in China?

"In a 2005 poll covering 20 countries, GlobeScan found that China had the highest proportion of respondents (74 percent) who agree that the free market economy is the best system on which to base the future of the world. "
"Those regions that have experienced the greatest amount of economic freedom have also grown the most and have the highest living standards."
"globalization has increased personal freedom and put pressure on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and National Peoples Congress to pass a Property Law last March. It recognizes the importance of the private sector and better protects property rightsall with a positive impact on civil society."
"The spirit of entrepreneurship is evident everywhere in China. "
http:/www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/adam-smith-in-china/
China's success is NOT due to socialism.

The anti-socialism propaganda is really discusting, without any real arguments

Real arguments to oppose socialism: USSR, NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, ...

thank you for supporting my claim, you area perfect example.
now go die in a hole and leave this website.

"The Dutch welfare state isn't as beneficial to low-skilled immigrants as it is to Mr. Shorto. [...] Due to the high costs of labour (25 dollar per hour at minimum wage level) many low-skilled immigrants can't find a job and hence are forced to spend their lives in subsidized isolation.""
"the Dutch welfare state brought the Netherlands to the brink of economic disaster in the 1980s."
http:/www.rnw.nl/english/article/socialism-gone-wild-netherlands

"The Dutch Socialist Party (SP) works inside and outside parliament to achieve its goal: a society in which human dignity, equality and solidarity take precedence. "
http://international.sp.nl/

Dutch socialism will fail to achieve its goal as they do not acknowledge the human being as an INDIVIDUAL.
"the opportunities afforded to one are fewer than those enjoyed by another. By helping and caring for each other we can give a fair chance to everyone to lead a fulfilling life." cont

Here is why socialism fails:
"Human dignity is the respect of one person for another, the right to decide freely the direction society should take, a secure existence for everyone, and a fair chance for every person to LIVE IN FREEDOM AND STRIVE FOR HIS OR HER OWN HAPPINESS."

The phrase in caps above conflicts with :

"Equality means that one person is never worth more than another."

{Non can strive for his or her happiness if that happiness means to have more wealth.}

"Solidarity between people is necessary because the opportunities afforded to one are fewer than those enjoyed by another. By helping and caring for each other we can give a fair chance to everyone to lead a fulfilling life."

{The only way for the govt to help and care for each other is to take from those who are striving for happiness.}

http://internatio...l/goals/

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

now go die in a hole and leave this website.

Typical socialist response.
You asked for arguments opposing socialism, but you really don't want to hear them as you have no rational arguments to support socialism.
The philosophy has failed for hundreds of years and will continue to fail.

Mr Swenson, otherwise known as ryggesogn2 and marjon is calling on you to take his job and state funded pension away from him. Make sure you help him out by calling the various offices of Chelmsford MA and letting them know that Jon Swenson, of the Chelmsford Agricultural commision refuses to take his pension and benefits from a job that he has told you he refuses to accept. He's speaking out against your government and rights, so ensure he practices what he preaches by making his own personal views, posted under the screen names ryggesogn2 and marjon, known to his staff and associates. End his career... he's telling you to do so.

Typical socialist response.
You asked for arguments opposing socialism,

And instead of doing that you gave arguments against dictators. None against democratic states. As usual.

Ethelred

Ethel, you see no logical problems with the Dutch, or any other socialist agenda?
On one hand socialists claim to support "a fair chance for every person to LIVE IN FREEDOM AND STRIVE FOR HIS OR HER OWN HAPPINESS."
How do the socialists plan to accomplish this when socialists also demand equal outcomes for all?
Does this require everyone to strive for the same 'happiness'? What if not everyone agrees upon the definition of 'happiness'?

I would encourage everyone to be more skeptical of the Skeptical Heretic, who, like many other socialists here prefer personal attacks instead of defending their statist philosophy.

Hey fundamentalist about those claims that even Libertarians believe in laws and thus states see Marjon here.

Marjon AKA ryggesogn2

you see no logical problems with the Dutch, or any other socialist agenda?

I see you choosing to look only at what you want. What problem do YOU have with the Netherlands? Besides it isn't a Ann RandFantasy Land like Somalia that is.

How do the socialists plan to accomplish this when socialists also demand equal outcomes for all?

Bullshit. Equal OPPORTUNITY and that is the US in any case. Why did you just lie about it?

What if not everyone agrees upon the definition of 'happiness'?

