[Number 5]

Originally Posted by serengo

Why should my tax dollars buy weights for prisoners to work out? I am still buying equipment to finish off my home gym, I'm in agreement, but mostly because it's prison, not spring training camp.

Well your argument is perfectly reasonable here if you feel that prisoners should just sit sit there and do their time. I think the idea though is to rehabilitate them and for this purpose they are given access to some activities - books, basketball, weight training, tv or such.

To agree with Badnarik's argument on this though I think you would have to answer affirmatively both questions below whereas I would not.

Would you want the already existing weight training equipment removed from prisons?

Do you think weight training makes prisoners significantly more dangerous and violent?

-5

[serengo]

Originally Posted by Number 5

Well your argument is perfectly reasonable here if you feel that prisoners should just sit sit there and do their time. I think the idea though is to rehabilitate them and for this purpose they are given access to some activities - books, basketball, weight training, tv or such.

To agree with Badnarik's argument on this though I think you would have to answer affirmatively both questions below whereas I would not.

Would you want the already existing weight training equipment removed from prisons?

Do you think weight training makes prisoners significantly more dangerous and violent?

-5

Yes, remove the weight equipment and sell it on ebay, give me back my tax dollars.

It's not that weight training makes them more dangerous, I think they need something to take out the frustration, beat each other up, or better yet push ups, pull-ups and sit ups. That way it doesn't cost me anything.

I am for programs that are low or no cost to taxpayers, we pay enough to put them there. The libertarian would also argue that the bulk of them are there on drug charges and should not be there in the first place.

TV, Books, educational materials, I'm ok with it as long as the tv's are donated, I don't think I should pay for cable tv though. I think there are plenty of free books to go around. Distance education can be had pretty cheap, spend your licence-plate stamping money on it.

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by CDB

To milwood: Yes, Libertarians oppose the ban. While I am a Libertarian it's the same as having the help of a pocket poodle if you're being chased by wolves. Libertarian philosophy is spot on, the Libertarian Party is pretty irrelevant right now. Plus opposition to the ban doesn't make one a Libertarian, I think few people here would find anything they'd identify with ideologically with in that philosophy. Many people here who have a problem with the government taking their 'roids away have absolutely no problem with the government taking someone's weed away. They'll argue that their drug is different. Usual argument is steroids are used to improve oneself, weed isn't, stuff like that. Few if any will see the ultimate principle of self ownership is what's at issue, and that it requires a defense of someone being able to use whatever substances they want regardless of the effects and purposes of those substances, and whether or not we agree with the ultimate end for the person who chooses to use.
To kwyckemynd00: You can't invite the government into other people's lives but keep it out of your own, here or abroad. It's in or out. As far as borders are concerned, it's a problem without a clear solution. It takes a massive state apparatus to maintain open borders and the incentive to cross them, just as a big an apparatus as it takes to close them. Private property and the unquestioned right to defend it is a good solution, as is ending the various government handouts that are available to illegals. Basically you need to hit a balance where the benefits of immigrating legally outweight those of illegal immigration, and where the costs of the former are also significantly lower than the latter. Basically this leads to a situation where those of good intent take the easy legal route, and the fewer who have ill intent towards our country are easier to target and deal with. Compound this with getting the government out of its major role as owner of tons if not most of the land west of the Mississippi and you get results. It's harder to cross a pissed off neighbor's yard than it is our borders. It would also lead to fewer people abroad being pissed at us if we'd stop interfering with their lives at our convenience.

To Strateg0s: Antitrust law is not good, it's economic protectionism and has been since its inception. Monopolies and cartels can't exist without government intervention in their favor, they fall apart from competition not only from other companies but from within. Thomas DiLorenzo has written much and well on this subject, I'd reccomend reading some of his stuff, and even listening to some of his recorded lectures from The Mises Institute. Here's a link to one of his articles: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=436&id=73 His recordings are available at that site too, I'd reccomend the one entitled The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation. You'll find similar articles there as to the essential uselessness of the SEC: http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=308&id=73, http://www.mises.org/etexts/insidertrading.pdf.

As for the patriot act, I have read bits of it. Some, but very little makes sense. For example floating wire taps are a common sense thing, it's stupid that law enforcement should have to get a warrant and approval to tap every phone a person has, and all they have to do is pick up a new cell phone to avoid the tap. But then there's also bits that say the government can search your house and never let you know. Not so good. There's also little to no way to stop the judges who need to approve many of the measures in the Patriot Act from becoming rubber stampers, signing off on damn near everything that's presented to them.

