BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

The Nanny State & A Regulated Society Archive

Saturday

3

March 2012

0

COMMENTS

Australia Looks to Regulate Media, Blogs

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Although local to Australia, this news illustrates a useful point. First, the story:

PRINT and online news will come under direct federal government oversight for the first time under proposals issued yesterday to create a statutory regulator with the power to prosecute media companies in the courts.

…The proposals, issued yesterday by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, also seek to widen the scope of federal oversight to cover print, online, radio and TV within a single regulator for the first time.

…Bloggers and other online authors would also be captured by a regime applying to any news site that gets more than 15,000 hits a year, a benchmark labelled “seriously dopey” by one site operator.

The head of the review, former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein, rejected industry warnings against setting up a new regulator under federal law with funding from government.

…”There must be some effective means of raising standards of journalism and of making the media publicly accountable,” the report said. “What the media have lost sight of is that they accepted the idea of press regulation by having set up the APC to make a positive contribution to the development of journalistic standards.

Yes, this is an outrageous assault on the universal principle of free speech. Granting government this kind of authority is, simply put, a recipe for tyrannical disaster. But even beyond the specific issue at hand, the statement in the last paragraph above is particularly myopic.

Where does this idea come from that accountability can only come from political processes? Public accountability is provided by free market competition. There is no stronger mechanism for accountability than the ability of citizens to choose which products they do or do not consume. Political processes, which are vulnerable to corruption and favoritism, are hardly more rigorous.

The last sentence is equally fallacious. If you look carefully at the structure of his sentence, you can see the speaker deliberately hiding the nature of his argument. He speaks of “press regulation,” but not of who is regulating. Self-regulation is not the same as government regulation. The APC, or Australian Press Council, is an industry created and funded body. Its mere existence, regardless of its level of efficacy, is in no way a concession that government should be involved, and it certainly doesn’t resolve the problem of giving government power over media. A free media is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restraining the power and abuses of any government. This initiative will make Australian media, and consequently the Australian people, less free. Let’s hope such bad reasoning does not spread to other nations.

Monday

26

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Obama Administration Sides With Freedom For Once

Written by , Posted in The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Finally, there is an issue for which the Obama administration has not reflexively sided with centralized government and limits on freedom:

A Justice Department opinion dated September and made public on Friday reversed decades of previous policy that included civil and criminal charges against operators of some of the most popular online poker sites.

Until now, the department held that online gambling in all forms was illegal under the Wire Act of 1961, which bars wagers via telecommunications that cross state lines or international borders.

The new interpretation, by the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, said the Wire Act applies only to bets on a “sporting event or contest,” not to a state’s use of the Internet to sell lottery tickets to adults within its borders or abroad.

…But the department’s conclusion would eliminate “almost every federal anti-gambling law that could apply to gaming that is legal under state laws,” Rose wrote on his blog at www.gamblingandthelaw.com.If a state legalized intra-state games such as poker, as Nevada and the District of Columbia have done, “there is simply no federal law that could apply” against their operators, he said.

No comment yet from the despicable, odious weasel Preet Bharara, whose ongoing crusade against human freedom has destroyed the once booming online poker industry in the U.S.

Thursday

8

December 2011

0

COMMENTS

Thursday

24

November 2011

0

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Collateral Damage Edition

Written by , Posted in The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Anyone concerned about the size of government should be weary of the ongoing “Drug War”, which has gotten completely out of hand and employs numerous freedom-limiting methods. The latest example shows just how little our rights matter to those pursuing the self-righteous prohibition (Hat-tip: The Agitator):

Eighty-eight-year-old retired metallurgist Bob Wallace is a self-described tinkerer, but he hardly thinks of himself as the Thomas Edison of the illegal drug world.

He has nothing to hide. His product is packaged by hand in a cluttered Saratoga garage. It’s stored in a garden shed in the backyard. The whole operation is guarded by an aged, congenial dog named Buddy.

But federal and state drug enforcement agents are coming down hard on Wallace’s humble homemade solution, which he concocted to help backpackers purify water.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and state regulators say druggies can use the single ingredient in his “Polar Pure” water purifier — iodine — to make crystal meth.

Wallace says federal and state agents have effectively put him out of business, because authorities won’t clear the way for him to buy or sell the iodine he needs for his purification bottles. He has been rejected for a state permit by the Department of Justice and is scheduled to appeal his case before an administrative judge in Sacramento next month.

Meanwhile, the exasperated Stanford University-educated engineer and his 85-year-old girlfriend said the government — in its zeal to clamp down on meth labs — has instead stopped hikers, flood victims and others from protecting themselves against a bad case of the runs.

This is the new standard for freedom in an overgoverned country. “Can someone possibly use an ingredient to make drugs? Then it’s off limits!” What’s worse is the busy bodies refuse to take responsibility for their choice to limit individual freedoms in pursuit of drug purity:

“Methamphetamine is an insidious drug that causes enormous collateral damage,” wrote Barbara Carreno, a DEA spokeswoman. “If Mr. Wallace is no longer in business he has perhaps become part of that collateral damage, for it was not a result of DEA regulations, but rather the selfish actions of criminal opportunists. Individuals that readily sacrifice human lives for money.”

As the chronically overgoverned, we’re all potential collateral damage.

Wednesday

23

November 2011

0

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Spanish Inquisition Edition

Written by , Posted in The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Just when you think you’re free to promote your flop of a movie… Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition:

Authorities in Spain have fined the producers of Hollywood film Larry Crowne for failing to ensure the lead actors Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts were wearing helmets as they rode on a scooter on the film’s promotional poster.