What if you didn't evade what I said. YOU ignored democracies and ranted about dictatorships in your usual fantasy tirade about alleged evil socialists carefully using dictators where the economy has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with control by the DICTATOR and not the people.

More

I would encourage everyone to be more skeptical of the Skeptical Heretic

Of course you do. You don't like the truth. And you don't like it that he figured out who you are in the real world. Heck, I wouldn't like it either. Too many Creationists and Libertarians would like to either stone me or hang me respectively. Fortunately the people that hate states won't pay the taxes needed to buy the rope or pay the Judge much less Jack Ketch.

who, like many other socialists here prefer personal attacks instead of defending their statist philosophy.

You are a lying hypocritical troll and that is not SH's fault. It is not his fault that YOU are a politician. It is not his fault that you supported the pirates in Somalia. It is not his fault that you use Atlas Jerked as a misrepresentation of reality.

Sometimes the personality of the person involved IS significant because they are LYING to prop up their fantasies.

Ethelred

On one hand socialists claim to support "a fair chance for every person to LIVE IN FREEDOM AND STRIVE FOR HIS OR HER OWN HAPPINESS."
How do the socialists plan to accomplish this when socialists also demand equal outcomes for all?

The blatancy of your lie is psychologically interesting. Everybody knows that you are not just mistaken but that you also know you are wrong. So what disadvantage are you so much afraid of that you prefer to be viewed as a public liar?

prefer personal attacks instead of defending their statist philosophy.

Again, a self manifesting example of hypocrisy.

I love the way you gentlemen keep doing this.
"All you do is mock and make fun of people, because you are (insert generalization or personal attack here)"

Keep it up, you only serve to make yourself look the fool more often.

Kaasinees raised the issue of Dutch socialism.

No one will defend the Dutch socialist party platform?

YOU are a politician

Be skeptical.

Fajo, where it the lie?

"Democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude", de Tocqueville in Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

The Dutch socialist party platform follows this pattern.

The Dutch socialist party platform follows this pattern.

From wikipedia " The party has a democratic-socialist ideology. In its manifesto of principles it calls for a society where human dignity, equality and solidarity are most important."

I don't know much about Dutch politics, but their ideology, as stated above, doesn't bother me. Then again, I'm not Dutch, nor do I fear words like Socialism, because I understand what they actually mean.

Well i am happy to report that in the state ellections on 2 march, the Socialist Party has seen rise in voters. I hope that we will see more of this party that will make our country a better place to live in. :)
And i have today signed up to become a member of the party. The more anti-socialism crap i hear, the more i realise it is the right answer for the advancement of the human race.

right answer for the advancement of the human race.

Then you support the use of force to take wealth from your neighbors.
That is what socialism means.

"Democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude", de Tocqueville in Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

Kaas, who do you want to restrain and enslave and why?

Then you support the use of force to take wealth from your neighbors.

No i dont, and so doesnt socialists.

That is what socialism means.

No it doesnt.
And your arguments mean nothing without any evident truth.

Kaas, who do you want to restrain and enslave and why?

If you did any research about socialism you will find the opposite. Republicans however, prosebeforehos.com/political-ironing/07/26/the-republicans-approach-to-jobless-benefits/

No i dont, and so doesnt socialists.

Whether or not you support coercion or not, that is the ONLY way socialists can implement their Utopian philosophy.

And your arguments mean nothing without any evident truth.

The truth is all about you if you care to open your eyes and pull your fingers out of your ears.

The ONLY successful socialist societies require 100% VOLUNTARY participation. As soon as one individual does not want to 'share' the products of his labors, socialism collapses into tyranny.

"Each of us has a natural right from God to defend his
person, his liberty, and his property."
"it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right, its reason for existing, its lawfulness is based on individual right."
"since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force for the same reason cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."
"Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder."
"it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
This is the seductive lure of socialism."
"Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed
into social combinations."
http://www.fee.or..._Law.pdf
Nothing has changed since Bastiat wrote this 150+ years ago.

As soon as one individual does not want to 'share' the products of his labors, socialism collapses into tyranny.

Well if this was true, the US wouldn't exist.

Nothing has changed since Bastiat wrote this 150+ years ago.

Wow, you're wholly ignorant of reality.

Why do stupid people have a need to rewrite history to suit their convoluted ideological framework?

the US wouldn't exist

The USA as intended by the Constitution does NOT exist now thanks to people like SH who like to control people as Bastiat noted.

What Bastiat wrote about The Law 150+ years ago applies directly today around the world to socialists of all parties.

'Positive' law, which SH favors, leads to the socialist tyranny we now experience in the USA.

The USA as intended by the Constitution does NOT exist now thanks to people like SH who like to control people as Bastiat noted.

You do realize that concepts like the government, the constitution, the law, etc. are socialistic right?
So that makes you an anarchist?

The USA as intended by the Constitution does NOT exist now thanks to people like SH who like to control people as Bastiat noted.

You do realize that concepts like the government, the constitution, the law, etc. are socialistic right?
So that makes you an anarchist?

Not if they are constructs that support the individual's right to life, liberty and property.

"since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force for the same reason cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."
Bastiat, The Law.

The USA as intended by the Constitution does NOT exist now thanks to people like SH who like to control people as Bastiat noted.

Laughable

'Positive' law, which SH favors, leads to the socialist tyranny we now experience in the USA.

Socialist tyranny? Are you out of your fucking mind?

Not if they are constructs that support the individual's right to life, liberty and property.

Thus the person has the right to have support from the government for their children and themselves, so they can properly raise their children to properly function in society.(Just an example)
Also that means they have the right to proper health care, which obama's new health care bill, which is a good thing.

I smell hypocrosy.

Marjon is an anarchist. Can't stand the idea of a monopoly on violence. Largely because he wants to be violent himself. He's as much as said so on other threads. It'd be interesting to see if you all can prod him into doing it again. He's also got nothing but praise for Somalia.

He's also got this raging hard on for wealth. He hasn't yet learned that wealth is only worth something if you spend it. If you refuse to spend it so you can retain your social bargaining position, or attach all kinds of strings to its use, that makes you a saint to marjon, but a complete jerk to everybody else.

"But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force,
imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creedthen the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives."
"Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice."
The Law, Bastiat

Positive law is exactly what SH advocates.

the person has the right to have support from the government

This means you have the right to take your neighbor's property, his money, his food, his house if you believe he doesn't need it and you do.
But this means your neighbor has the right to take your money, your food, your house if he thinks you have too much and he needs your property more than you do.

Positive law is exactly what SH advocates.

No, it isn't.

I've determined what the fundamental difficulty here is. You have a functional inability to empathize. Effectively, for you to determine that the support services from the government are just, you would have to be dependant on them. This exemplifies your lack of ethical intelligence and substantial lack of sophisticated thought.

When marjon reads that we have the right to "life, liberty and property," he hears "property, liberty, so long as it does not interfere with property, and life, so long as it does not interfere with liberty and property." See, marjon, there's a reason those three fundamental rights are in the order they are in. It's an order of priority. You have the right to live, which means you have the right to those things necessary to continue living. You have the right to liberty, to make your own choices, so long as they do not infringe on another's right to live. And you have the right to property, so long as it does not infringe on another's right to liberty or life. When your "right" to property threatens other's liberties or livelihoods, your property rights get thrown under the bus. As they should.

support services from the government are just,

How can they be just when they violate an individual's right to his life, his liberty and his property?

to be dependant on them.

How 'just' is it for a govt to keep an individual dependent upon and injust govt? It's called vote buying.

lack of sophisticated thought

You are too sophisticated to have standards and principles?

you have the right to those things necessary to continue living.

NO. It means the govt has NO right to take your life.

It does NOT mean you have the right take the liberty and property of anyone else. That is what YOU support.

How can they be just when they violate an individual's right to his life, his liberty and his property?

You mean like how you want to steal the wages of union members so you can feed that cash into the pockets of corporations? You are the ultimate expression of tyranny, tyranny by proxy.

How 'just' is it for a govt to keep an individual dependent upon and injust govt? It's called vote buying.

No, vote buying would be akin to how the Koch brothers pay politicians to do their bidding.

lack of sophisticated thought

You are too sophisticated to have standards and principles?

And you fail to recognize how your comment has proved my point.

Rights are not claims against just the government. They are claims against EVERYBODY. My right to live means that NOBODY has the right to take my life, either actively or passively. They don't have the right to shoot me in the head, and they don't have the right to deny me food if I'm starving. My right to liberty doesn't just mean that state agents aren't supposed to imprison me without a warrant, it means nobody gets to imprison me. Governments are founded to preserve and promote the rights we think we ought to have.

This means you have the right to take your neighbor's property, his money, his food, his house if you believe he doesn't need it and you do.

No it means that everyone pays an amount of taxes depending on their footprint of society.
It is used to make sure you have clean water, a working toilet, cures for disseases, protection from thiefs or murderers, for kids to goto school so they can make your food, etc.
If you dont like that, than i suggest you donate all your money to the less fortunate and move to the jungle.

their footprint of society.

What is that?
Bill Gates has made millions of people wealthy around the world. What is his 'footprint'?

It STILL means you believe you have a right to someone else's property.

My right to live means that NOBODY has the right to take my life, either actively or passively.

I agree, but you DO NOT have a right to force someone else to provide you with food, shelter or medical care which you claimed earlier.
If you have a 'right' to medical care that means you have the right to force a doctor to care for you without compensation. And if doctors refuse to take care of you for free, that 'right' would demand you force people to be doctors. That is slavery.
So, do you accept the full implications (socialist tyranny) of claiming a 'right' to the property of other people? ( I predict....no.)

freedon of commercial trade regulated by the government. People are being put into prison for selling toxic narcotics to any thirteen year-old who will pay for them.

If this were true: Why are there so many more than in other countries? Why are there so many 13 year-olds who want narcotics?

Why are there so many narcotics??

Why are no war criminals in jail?

Well, here's one:
http
://homepost.kpbs.org/2011/02/sgt-lawrence-hutchins-has-iraq-war-crime-conviction-reinstated/
-Here's another alleged criminal awaiting justice in gaol:
http
://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/04/the_wikiweek_march_4_2011

-There are dozens of US war criminals in gaol.

@TM
Your writing is so crude and unformed.

My right to live means that NOBODY has the right to take my life, either actively or passively. They don't have the right to shoot me in the head

-Unless you threaten theirs or someone elses.

and they don't have the right to deny me food if I'm starving.

-Unless they need that food themselves to survive.

My right to liberty doesn't just mean that state agents aren't supposed to imprison me without a warrant, it means nobody gets to imprison me

If society has deemed you a danger or in need of punishment, their agents have every right to imprison you. And warrants are issued for search, impoundment, or arrest, not incarceration.

You should be able to formulate your statements to include caveats and qualifications such as these.

One of the reasons financial market need regulation is that the incentive system naturally leads to trying for grand slams. The workers are extremely well paid and hence feel little risk in losing a job. Meanwhile, if they can generate huge revenues through shady or questionable means, they earn huge profits.

This incentive system is broken and so needs regulation.

feel little risk

That's why the financial industry supports regulations. They socialize the risk.
But this is what happens when the govt controls the economy.

The liberty of the greedy is the suppression of the needy.

Liberty is the dissolution of the claims of the lazy on the productive.

The juxtapositioning of "needy" and "lazy" indicates an antisocial mindset.

Define anti-social. Moreover do you assume that no one who is "needy" is lazy? Is EVERYONE who is "poor" a victim of circumstance? Even if they are how does that give them a blank check on someone who isn't?

The majority of humanity has been beaten down, murdered and incarcertated in one way or another since Cain 'regulated' Abel. There has always been those who wish to 'rule-over', 'regulate', and hold onto their ill-gained 'status quo'. These ancient types that held 'authority' were the .0666 percent of humanity. A quantum change has occured... and the light can no longer be 'held under a basket'.

feel little risk

That's why the financial industry supports regulations. They socialize the risk.
But this is what happens when the govt controls the economy.

The financial bailouts were not laws or industry regulations.

You seem to confuse the subject and act as though anything that passes through congress is a set of rules for an industry, that's not accurate.

The financial bailouts were not laws or industry regulations.

TARP is a law passed by Congress and signed into law by the president.

@kahvan, When you say 'no one' that is a false black/white construction and unfair. Of course even the most free-market or laisses faire or any title you want to give has some regulation they like. No? How about government verification of weights and measures? How about regulations on printing your own money. There is, currently, a willful ignoring of all the support a market needs to operate. In the simplest markets think about what you need in place to simply rent a simple food-seller stall. We ignore the actual support systems because they are always there but they took a long time to develop.

Mr. Harcourt makes a very unpersuasive argument... Two points... First; Mr. Harcourt seem to suggest those who argue in favor of free markets are laissez faire capitalist. Very few free-market philosophers or advocates has ever argued for a free market that's totally free of regulation.

for a free market that's totally free of regulation

At the most basic level, a free market starts with two individuals who what to trade, which assumes no coercion or violence. The first step in regulation, the traders agree not to rob each other.

