Slashdot Mirror

The government didn't always regulate phone companies. That started in 1984

No, regulation of phone companies began long before that.

In this particular story at least, no one was killed. Considering just how often SWAT teams kill innocents with their no-knock, shoot-first tactics, this kid is lucky he hasn't been implicated in a wrongful death (yet)

I wouldn't use the term "lucky"...

According to the link at: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4279675/Struck-by-lightning-deaths-in.html#abstract

about 82 people die each year in the US due to lightning strikes.

According to the link at: http://www.cato.org/raidmap/, at total of 82 people died in the 22 years between 1985 and 2007 due to police raids. This means that according to the Cato Institute, death by lightning strike about 22 times more likely than death due to a police raid.

According to the same site, only 299, or an average of only 13.59 cases/year of wrongful police action (lethal and nonlethal) took place. This still makes being a victim of a police raid less likely than being killed by a bolt of lightning.

I don't consider someone who wasn't struck by lightning "lucky." I consider it the normal state of affairs.

I'll borrow a link from another poster that is better than the one I had.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Hell, a 80-year-old grandmother was killed dead because the cops could just bust in with no warning and start shooting. Too bad the scum got the wrong fucking house. Makes me sick.

In this particular story at least, no one was killed. Considering just how often SWAT teams kill innocents with their no-knock, shoot-first tactics, this kid is lucky he hasn't been implicated in a wrongful death (yet).

It seems to me that there is a big difference between phone phreaking to get free long-distance calls and spoofing phone numbers to bring SWAT down on an innocent family.

"If Congress didn't have the power (PackMan97)" - I agree completely, and so does the Cato institute - http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/index.html. I think the best route for removing corruption is to reduce (significantly) the power wielded by the federal government and the nearly endless bureaucracies that have grown uncontrollably underneath it. Just adding more layers of government to try and reign in the existing government is only going to make things worse. To the largest extent possible taxes should be collected, and decisions made to reallocate it as close to the taxpayer as possible - local cities, townships, counties, states - the further removed the decision to spend the taxpayer's money, the less accountable the decision maker is to the taxpayer and the more likely the ability to spend the money will be abused - and the more money will be available for abuse. A crooked city official may have a pet porkbarrel project, but his budget will be pocket change compared to federal dollars, and he'll have a much harder time hiding it from his neighbors.

I also like the way the 'fair tax' removes much of the governments power by doing away with the 'social engineering' aspects of taxes, and thus the temptation for special interests to influence government to manipulate the tax system to their benefit - www.fairtax.org.

I loved lessig's 'copyright culture' book - I wish him luck. I'd love to see someone with sense in a position to balance some of the idiocy currently generated in the US government - and hopefully serve as a role model to counteract some pretty dumb ideas being floated in other countries - http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/14/1626228

This paper has been published today by the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9181
Among other things, it agrees with me that the gold standard was not responsible for the Great Depression.

Yes, while you made wild over-generalizations about what goes on in other countries, you still did not refute the fact corporate income tax policy has an effect on behavior.

If IBMs taxes go down they are able to invest more money and hire more people like you and me to work for them or to pay out as dividends to their shareholders (who will then reinvest them). If a government raises taxes rational actors will move their operations and investments elsewhere as long as the costs of doing so don't exceed the tax benefits. If IBMs taxes become so high that they leave your town/state/country it most certainly will affect you. You can lose your job, businesses and suppliers that benefit from the direct and ancilliary economic activity they provided will suffer, and ALL the tax money associated with all that activity will disappear! This is exactly why Estonia, Ireland, Switzerland, a few dozen other countries around the globe are booming locations of investment, jobs, and wealth creation. Their governments aren't penalizing positive returns on investment. The opposite is also true; jurisdictions with excessive corporate income taxes are seeing low or negative rates of foreign direct investment growth and theie statist governments liek those in Old Europe are screaming for "tax harmonization" to stop the flight of jobs, capital, and talent.

