Good news for people who don't like regulation

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 6:55 PM GMT
    So if you—or your family—has been murdered or a victim of terrorism in the UK in the past decade, there is every chance that the News of The World (a tabloid newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch) has hacked into your phone, and conceivably deleted your messages. No, really—it's true. And moreover, the Murdoch empire has done everything it can to prevent details of the scandal getting out.

    The British press isn't regulated, it has a toothless voluntary body in the Press Complaints Commission.

    I think what the story illustrates wonderfully is the depths that private organizations will stoop to in order to pursue profits. The free market, for all its merits, apparently is powerless to prevent newspapers hacking into the cellphones of the murdered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 7:04 PM GMT
    I hope that it takes him down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2011 9:01 PM GMT
    Oh add to that the cellphones of dead servicemen!!!
  • mustangd

    Posts: 434

    Jul 06, 2011 9:53 PM GMT
    total regulation, and total LACK of regulation both do harm. whats missing in contemporary society is movement towards common sense and decency, with a sustained effort to improve all systems put in place to regulate and govern. the UK should put pressure, and maintain it on its government until all partys involved in the macabre pursuit of profit are brought down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 12:16 AM GMT
    You're a troll. Show me anyone who "doesn't believe in regulation" including the lack of property rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 12:40 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidYou're a troll.


    game recognizes game icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 1:09 AM GMT
    Point is... there is a reasonable balance between total Randian anarchy and absolute totalitarianism.

    Some regulation is necessary, but We the People must also keep the government from becoming overly powerful and overly intrusive.

    All the while allowing government to be free from undue influence by private interests which can result in travesties as Tim described in the OP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 1:14 AM GMT
    Hey guys the secret service government conspiracy people have been debasing my character by logging in under my name and cussing, flaming, and strutting like a drunk brunette female North Korean to other RJ members. For that I apologize.

    On a serious note, hope justice is served. But it makes you wonder if THIS company has been caught, then what OTHER more clandestine crimes are other companies engaged in? I'm sure if not already, it won't be too long until a company finds a way to transmit signals to change people's minds and bypassing all perceptive senses in the process. Mind control coming soon. =(
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 1:32 AM GMT
    alphatrigger saidPoint is... there is a reasonable balance between total Randian anarchy and absolute totalitarianism.

    Some regulation is necessary, but We the People must also keep the government from becoming overly powerful and overly intrusive.

    All the while allowing government to be free from undue influence by private interests which can result in travesties as Tim described in the OP.


    How does that demonstrate anything of the sort? When private property is infringed, you have the recourse of the courts. This isn't a question of lack of regulation. If it were, then the government and private individuals would have no recourse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 1:39 AM GMT
    It all makes sense now. Rupert Murdoch is The Reaper that has been invading our RJ forums lately.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 1:40 PM GMT
    So what are you going to say next, that the reason there are crimes against other humans is because there wasn't enough regulation to begin with which would have "protected" them?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 1:53 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidSo what are you going to say next, that the reason there are crimes against other humans is because there wasn't enough regulation to begin with which would have "protected" them?


    Of course not. What I am saying is that those who desire a society with *no regulation at all*—and you have advocated this view yourself—must be aware that there are consequences to such an arrangement. We are frequently advised that the free market can look after itself by such people, despite reams of evidence to the contrary. This is some of the most morally appalling evidence.

    The rhetoric of "more" v "less" regulation is part of the problem. I don't want *more* regulation, I want minimal and effective regulation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 2:04 PM GMT
    They were talking about his on NPR yesterday when I was driving home. Boy, what a way to get egg on your face!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 2:04 PM GMT
    I hope these crooks are punished, it is such a shameful act.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 2:10 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie saidSo what are you going to say next, that the reason there are crimes against other humans is because there wasn't enough regulation to begin with which would have "protected" them?


    Of course not. What I am saying is that those who desire a society with *no regulation at all*—and you have advocated this view yourself—must be aware that there are consequences to such an arrangement. We are frequently advised that the free market can look after itself by such people, despite reams of evidence to the contrary. This is some of the most morally appalling evidence.

    The rhetoric of "more" v "less" regulation is part of the problem. I don't want *more* regulation, I want minimal and effective regulation.


    Exactly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 2:23 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie saidSo what are you going to say next, that the reason there are crimes against other humans is because there wasn't enough regulation to begin with which would have "protected" them?


    Of course not. What I am saying is that those who desire a society with *no regulation at all*—and you have advocated this view yourself—must be aware that there are consequences to such an arrangement. We are frequently advised that the free market can look after itself by such people, despite reams of evidence to the contrary. This is some of the most morally appalling evidence.

    The rhetoric of "more" v "less" regulation is part of the problem. I don't want *more* regulation, I want minimal and effective regulation.


    I've never advocated a "no regulation" position, au contraire I've pointed to instances and situations where government regulation are necessary. In fact, the whole notion of "freedom" and "property rights" only exists with an organized system consisting of a government.

    I'm not an anarchist, sillay.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 2:34 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said In fact, the whole notion of "freedom" and "property rights" only exists with an organized system consisting of a government.


    Wow you've now flipped sides to an extreme Marxist position!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 2:43 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie said In fact, the whole notion of "freedom" and "property rights" only exists with an organized system consisting of a government.


    Wow you've now flipped sides to an extreme Marxist position!



    It's just reality. It's all about the role of government and a balance of power.
  • kew1

    Posts: 1595

    Jul 07, 2011 4:56 PM GMT
    News International (part of News Corp, owners of Fox News) trying to stop the bad reputation by shutting the paper down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2011 10:51 PM GMT
    kew1 saidNews International (part of News Corp, owners of Fox News) trying to stop the bad reputation by shutting the paper down.


    Disgustingly, Rebekah Brooks has not been fired.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 08, 2011 3:40 AM GMT
    Disgustingly, Rebekah Brooks has not been fired.

    Why would she be fired? She's to well connected for things like firing that are for the 'little people' where ones actions and responsibilities are held to account.

    Tiger the difference between markets and your profession is that the former is a creation of, and only exists due to human activity -- the elucidation of physics as we know it of course is filtered through human language and understanding, but would nonetheless exist without us; markets though would not exist without human acitivity. The markets are no better than the humans that are involved and make them, and cannot rise above the humans who run them. There is no overarching 'market' nor nothing magical about the 'market' it's the sum of human commercial interactions and what we decide those to be. The morality or amorality of the market is no greater than that of the humans involved.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2011 8:51 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie saidSo what are you going to say next, that the reason there are crimes against other humans is because there wasn't enough regulation to begin with which would have "protected" them?


    Of course not. What I am saying is that those who desire a society with *no regulation at all*—and you have advocated this view yourself—must be aware that there are consequences to such an arrangement. We are frequently advised that the free market can look after itself by such people, despite reams of evidence to the contrary. This is some of the most morally appalling evidence.

    The rhetoric of "more" v "less" regulation is part of the problem. I don't want *more* regulation, I want minimal and effective regulation.


    I can agree with this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 11, 2011 9:04 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    mocktwinkie said In fact, the whole notion of "freedom" and "property rights" only exists with an organized system consisting of a government.


    Wow you've now flipped sides to an extreme Marxist position!



    Not really.

    The total absence of any government would result in a "who has might, has the rights" scaled up to a rather brutal level. There'd be utterly no respect for property rights or individual freedoms.

    The trick is in balancing the size and effectiveness of government to do its few very important tasks without it becoming just as an egregious usurper of rights and powers as the tribal warlords might in a totally anarchical "society".

    We have a distinct and strange imbalance at present, where both corporations AND government collude at odd places to violate the property rights of individuals and families (the imminent domain issue of Kelo v. City of New London being a particular example).

    But at least we have the judicial process to slow down and burden those who seek to injure other's rights, even if it is far from a perfect system.

    In some countries, those who lose rights and property at gunpoint or swordpoint are much less able to do anything about their lot, particularly if the gunmen are in the employ of "government" however indirectly.