According to Lowering the Bar:

Spanish law bans any “publicity” that “may incite excessive speed, reckless driving, situations of danger or any other circumstance involving conduct contrary to the principles of the law.” That must make for some pretty damn boring movie posters, if this one was deemed so dangerous that it might incite reckless behavior. It’s Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts on a scooter in a romantic comedy, for God’s sake.

Meanwhile in Spain…

Quick, somebody get some helmets on those bulls!

 

Sunday

20

November 2011

3

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Yes, Europe, Water Does Hydrate

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

The overgoverned laughingstock that is Europe continues to deliver:

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.

“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”

Three years of study by serious “scientists” no doubt – you know, the same folk warning that the planet is about to blow up – and they’ve determined it’s not accurate to claim that water (hydration) does not help prevent dehydration. In essence, water does not help prevent the absence of water.

Oh sure, they have at least a weak justification for their conclusions:

Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water.

He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.

“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”

But the esteemed ivory tower egghead is wrong, water does reduce the risk of dehydration. Mr. Egghead has confused “reduce” for “eliminate”. Yes, you can become dehydrated even if you drink adequate amounts of water, as there are some causes for which that is insufficient. You can also hydrate without drinking pure water because water is an ingredient in so many things. But the claim is not that drinking water guarantees no dehydration, merely that it makes it less likely to happen.

One wonders, as Europe teeters over the edge of a fiscal precipice, just how much money European taxpayers wasted on this pseudo-science.

Sunday

25

September 2011

0

COMMENTS

Wednesday

21

September 2011

2

COMMENTS

Government Has Nerve to Complain About Poker Ponzi Scheme

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, a vile cretin, has decided – now that the government has hounded their business, inhibited their use of reliable financial transaction services, and stolen $100+ million from U.S. poker players – that Full Tilt is a “ponzi scheme” because it can’t pay out what it owes. Gee, I wonder why that might be!

On Tuesday, the U.S. Justice Department in a civil suit accused Messrs. Lederer, Ferguson and Furst, and another director of the company behind the Full Tilt Poker website, of defrauding thousands of online poker players out of more than $300 million that is still owed to them…

“Full Tilt was not a legitimate poker company, but a global Ponzi scheme,” said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in a statement Tuesday. The U.S. government views online poker operations, at least those that cross state lines, as illegal.

…In a statement in August, Full Tilt acknowledged that it was having problems processing player money and said it lost $115 million to government seizure and $42 million it says was stolen by a third-party payment processor.

This thug has the gall to claim from his federal government perch that someone else is running a Ponzi scheme. What, is the government worried about the competition?

I’m not going to defend Full Tilt’s business practices, because I don’t know exactly what they did or did not do. It sounds like they made some questionable, shady and possibly criminal choices when they had reason to believe the noose was tightening. The government drove the market underground, and while individuals bear responsibility for their choices, so too must government accept responsibility for the consequences of not respecting fundamental individual rights. No matter the strength of their claims, it’s rather appalling for the government to seize $100 million in player funds from a company, then slap them with a crime for not having enough funds to met their obligations.

As a customer, I never expected that money deposited on poker sites sat in a bank account untouched anymore than I expect bank deposits to sit in a vault. But if Full Tilt was really scamming customers and not adequately prepared to meet their obligations, as significant evidence does suggest, then DoJ should have built a case on that basis, not stormed in and seized everything in reach from them and other sites. But all we really know now is that Full Tilt met all its obligations until the government thugs moved in for their cut, and then they didn’t. Even if the Feds can make their case, this still reeks of justification after the fact.

And just what is Preet Bharara doing with his ill-gotten goods, anyway? I don’t see him returning the money stolen by the government which is owed to me and millions more. And everything which the government has accused Full Tilt of doing, so too have they done with Social Security. Politicians promised that your involuntary deposits were safe, secure from the rest of the general funds, just as they say Tilt dishonestly claimed. It was a lie. Your money is gone, long ago spent on political pork and criminal vote-buying schemes. But don’t expect those indictments coming down anytime soon. So I ask: who are the bigger criminals here?

Thursday

15

September 2011

0

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: What's In a Name Edition

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

This edition of overgovernment comes with an international flavor. Did you know that before you can name a child in Denmark, you must first get permission from the government? They have approximately 7,000 officially sanctioned baby names to choose from. If you wish to use a name not on the approved list, you must get the permission of no less than the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and the Ministry of Family and Consumer Affairs. And yes, those do sound like organizations taken right out of 1984.

The busybodies claim they are protecting children from names that will single them out for special and unwanted treatment by their peers. Give me a break. While we all feel sorry for the occasional child with an outlandish name (I’m looking at you, Hollywood), this law is not going to protect them from the root of their problem: having idiots for parents. What they are really attempting to do is stop the cultural march of time with legislation, an effort doomed to failure. Just law reflects its culture, it does not attempt to steer it.

Friday

9

September 2011

1

COMMENTS

Overgovernment: Sanity Prevails Edition

Written by , Posted in The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

I don’t want the overgovernment series to be all negative, so here’s a case of common sense prevailing over nanny statism. When California Governor Jerry Brown (D) was sent a bill instituting a fine on children or their parents for snowboarding without a helmet, it was met by his veto pen. More importantly, here’s what he had to say (Hat-tip: Overlawyered):

While I appreciate the value of wearing a ski helmet, I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law.

I believe parents have the ability and responsibility to make good choices for their children.

And that, my friends, is the simple antidote to overgovernment. Someone just has to say ‘no, enough!’ Unfortunately, given how far gone is California already, it is likely too little, too late.

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives