More Government abuse of corporations leading us to the Nanny State

[yesthattom]

The libertarian in me is again offended by the U.S. government infringement on the right for companies to do wahteverthefucktheywant.

http://ftc.gov/opa/2006/09/enternet.htm

Last week, if you remember, I posted about the FCC forcing Verizon and Bell South to change their prices and not let the market forces play out (I still contend that if people want to pay an extra $3/month for DSL, they should be able to vote with their monthly automatic payments that discourage people from actually reading the bill.)

People made the argument that I was misrepresenting the libertarian rhetoric. I’ve submitted their names to the party for censure since they are obviously not true libertarians if they can’t see the benefits of the free market at all costs. They should have their membership cards taken, burned, like the flags that we feel should be burnable.

The fundamental reality is that PEOPLE SHOULD BE FREE TO SIGN CONTRACTS WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.

Last week we let the FCC get away with their communistic, fascist price controls. We have simply emboldened the government to further encroach on our liberties. As you can see in this article the FTC has forced a software company from closing their doors. Why you crypto fascists may call them a “spyware outfit” or “scam artists” or people that make “misleading representations regarding the performance, benefits, features, cost, or nature or effect of any type of software code, file, or content”, I call these people freedom fighters.

Every one of their software products included a disclaimer which is a legally binding contract that said that by clicking on the “Send me free money” button the client would receive viruses, spyware, and corrupted hard disks in exchange for no actual money. If the government is going to stop this kind of thing, what kind of “Nanny State” are we going to build? If people don’t learn on their own to read contracts, they’ll just get in more trouble. If we feed the poor (like that communist Jesus said to do), then they’ll just never learn to feed themselves. If we tax adults to pay to educate the young, we’ll breed a generation of children that think that education is free, and therefore useless, and therefore won’t be able to get jobs.

One of the most fundamental freedoms in this county is the ability for two people to sign a contract without the government getting in the way. Letting petty things like, “fraud” and “identity theft” and “stealing grandmothers life savings” become excuses for letting tyranny creep into our lives, then eventually no business will be able to stay in business. Slippery slope! Slippery slope!

The FTC stopped a company that had made over $8 million dollars. To be honest, I think the government is just jealous of their success.

Please join me in writing to the FTC to demand that they stop impinging on the American right to freely conduct business.

Comments

[nulldevice.livejournal.com]

Q: How many libertarians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: None, market forces will take care of that.

[sfo2lhr.livejournal.com]

Not quite sure why you insist on ranting against a straw man, instead of actually trying to understand libertarian doctrine and its position on a number of the issues that you write about. Misrepresenting the libertarian position so you can attempt to hold it up to ridicule is pretty much the same thing that idiots like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh do with the left; maybe it scores a few points with an unsophisticated audience, but it does not hold up to any sort of factual analysis, and they just end up looking like buffoons. You're much more intelligent than that, and this type of rhetorical appeal is, shall we say, less than flattering.

Again, libertarians do not, under any circumstances, condone fraud, and the prohibition against the use of force or fraud to achieve economic or political goals is the most fundamental libertarian principle. Tricking people into installing malware through hidden disclaimers and fake click-through "agreements" is fraud; no valid contract is formed.

Since contract law and theory is central to libertarian principles, it is especially important to determine the actual intent to form a contract. While libertarians believe that people should be free to agree to all sorts of things, including things that the government might not approve of, that is by no means license to defraud people. And what's worse, I'm sure you actually know that, but have chosen to overlook it in order to attack a straw man. Come on; you can do much better than that.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

> Misrepresenting the
> libertarian position so you can attempt to hold it up to ridicule is
> pretty much the same thing that idiots like Bill O'Reilly and Rush
> Limbaugh

Ah, but I label my post as "parody" which they do not.

> Not quite sure why you insist on ranting against a straw man

I promise to stop when libertarians stop portraying Democrats as people that want 100% taxation on all income.

I promise to stop when libertarians admit that their existance has aided the current political situation where we are within striking distance of facism, the exact anti-goal of libertarianism.

> Come on; you can do much better than that.

No, actually this is about as good as my political writing gets.