TARP is a law passed by Congress and signed into law by the president.

TARP is a program, not a law.

The first step in regulation, the traders agree not to rob each other.

And when they don't? How about when one isn't intelligent enough to know he's being robbed? After all, someone robbed you of an education at some point in time, and you apparently have absolutely no clue that it happened.

TARP: Public Law 110343
http://frwebgate.....110.pdf

TARP: Public Law 110343
http://frwebgate.....110.pdf

It also says "Troubled Asset Relief Program" in that document.

The House regulatory bill included both laws and programs. TARP is a program. The revision of IRS codes for the purposes of reducing energy sector overhead was a law.

Both are contained within the Bill, which can contain programs that are already established by existant law, or can contain new laws, or both.

So would you again like to tell me that the Troubled Asset Relief Program is a law and not a program, or would you like to understand the proper terminology that most second graders are taught and understand to a greater extent than yourself?

Programs ARE laws or else they are just wishful thinking.
A law is required by Congress to authorize spending.
What's the matter? Does LAW sound to harsh for you?

As Carlin might say, "LAW!" or " program " (in a light, pleasant tone).

Bills are required to authorize spending. Bills authorizing spending must arise in the House. Laws may or may not require spending to go into effect or to make them effective, when they do, they require a separate spending bill authorized in the House. Laws may be proposed by either chamber of Congress. Laws are regulations or rules imposed by Congress upon the People. The rules and regulations found in spending bills are imposed by Congress on the Government. There is a difference.

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;"

Bills authorizing spending must arise in the House.

False.

Considering that if you want to spend money, you have to get it from somewhere, meaning either increasing taxes (must arise in the House) or borrowing (must also arise in the House) then your nitpicks are irrelevant. You claim that anything passed by the Congress and signed by the President is a law, that is patently and obviously false. Bills creating government programs and specifying their operations are not laws. Laws restrict the People. Spending programs only restrict the government insofar as they specify what it can spend its money on.

Bills creating government programs and specifying their operations are not laws.

"Public Law 110343, An Act
To provide authority for the Federal Government to....."
http://frwebgate.....110.pdf

"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;"

Bills authorizing spending must arise in the House.

False.

So you're saying that the Healthcare bill could have originated within the Senate if there was no taxation element, and you're wrong.

The definition of the passage that you have horridly truncated provides that all budget appropriations must arise in the House. That's spending, taxation, surcharge, and distribution. I am convinced that if you had to take a citizenship test to remain in the country you would have to pack your bags post haste.

This is from a Senate appropriation bill:
"Makes specified funds under this Act available for: (1) refugees from North Korea; (2) broadcasts into North Korea; and (3) democracy, human rights, and governance programs for North Korea."
"(Sec. 7067) Obligates funds under this Act to: (1) reduce, mitigate, and sequester greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change; (2) support climate change adaptation; and (3) protect biodiversity."
http://thomas.loc...2=m&

This is from a Senate appropriation bill:
"Makes specified funds under this Act available for: (1) refugees from North Korea; (2) broadcasts into North Korea; and (3) democracy, human rights, and governance programs for North Korea."
"(Sec. 7067) Obligates funds under this Act to: (1) reduce, mitigate, and sequester greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change; (2) support climate change adaptation; and (3) protect biodiversity."
http://thomas.loc...2=m&

Based off of HR3081 111th congress according to your source, which originated in the house. Have anything further to add?

"The House, however, views this clause a little differently, taking it to mean not only taxation bills but also spending bills.

The plain language of the clause would seem to contradict the House's opinion, but the House relies on historical precedent and contemporaneous writings to support its position."
"The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that the Senate can initiate bills that create revenue, if the revenue is incidental and not directly a tax. "
"the House, it is explained, will return a spending bill originated in the Senate with a note reminding the Senate of the House's prerogative on these matters"
http://www.uscons..._a7.html

This is from a Senate appropriation bill:

Go read the Constitution. Bills dealing with raising revenue MUST start in the House. How the heck can you be involved politics and not have read the US Constitution?

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

The Senate can spend but not tax and bills that have taxes, fees, charges, interest or any other way you or anyone else can think of to raise funds MUST start in the House. You really need to actually READ the Constitution and quite getting distortions from Glenn Beck or whatever idiot you get these ideas from.

Ethelred