And it's factually inaccurate to say all taxes are created equal. Some have effects on investment (corporate income tax), others on consumption (sales, vat, sin taxes). Other taxes influence all sorts of behavior like tolls, carbon taxes, congestion taxes, etc. Eventually only individuals pay these taxes, but that's a truism with no value to your argument.

And you errantly lumped in health insurance as equivalence to income tax when it's the exact opposite. Employers in the U.S. deduct health insurance expenses from their income and don't pay taxes on that money at all making it part of your compensation. In fact it was specifically designed as a way to pay people more during the obscenely high tax rates in the post WWII era. It's nothing like the socialized medicine of some, but nowhere near "most", nations which actually impose a tax like we do for medicare. Corporations are made to serve the interests of those that own them just like you exist to serve your own interests, as different from mine as they may be.

A few places to start your education:
Intro to the Laffer Curve:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIqyCpCPrvU
Global Tax Competition:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8382
News from the Worldwide trend towards lower taxes:http://tax-news.com/

According to Cato his tax cuts weren't really cuts. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8838

He raised taxes on everything from groceries to nursing home beds. Huckabee answers these complaints by pointing out that he "cut taxes 94 times" while governor. True. But most of those tax cuts were tiny, like exempting residential lawn care from the sales tax. Some cuts reduced overall state revenues by as little as $15,000. On net, Huckabee increased state taxes by more than $500 million. In fact, Huckabee increased taxes in the state by more than Bill Clinton did.

You do realize that crime is a complex issue, right? It's absurd to suggest that armed citizens is the solution.

You do realize that banning guns raises the crime rate in a city, right? How about DC for a nice example of that. Or is that not big city enough for you?

To you, you have your own opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, that doesn't counter factual evidence. This is along the same lines of "I don't want XYZ regardless of studies/logic".Non-factual opinion has no basis in the court of law, nor in politics.

Plus, consider that our military during times of peace consists of volunteers. They're citizens, and people just as you are. You really think most of the armed forces are going to unload their stuff on their own people, because they're ordered to do so?

I don't worry about a military dictatorship in this country. But a Police State is another thing.

Police officers have already demonstrated a willingness to kill civilians over trivial matters, and then rationalize it afterwards. The prosecutors that are supposed to oversee the police do not hold them accountable for their crimes.

Radley Balko has been doing a marvelous job of researching and reporting about this.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

http://www.theagitator.com/category/paramilitary-police-raids/

http://www.theagitator.com/category/police-professionalism/

http://www.reason.com/staff/hitandrun/143.html (scroll down)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193652,00.html

See also

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4203345.html

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2006/11/post_685.php

http://justiceforsal.com/

http://joelrosenberg.livejournal.com/

I don't know if things have always been this bad and if a communication medium like the internet is making it easer to report and read about these atrocities, or if things are genuinely getting worse. Probably both.

But it's telling that those who believe we currently live under a fascist regime are also proponents of gun control ( http://www.reason.com/news/show/117833.html ). I'm sure it's not fascism they oppose, as long as their guy (or gal) is in power.

Another one bites the dust! You can try to run a business just making things that people want and taking their money for it, but at some point somebody with power will smell your money and want a cut, if not of the money itself then at least of the influence that comes with it. David Boaz wrote a wonderful little editorial when Google set up a lobbying office, and he provocatively called it "Parasite Economy Latches onto New Host." A little shrill, maybe, but not really all that bad an analogy. And it is good to remember that the problem comes from two sides: companies lobby government for goodies, but at the same time government will do bad things to companies that fail to set up shop in DC (or Brussels, or wherever the nearest concentration of political power is.)

As the child of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens who bothered to obey the laws, learn English, and not expect a handout, I find it wholly offensive that anyone should propose that we do not deal with stopping people from sneaking across the borders and illegally taking up residence here.

Being part Native American Indian I find it offensive that those, or their descendants, who invaded the Americas and massacred those already here now seek to stop others from also immigrating.

First things first, however... it has to stop with sealing the borders... stop the influx before dealing with who's here.