However what bothers me most is that it never occurs to people to question why the bill was available so quickly. Basically similar but more disjointed bills had been presented to congress before and shot down because of consitutional concerns. There was always an excuse, usually the war on drugs, used for expanding government powers in such a way. It was mostly wrong pre 9/11, it's wrong post 9/11 too. It's one thing to introduce legislation to correct idiotic rulings that offer criminals more protection under the law than their victims ever have, the Patriot Act is another thing entirely.

WHile I'm not about to endorse the abandonment of all anti-trust law, as for the rest of it

[CDB]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

WHile I'm not about to endorse the abandonment of all anti-trust law, as for the rest of it

Thanks bro. As for the anti trust issue, I used to agree. It's unbelievable how far I've drifted from what I used to believe. But, bottom line is that the more I read pro and con on that specific issue, the less and less the pro side made sense. In fact right now it makes no sense. Right now and over it's history antitrust law has been used to protect less efficient businesses (often small too) from more efficient businesses. If you look at many of the industries that wre targeted during the first antitrust campaigns, such as the meat industry, the companies that were accused of monopolizing were lowering prices dramaticall faster than other companies in the same industry. Monoplies are supposed to raise prices, and in the end this makes sense logically.

If a man's competitor was raising prices he wouldn't complain to the government. Either he could raise prices too and form an informal or formal cartel, or he could undercut his competitor's prices and get those customers shopping with him. Either way it's a win win situation for the business. However, if his competitor is lowering prices and he just can't stay in business while charging the same or less, he definitely will complain to government for some special intervention to subsidize his less efficient business.

Now there is the predatory pricing line, which on it's face is absolute nonsense. It goes like this: a company will lower prices to ridiculous levels to drive out all competitors and then raise prices. Try selling that to your boss, 'cause this is what it would sound like: "Hey boss, let's take a loss on sales of this product that we make for long enough to put everyone else out of business, then I guarantee you we can raise prices to astronomical levels and no competitor will ever come onto the market to challenge those prices. Oh, and those losses we'll just have to eat for a few years, basically however long it takes to put everyone else out business." If you presented that line to your boss, you'd get fired and put into an institution. But weirdly enough people buy this predatory pricing argument, mostly because they don't understand what a price is and who sets it.

A more recent example was the antitrust suit against Microsoft. There are other options for operating systems out there, Windows is number one because by action (that's what they buy) it's what consumers have chosen. That gives Microsoft an edge in the market which allows them to bundle this or include that, but there's nothing unfair or uncompetitive about it. That is the nature of competition. All those other companies were essentially just pissing and moaning that with their budget and methods they simply couldn't do better in any way that mattered to consumers. That doesn't mean Microsoft was uncompetitive, it means those other companies were losing in the competition and, as usual, tried to bring in the government to "level the playing field," or in other words punish and hinder the winner.

I think the main problem is people these days have a weird idea what constitutes competition. It's reflected in steroid using body builder vs nonusers. I've often heard it state that using steroids is somehow cheating or unfair. Nonsense. The builders who use them found an effective tool which they learned to use and are willing to accept the risks. This approach lets them achieve superior results. Just because a natural guy can't or won't use AAS doesn't make the guy who does less of a competitor. Were we to take the anticompetitive argument to it's extreme, all caloric intake of pro body builders and all sports competitors should be controlled to be sure everyone was playing on a "level playing field" nutritionally. Multivitamins would be banned. Those with superior genetics would have to be hindered in some way to make sure they don't have any unfair advantages over their less genetically gifted competitors, etc.

Once more I reccomend DiLorenzo's lecture The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation, available in the audio video section of the Mises Institute's website for an overview. It's an eye openning thirty or forty minute lecture. As a reccomentation I've never found a more valuable resource on the web except for exrx.net as The Mises Institute's website.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by CDB

...
I think the main problem is people these days have a weird idea what constitutes competition. It's reflected in steroid using body builder vs nonusers. I've often heard it state that using steroids is somehow cheating or unfair. Nonsense. The builders who use them found an effective tool which they learned to use and are willing to accept the risks. This approach lets them achieve superior results. Just because a natural guy can't or won't use AAS doesn't make the guy who does less of a competitor. Were we to take the anticompetitive argument to it's extreme, all caloric intake of pro body builders and all sports competitors should be controlled to be sure everyone was playing on a "level playing field" nutritionally. Multivitamins would be banned. Those with superior genetics would have to be hindered in some way to make sure they don't have any unfair advantages over their less genetically gifted competitors, etc.....

Simply awesome! LOL. That analogy works perfect.


100% agreement on anti-trust laws.