[la-directora.livejournal.com]

I promise to stop when libertarians stop portraying Democrats as people that want 100% taxation on all income.

I promise to stop when libertarians admit that their existance has aided the current political situation where we are within striking distance of facism, the exact anti-goal of libertarianism.

Amen! *cheer* Woo hoo! *applause*

[sfo2lhr.livejournal.com]

> I promise to stop when libertarians admit that their existence has
> aided the current political situation where we are within striking
> distance of fascism, the exact anti-goal of libertarianism.

OK, that I just don't get at all. No libertarian I know supported George Bush, nor supported Republican efforts to reduce personal freedom, or spending for the war in Iraq, domestic spying and wiretapping, the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo or "extraordinary rendition" to other countries, support the Justice Department's "War on Porn" or increased enforcement of drug laws (including things like civil seizure). In fact, libertarians have been in the forefront of opposing, exposing, and litigating against the government in those areas.

Our record is much better in those areas than the Democratic Party's, whose elected representatives have been complicit in a lot of those things.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

When campaigning it is Republicans that say things like, "I'm from the libertarian side of the Republican party". When speaking in interviews it is the Republican think-tanks that speak with a libertarian philosophy and then pretend to be aghast when Bush does the things you say above. When Grover Norqust, the biggest trend setter in the Republican party speaks about killing the government like a baby drowning in a bathtub, he is exspousing his libertarian, no government, ideals.

You didn't realize that Republicans run on your platform in all cases except when they are talking to the Kristian Konservative Kooks?

> Our record is much better in those areas than the Democratic Party's,

"Our record"? Dude, you've never gotten anyone elected in a significant position. That's like a virgin whining that he'd be great in bed if only someone would have sex with him to find out. If a Libertarian candidate got into Congress then and only then would you have a receord. Until then, it's just a philosophy. And heaven forbid someone from the LP got elected to Congress he'd be unable to make any impact because his own supporters would disown him for the littlest compromise.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

> Again, libertarians do not, under any circumstances, condone fraud, and
> the prohibition against the use of force or fraud to achieve economic
> or political goals is the most fundamental libertarian principle.

Wait a second... maybe I don't understand what the libertarian phrase "condon fraud" means.

I've be LECTURED TO by libertarians that say that the way to fight polution is to let people polute all they want (remove all anti-polution laws) because they will see that it hurts everyone and market forces will eventually come up with a better way to make goods that does not pollute.

These people were not talking about carbon credits. They were saying that factories should be allowed to dump toxic waste in my town because that is better than the facism that is unavoidable by having an EPA.

> Tricking people into installing malware through hidden disclaimers
> and fake click-through "agreements" is fraud; no valid contract
> is formed.

Click-through fraud is just pollution on the internet.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

> libertarians do not, under any circumstances, condone fraud

Another way to respond to this, and hopefully a more constructive way, is to ask, "How do libertarians want anti-fraud laws enforced?" I ask this because the constant rallying cry of "fight big government by cutting taxes" has resulted in my state having basically no department of consumer protection left, no EPA, and so on.

Is this a libertarian policy that backfired or do libertarians think that law enforcement can be done some other way that would be completely no cost to the tax payers?

[sfo2lhr.livejournal.com]

That's a much more reasonable question, but not a terrifically interesting one; libertarians would enforce fraud law the same way everybody else does, by a combination of law enforcement (criminal law) and litigation (civil law). You don't see much of a push among libertarians to cut the enforcement of fraud laws. To some extent criminal law can be made much more efficient, by focusing law enforcement on things that actually harm people. If the immense cost of the War on Drugs (etc.) was gotten rid of, there would be more resources to go around.

(Personally, I'm not convinced click-through fraud is a particularly high law enforcement priority; there are technical means of combating it (as well as other Internet perils), and it's easily avoided by education (which is provided free by other netizens)).

[darkvervain.livejournal.com]

Um.. fascism is not the same as communism.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Food for thought. Something to think about when you consider those "free market forces".
People don't really vote with their currency, rather, it's just less and less choice out there.

[la-directora.livejournal.com]

For the record, after a few minutes of, "Uh...*blink*...is he serious?" I figured out it was meant as parody. Without even noticing the entry's tags. :)