The first question that needs to be asked is why people would risk their lives to "illegally" immigrate. For many, if they can earn a living where they are from they will stay there. And yes, the US is partially to blame. Because of the billions of dollars large agribusinesses like ADM and Cargill get in subsidies, corporate welfare, and NAFTA these businesses can export corn to Mexico and sell it there for cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn.

And Cargill is the poster child of corporate welfare.

that's interesting and all, but locally, i remember paying $1 for 12 ears of sweet corn to cook. last year, it was about $1/ear - that's 100% increase in about 3 years. what's going on with my local farms? are they not subsidized?

No, small farmers don't get much in subsidies. Big agribusinesses like Archer Damiel Midland, ADM, and Cargill get the subsidies. The Libertarian Freemarket CATO institute has a policy analysis on "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare". And: "Largest farms and firms get subsidies; Cargill among beneficiaries, list shows."

Subsidies are about keeping farmers working for cheap

Subsidies are about stuffing the pockets of corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill. "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare". "Largest farms and firms get subsidies; Cargill among beneficiaries, list shows". Notice how the ADM case study is from the Freemarket CATO Institute.

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America

Saddam invaded Kuwait and made lame attempt to explain his position on annexing it (it was always part of Iraq, etc).

Not defending Saddam Hussein at all, but there's some historical basis for Iraq and Kuwait being the same country.

The west has been fooling around with that region for a *very* long time, and it hasn't necessarily done very much good.

Saddam was a horrible asshole. Everyone can agree with that. But, like when Tito died in Yugoslavia, sometimes when you have some horrible asshole in charge, it keeps a difficult balance of people who would otherwise kill each other.

Now we get to be the assholes keeping everyone from killing each other ...

There are currently limitations on habeas corpus for aliens, not citizens.

The GP is right and you're wrong on this. All the Bush admin feels it needs to do is call someone an enemy combatant. This admin denied the US citizen Jose Padilla habeas corpus. CATO has called this a Dangerous Precedent.

Great grandparent only asked about medical costs, this is a nice article about the bigger picture: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n3c.html
It says the government probably is making more off taxes then the cost of smoking, and that it is stupid to say that its purpose is to fix the social/medical cost when it is really about bureaucrats making money, kinda like the music industry.

God, it must take a team of coaches to help one person be so stupid.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

"SWAT isn't going to shoot unless they have reason to AT THE SCENE."

Innocent people who have died due to SWAT raids in recent years:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/index.php?type=1

For example:

March 24, 1992--WA

In March 1992, police in Everett, Washington storm the home of Robin Pratt on a no-knock warrant. They are looking for her husband, who would later be released when the allegations in the warrant turned out to be false.

Though police had a key to the apartment, they instead choose to throw a 50-pound battering ram through the apartment's sliding-glass door. Glass shards land inches away from the couple's six-year-old daughter and five-year-old niece. One officer encounters Robin Pratt on the way to her bedroom. Hearing other SWAT team members yell "Get down!" Pratt falls to her knees. She then raises her head briefly to say, "Please don't hurt my children." At that point, Deputy Anthony Aston fires his weapon, putting a bullet in her neck, killing her.

Officers next entered the bedroom, where Dep. Aston then put the tip of his MP-5 assault submachine gun against Larry Pratt's head. When Pratt asked if he could move, another officer said that if he did, he'd have his head blown off.

Though a subsequent investigation by a civilian inquest jury found the shooting "unjustified," the officer who shot and killed Pratt was never charged.

***

February 17, 1988--WA

In February 1988, police in Seattle, Washington conduct a late-night drug raid on the home of 41-year old Erdman Bascomb after an informant tells them there's cocaine inside.

Police knock on Bascomb's door, wait just a few seconds, then force the door open with a battering ram. Officer Bob Lisoski confronts Bascomb in the darkened apartment, mistakenly believes Bascomb to be holding a gun, and shoots him dead. Bascomb was holding only the remote control for his television.

Police found no drugs or weapons in Bascomb's home. In 1995, a federal jury found no wrongdoing on the part of Seattle police, and awarded Bascomb's family no damages.

