They already do, in fact. There are laws out there to limit what the police can keep in civil forfeiture cases, as a (failed) attempt to keep police from seizing anything and everything in sight for personal gain. In practice, it becomes:
"What? We aren't keeping all this loot, we're giving it all to the feds! We can't help that they donate 90% of it straight back to us, can we?"
I'm not sure it also wasn't the past of journalism, except that now it's easier to debunk garbage like this and get the word out about it to others.
I'd certainly rather us not go back to the days when a person's two sources for news were a talking head on the TV and some guy at the local newspaper. If this series had been written back then, who would have been there to correct them?
So we'll agree that the problems are somewhere in the middle, then? Actually, I think that boils down to one statement that works both ways:
Accusations of rape on college campuses are too often not investigated appropriately.
That include rapes that actually happened but don't get investigated and false accusations that get people tossed out of school without an investigation.
Can you show me where I said anything remotely like:
* Rape on college campuses is not a major problem.
* Victims are always taken seriously.
* Appropriate investigations are always conducted.
Pretty sure I didn't say any of those. But claiming that "rape is OK!" in college is a gross misstatement of the facts,
But go ahead and rape someone in a US college, that's pretty much OK.Actually, you've got it backwards. Simply claiming rape is enough in most US universities to get someone expelled, no evidence required.
"I’m not in law enforcement, but it’s my impression that it assists them in doing their job more effectively, and that’s to protect the public."He must be referring to the fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless doing do would assist police officers in doing police officery things."
Saying you don't trust the government is to say you don't trust yourselves, which is really important here.You're right. I don't trust other people to govern me. Why would I?
I have two data points, therefore these data points are highly correlated and I can strongly recommend sweeping societal changes.Yep, this is the internet all right.
Companies hiring away competitor's employees = Commercial Sabotage
Companies agreeing not to hire away competitor's employees = Illegal Colluding
I guess I'll file that one in the same bucket as:
Sell for more than a competitor = Gouging
Sell for less than a competitor = Dumping
Sell for the same as a competitor = Price Fixing
Oh, you misunderstand. I didn't know there was an actual movement.The modern movement of what I would consider anarcho-capitalism has probably only really become a thing in the last 50 years or so (to coincide with Rothbard's writings in the area). I'm surprised you haven't met any online, though. We tend to be the target of a lot of vitriol.
you can't have a functional capitalist system without regulation, because it will always devolve to monopoly.Funny, because I'm of the opposite opinion. You can't have a functional capitalist system with regulation, because it will always devolve to monopoly.
He paints himself as some great philosopher, but he's such a lightweight sophist sometimes that I'm surprised so many people are so enamored with him. Every once in a while he says something that gives me a "Woah, I never thought about it like that" moment, but you have to sort through so much dreck that it's barely worth it.
Given the male-to-female ratio in the anarcho-capitalist movement, the idea of someone professing to be one in order to "get laid" is highly amusing to me. If professing extreme libertarian beliefs has ever dropped panties in the history of the world, I'm completely unaware of it. Perhaps you're thinking of anarcho-communism? :P
Anarcho-capitalism and Obectivism are two completely different things, Objectivists are minarchists (meaning they believe in small government) whereas anarchists don't believe in any government at all (by definition). To say that anarchists believe "you can have all the government you want" is incorrect, as is the assumption that we are all closet randroids.
Ayn Rand was not an anarchist, and anarcho-capitalists generally have a lot of problems with her philosophy.
. . . so are you planning on making an actual argument at some point, or just flinging poo?
Of course, the role of the government in making it too expensive to conduct drug trials on all but the most potentially lucrative drugs must be completely ignored to arrive at this conclusion.
"It'll cost you a billion dollars to get a drug past the FDA."
"Well, I guess I'll stop research any drug unlikely to make at least a billion dollars, then."
"DAMN YOU FREE MARKET!!!!1"
The EFF went to court to get ODNI to stop redacting things that shouldn't have been redacted. The court made ODNI do so.
Seems like a clear win for the EFF to me.
The cry of all governments and their sycophants since the beginning of recorded history:
1. You have something.
2. Give it to me or else.
Re: It is not ridesharing, it is transport for hire
When the term "FUD" was created, they had this comment in mind.