Police Chief Patrick Fitzsimons, who had retired by the time the case made it to trial, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that "Police work requires a lot of high-risk situations and split-second decisions. Our officers are well-trained and exercise their best judgment. On a rare occasion, something tragic happens. But there is an awful lot of tragedy in the crack cocaine world."

The 'accident' occurred because proper procedures were either not developed or enforced. Fingers shouldn't be on the trigger until you're ready to fire.

There have been multiple instances where the shooting has been deliberate - catching people half asleep and shooting them because they don't have both hands visible soon enough, or there's a shadow, or something.

Of course if it was anyone other than a cop, they'd be arrested for murder.

Exactly. I tend to hold police to a higher standard, because just like doctors or surgeons, the consequence of a mistake can be death or lifelong disability.

Remember that shooting in Wisconsin last week? Besides being a part-time town and county LEO the shooter was also a SWAT trainee. Oh, and the AR-15 used was SWAT gear.

Sleep well kiddies.

Remember that shooting in Wisconsin last week? Besides being a part-time town and county LEO the shooter was also a SWAT trainee. Oh, and the AR-15 used was SWAT gear.

Sleep well kiddies.

It's a potentially lethal prank.

SWAT are paramilitary - just like soldiers in Iraq, they're generally much more primed to 'shoot first and ask questions later'. This, while acceptable in high risk situations like clearing buildings with terrorists in them, hostage situations, and active shooter cases, you don't want them running around in active mode in normal areas/situations.

SWAT has been known to kill people when stuff like this happens.

Because no one has ever been killed in a SWAT raid before. Certainly never an innocent person.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

Natural monopolies really don't occur very often compared to the myth perpetuated by greedy rent-seekers like AT&T and Comcast. Sure, in Econ 101, the argument is made that the duplicative effects of having multiple companies run wire to each home are so high that the marketplace can only sustain 1 profitable company. But the market is "dynamic and rivalrous," meaning that technological forces ensure no single company will maintain the lowest average cost curve for very long.

Currently, the FCC prevents any other company from laying down wire (not to mention a myriad of local and state regulations). But how can we know if competition can sustain itself unless we give it a chance? Cable companies and telcos have essentially bought off public officials, offering a cut of their huge profits if local lawmakers will grant them government-enforced monopoly status.

Laying wire isn't cheap, but if you look at rate of return for telcos in unregulated services it's close to 50%. A second competitor may have to undertake a large initial capital investment to enter the market, but there is so much demand for packet-based services that multiple companies could coexist and still make money. After all, we have 2 sets of wires running currently with much the same services increasingly available (triple play) and cable was only installed a few decades ago. Even if no one enters, the potential for entry itself deters monopolistic pricing-as opposed to the current system where the telcos and cable companies do not even face the theoretical possibility of anyone else laying last mile copper.

Just because initial capital investment costs are high does not mean a service will not be provided. New airlines still pop up even though the cost of purchasing an airline fleet is enormous. Japanese car companies went from relatively small operations to global leaders in just a few decades, even though the fixed capital needed to mass produce automobiles is astronomical. Sprint has no problem spending billions of dollars on Wi-Max, a new, untested technology with plenty of existing alternatives.

Research by Adam Thierer has shown that prior to AT&T convincing local officials to grant it a monopoly, there were over 200 phone companies in some states, and AT&T had less than 50% market share in the nation as prices dropped rapidly. As DiLorenzo points out, when localities have decided to let a second company build cable lines, the result has been a resounding success for consumers. In Riviera Beach, Florida; Presque Island, Maine; and Sacramento, California, when cable companies were allowed to compete the result was enormously beneficial to consumers.

The current regulated system is a clear failure. As several other posters have explained, because CLECs pay what the government says they pay, nobody wants to invest in upgrading infrastructure, adding more central offices, or upgrading last mile copper. Even in dense, wealthy urban areas, lots of people live too far from their CO to get decent speed. VDSL is limited to around a mile from the CO.

With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, things worked pretty well for a while. But after a few years, when the need for adding equipment and modernizing infrastructure grew imminent, the lack of incentives to invest have started to drag the telcos behind the cable companies. The only major effort by an incumbent in the last decade has been FIOS, which doesn't face the same rules as copper. DSL hasn't come nearly as far as cable in the last few years, and with DOCSIS 3.0 and SDV emerging the gap will continue to grow. Why? Because cable companies are spending billions at upgrading, while telcos are dragging their feet because copper is regulated to the point of discouraging investment.

Even the Cato Institute, which is considered a conservative think tank, is unhappy about the denial of habeas corpus. They're also opposed to the extension of "anti-terror" legislation.

It's not clear why so many Republicans are still supporting this. It's not like being aligned with Bush will get them re-elected.

Swat doesn't get called unless there is a barricade, ongoing threat of life or hostage situation.

[wince]

If only this was true.

I suggest that you look at historical tobacco advertising; I think you'll find that a popular perception of smoking as beneficial, sophisticated, or calming, with the primary distinguishing characteristics touted against the other brands being flavor, smoothness, less irritation, less aftertaste, and the like; only one or two brands cited a lower nicotine content, and there were no health warnings at all. " Philip Morris brings you the delightful flavor and aroma of the worlds finest tobaccos - with never a worry about throat irritation. So, be smart! Be sensible! Join the millions who... CALL FOR PHILLIP MORRIS!" Other sites with material about the history of tobacco advertising, describing ad campaigns like the mid-1920s slogan "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet", conceived by George Washington Hill, president of the American Tobacco Company, and the candy companies' return "Do not let anyone tell you that a cigarette can take the place of a piece of candy. The cigarette will inflame your tonsils, poison with nicotine every organ of your body, and dry up your blood--nails in your coffin." The FTC, in the 1940s, began a campaign to eliminate health claims from tobacco advertising, but in its ruling in a case against the R.J. Reynolds corporation didn't establish any harm arising from smoking, but only that all cigarettes were essentially equivalent, so no claims of comparative benefit could be made: The record shows . . . that the smoking of cigarettes, including Camel cigarettes in moderation by individuals . . . who are accustomed to smoking and who are in normal good health . . . is not appreciably harmful."

Don't forget Clinton's Blunder in the Balkins!

We lost over.. zero troops there. And then we had a... lasting peace established. And we were noted, by both Muslim and European countries for... accomplishing such a difficult task so well, while earning world approbation from our leadership while working with NATO.

Of course, Clinton was responsible for reducing military readiness by... increasing military spending by 7% during his administration, and, then there was that nation building thing, using U.S. troops, that all right thinking people oppose.

But yeah, there was that lying under oath thing, that cost some many people their lives, shredded the Constitution and ruined U.S. reputation around the world.

Darn you Clinton. Darn you to heck!

About 2/3 of drunk driving accidents involve a BAC of .14 or higher, and that most fatal accidents involve .17 or higher. It might surprise you that eating bread can make you appear to be over the legal limit according to the same breathalyzer referred to in the article, and lowering the limit will just make this sort of thing more common.

Having one beer, then driving somewhere 2 hours later does NOT make someone a threat to other drivers. Threat to others is the only justification for drunk driving laws.

The shuttle is anything but cost effective.

From The Cato Institute:
...David Gump in Space Enterprise estimates that the cost in constant dollars of putting payloads into orbit went from $3,800 per pound under Apollo to $6,000 with the Shuttle. If the market had reduced that cost by, say, 60 percent, putting a pound in orbit today would cost only $1,500. Alex Roland of Duke University estimates that the cost of a Shuttle flight, including development and capital costs, is not the $350 million claimed by NASA but as much as $2 billion. This would mean a cost per pound of about $35,000!

I could rant on...

I will preface this post by saying that I am not attacking you directly. I only want give you links to the information you requested.
1. http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=19 55237&page=1 20/20 story you referenced. In reading the article it looks like your description of the story is misleading. They do not say secondhand smoke is not dangerous, only that there is a group of extremists that take banning smoking way too far.
2. http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.498/pub_det ail.asp You said the anti-smoking lobby does not give details how they confirm people die from smoking. This is response of the American Council on Science and Health to the article "Lies, Damned Lies & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths" published by the Cato Institute and the National Smokers Alliance. It details how statistical information is gathered and verified.
3. http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-29-99.html You said most people diagnosed of dying of smoking are over age 70. Even according to this is the website for CATO (part of the pro-tobacco lobby) 52% of people diagnosed with dying due to smoking were over 70. So a guess according to the tobacco lobby you are technically correct (if only by a margin of 2%)

I guess that is why we like to see facts and reasoning in posts, even if it does take a couple of minutes to look them up. Anyone can make of the cuff statements about things they heard once upon a time.(Sorry guess that last line was a bit of a personal attack.)

From the Cornell Law School Wex:

Ex post facto

Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, 9 and Art. 1 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995).

The distinction between civil and criminal in ex post facto cases was made in Calder v.Bull, 1798.

You can argue The Case Against Civil Ex Post Facto Laws, but the Supreme Court is not in the habit of overturning 200 years of settled law.

I'd be more inclined to point to the high rate of gun crime in DC to the high population density though.

A follow-up study by Wright and Rossi of serious felons in American prisons provided further evidence that gun control would not impede determined criminals. [5] It also indicated that civilian gun ownership does deter some crime. Three-fifths of the prisoners studied said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. Two-fifths of them had decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun. Criminals in states with higher civilian gun ownership rates worried the most about armed victims.

Some businesses and people do but most don't.

Though, if supply and demand are the only factors, then the small percentage of americans now farming may very well be priced out of the farming market and may enter other fields.

How so? If, as it has been opined by many replying to this article say, there's competition between crops for food or fuel prices will go up. This means more people will want to take advantage of the increase in price by becoming farmers. As it is now, people are being drivien off farms in the US, especially smaller farmers and their children, because they can make more money elsewhere. But if prices go up they will have a reason to stay on the farms. If the price of farm produce goes up so does the income farms generate.

As long as all other countries in the world can meet our food and energy needs, that's not a problem.. we get cheaper food/energy, our farmers presumably go into other fields (um, no pun intended) and make more money than farmers do.

But what happens if someone decides to cut us off? If we don't have active farms, that could be quite some time before we have our own agriculture ramped back up to feed ourselves.

I seriously doubt this will ever happen unless climate change deprives farms of water. As it is the US exports a lot of food. And agribusinesses get government subsidies doing it. If crops were suddenly grown for fuel then those exports will be cut so the US will still be able to produce enough food. However because of cuts in exports third world farmers will be able to stay on farms and earn a living.

So some of the regulations may be there simply to make sure we STILL HAVE FARMERS.

Why would the US not have farmers unless they aren't being paid enough the stay and work on farms? Growing crops for fuel will mean food crops will raise in price thus increasing the pay on farms.

Where in a free market, we very well might not have farmers, if our people decide not to work for the wages that other people in other countries are willing to work for.

Either farms can pay what the going rate is or they can try to pay less. If they pay less than people are willing to work for the farms will not have workers and without them the farms have nothing to sale. However some yuppies are giving up city life to start organic farms now. One of the fastest grocery store chains is Whole Foods Market, which sales organic food.

But FOOD and ENERGY are pretty important things.. maybe, just maybe, we want to make sure that the market doesn't leave us exposed to that kind of a risk!

If crops are grown for fuel, the price of food will rise, and thus it will become economically feasible to farm. I therefore see no problem of a conflict between food and fuel.

Even.. shudder.. some subsidies. Maybe not as many as we have now... but some? Maybe?

Maybe, if they were applied to sustainably farming I might agree with subsidizing them. However I ask why subsidize them at all. Where does the money come from? Taxpayers, that's where. Subsidies steal from some to give to others. I have no problem buying from and paying a local farmer, I am a member of two coops that support local farmers, thus helping him or her earn a living but I don't support government giving Archer Daniels Midland or Cargill billions. As the CATO Institute said, "'ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period.'" This from one of those Libertarian, freemmarket, groups it seems you don't like.

I am saying that we should be thinking more about how to create fair

#1 Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people
#2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people
#3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people
#4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people
#5 Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people
#6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people
#7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people

Three-fifths of the prisoners studied said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. Two-fifths of them had decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun. Criminals in states with higher civilian gun ownership rates worried the most about armed victims.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-316es.html

Retroactive laws are prohibited in the US by the constitution, IIRC.

As another poster mentioned, this generally only applies to criminal law. In fact, I myself recall a retroactive tax being levied back in the days of the Clinton administration. It was June I believe, and the tax applied to the beginning of that year. 1995, perhaps?

Nope, late summer 1993:

Not only has President Clinton failed to defend the prohibition of ex post facto laws; he encouraged the 103rd Congress to violate the prohibition. In the summer of 1993 he urged Congress to levy a retroactive tax on the American people. Under the president's initial budget plan, income, corporate, gift, and estate taxes were to be increased retroactively to January 1, 1993--20 days before the president assumed office. Never before in American history had a tax been made retroactive to the time of a prior administration.

The last sentence's specificity seems to indicate that previous taxes have been made retroactive--merely, within that existing administration's time period.

Like they've been doing for the past twenty-something years? Of course. They can even auction it off at a nice price. All they have to do is find some way, even a very flimsy one, of linking it to a crime.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179es.html

This has ruined the livelihoods of innocent people on multiple occasions. The burden of proof is considered to be on the property owner. If the property taken is critical to the owner's work, they often can't afford the court fees.

The problem is that metrometro didn't point to any specific examples of "false information," so there's not much I can do to respond to such a vague accusation. Instead, I thought I'd highlight our recent work on issues of particular interest to Slashdot readers in order to give readers some context. I'm not going to claim everything we publish is high quality (we publish about a dozen books, 50 papers, and hundreds of articles every year), but in my experience, the vast majority of what we publish is of high quality.

And incidentally, the insinuation that we're "well funded by industry" is false: if you look at our annual report, you'll see that only about 2 percent of our funding is from corporate sources.

• Circumventing Competition: The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (By me, criticizing the DMCA)
  
• Effective Counterterrorism and the Limited Role of Predictive Data Mining (By Harper, criticizing the NSA wiretapping program))
  
• The REAL ID Act: Ill-Considered (By Harper, testimony before the Utah legislature against a de facto national ID)
  
• Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush (By my colleagues Gene Healy and Tim Lynch, criticizing the Bush administration's attacks on civil liberties)
  
• "Supreme Court Ruling Could Save Vonage" (By me, criticizing software patents)
  
• "Broadcast Flag Burning" (By me, criticizing the broadcast flag)
  

• Circumventing Competition: The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (By me, criticizing the DMCA)
  
• Effective Counterterrorism and the Limited Role of Predictive Data Mining (By Harper, criticizing the NSA wiretapping program))
  
• The REAL ID Act: Ill-Considered (By Harper, testimony before the Utah legislature against a de facto national ID)
  
• Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush (By my colleagues Gene Healy and Tim Lynch, criticizing the Bush administration's attacks on civil liberties)
  
• "Supreme Court Ruling Could Save Vonage" (By me, criticizing software patents)
  
• "Broadcast Flag Burning" (By me, criticizing the broadcast flag)
  

• Circumventing Competition: The Perverse Consequences of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (By me, criticizing the DMCA)
  
• Effective Counterterrorism and the Limited Role of Predictive Data Mining (By Harper, criticizing the NSA wiretapping program))
  
• The REAL ID Act: Ill-Considered (By Harper, testimony before the Utah legislature against a de facto national ID)
  
• Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush (By my colleagues Gene Healy and Tim Lynch, criticizing the Bush administration's attacks on civil liberties)
  
• "Supreme Court Ruling Could Save Vonage" (By me, criticizing software patents)
  
• "Broadcast Flag Burning" (By me, criticizing the broadcast flag)