Slashdot Mirror
Malicious Online Retailer Ordered Held Without Bail
Zaphod_85 writes "You may remember the New York Times story from a couple of weeks ago regarding Vitaly Borker, an online retailer intentionally harassing customers in order to gain linking points in Google's PageRank algorithm. Now, not only has Google altered their algorithm in order to prevent this tactic from being effective (Though according to Katherine Noyes at PCWorld, this tactic may never actually have been benefiting the website in the first place), Now Mr. Borker has the Feds to deal with. He is being charged with cyberstalking, wire fraud, mail fraud, and making interstate threats, and faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all counts. Given his disturbing behavior that brought about the charges, a federal judge has ordered he be held without bail while he awaits trial."
As I understand it, this guy was very very careful at how he worded his "threats" to his customers. I suspect any half-rate lawyer will be able to get him out scot free.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
...and cue the people who can't tell queue, cue and que apart.
How long until he gets his new business rolling?
This would be why trolling doesn't tend to work as well in real life, when there are real-life consequences, as it does on the internet when there's little chance (absent clever data-wrangling techniques and a little stalking) of your words coming back to bite you.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
OP was suggesting that objecting libertarians be formed into a line.
What...? He wants all the libertarians to stand patiently in a line. At the end of the day, isn't that what we all really want?
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
I was hoping this guy would get murdered when he ripped off the wrong guy. I guess getting raped in prison for 50 years will have to do.
From Borker to Borkee...
Really? The NYT article described it as "too graphic and violent to print in a newspaper", which hardly sounds like "carefully worded". Besides, "taking a picture of someone's home and sending them a message saying 'I'M WATCHING YOU'" is not only a verbal threat, but one involving an action. Frankly, I'm surprised it took two years to arrest this guy - if he tried it on me, I would have filed a police report within minutes.
And that still does nothing for the identity theft charges or the fraud. Hell, maybe we can get him on ACTA or something for selling counterfeits.
... and hey, it's nothing more than an online article, I say good riddance. Threatening folk repeatedly with bodily harm, impersonating them to credit card companies, etc. should be a fast-pass lane to being disbarred from operating a business and going to jail without passing go and without collecting $200.
What troubled me about Mr. Borkers story more than anything is how easily he circumvented the various red-flag tripwires that credit card companies allegedly employ. And the allegation that he successfully impersonated a customer withdrawing a claim against him shows not only chutzpah but a big security hole over at the credit card company.
Bottom line is that the internet has allowed all sorts of scams to go nationwide and unless one can interest the Feds (via publicity in this case), one is SOL. Thus, he may serve as a business blueprint for a lot more scammers going forward.
"Fraud" has fuck all to do with free speech. You won't find any "libertarian" defense of stalking one's customers and threatening people with bodily harm.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
With 10 libertarians you would have 10 lines each 1 libertarian deep
was he also very careful about the mail fraud and wire fraud?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
You mean cue the dishonest scumbags who hate libertarianism but know they aren't mentally competent to make an intelligent argument against it, and as such are willing to settle for implying that it means something entirely different from what it actually is.
FYI - from the article it appears that there are potential weapons charges coming (unlicensed possession of an automatic weapon) and possibly kiddie pr0n. That, and the guys lawyer doesn't seem good - "No one suffered any physical harm". Buddy, good luck with that one.
Queue the morons that don't know what a libertarian is.
The cyberpolice backtraced him, and consequences will never be the same!
He didn't take a picture of her home, he found it on street view.
Indeed, you'd probably find more libertarians who'd support the right of the stalked to shoot said stalker. Especially when he's threatened them.
Indeed, fraud is very much NOT on the list of things that libertarians want to legalize.
I don't read AC A human right
I don't mean to play anonymous Internet tough guy here, but I'm really surprised that someone who tells customers with a legitimate complain "I know where you live" still has full use of both knee caps. I would have thought by now he would have pissed off the wrong person who happens to be within driving distance. Then again, when it comes to the stacks of money he's making, maybe he's full of shit and doesn't have that many customers to piss off.
Besides, "taking a picture of someone's home and sending them a message saying 'I'M WATCHING YOU'" is not only a verbal threat, but one involving an action.
Yeah, it involved him finding a picture of her address on google street view.
But threat's like "I'M WATCHING YOU", are completely legal under the first amendment. The Cyberstalking and interstate threat's charges are going to be kicked out pretty quickly. I'd be a lot more interested in the fraud accusations.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
I don't think I'd call this guy just trolling.
On the internet even from the start trolling meant just something crafted to create as many responses as possible, rather than rape threats. As the dictum went, "Confucius say: successful troll is master baiter" ;) Really, it didn't even have to be offensive or explicit or illegal. It could be something as indirect as asking which Linux distro has IE.
And in the meantime it's largely become a synonym with "someone saying something I disagree with." Someone calling one's pet conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory? Someone else posting a bit of textbook science that contradicts one's ID beliefs? Someone else disagreeing that <insert game flop> is TEH GRATEST GAME EVAR? Someone else disagreed in another thread entirely? Well, they must be trolls and only saying that to get attention ;) But seriously, I've even seen textbook physics quotes modded as troll or overrated. It's just become the blanket excuse to not use one's brains and hang on to some pet dogma or half-truth: anyone disagreeing must be just trolling for attention.
What this guy did is a bit beyond mere trolling. And I suspect that even the trolling excuse was just an excuse. Threatening to rape someone asking for a refund and mailing them photos of their home with texts like "I'M WATCHING YOU" and whatnot, is the kind of asshattery even most Internet trolls would distance themselves from very quickly. That's already way beyond just seeking attention.
If anything, this just gives the lie to the old marketing canard that all exposure is good, and there is no such thing as bad publicity. I've seen it repeated in so many places, that it's not even funny. It turns out that, yes, there is bad publicity. Not only it can cross into being flat out illegal, but there's a very good case to be made that all that Google rank via people talking about how badly he treats customers, actually didn't benefit him. Getting mind-share as a dangerously deranged asshat to avoid can be just that: it just moves one from an unknown company to being the well known asshat company to avoid.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This is what came to mind for a line of people for this guy.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
Every electronics/camera store in Brooklyn has been doing this for decades. They are all scammers and conartists.
Shanties and warehouses, or fake addresses, but websites with greymarket and fake products.
Examples of the stores im talking about:
http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/
The FTC has done nothing about it.
People place products thinking they can get it cheaper, and then when they talk to the store the sales people scream and cuss at them if they don't buy addons they "must" buy (like power cords and batteries).
For every 1 reputable company based in NYC and NJ there are hundreds which are ran y petty criminals.
he also threatened to rape a female complaining customer which is why he was being charged according to another site.
Libertarians don't like threats to extort money, whether it's email or enabled by the politics of envy.
OP was suggesting that objecting libertarians be formed into a line
and shot?
www.blueapples.org
Technically, "I'm watching you", while it certainly sounds menacing to me, probably doesn't qualify as a threat, per se. It sounds creepy, certainly, but it doesn't threaten violence.
.....this is too good.
Apparently you don't know many libertarians. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to make threats with impunity. Libertarians want criminals punished just like anyone else does.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Now some stranger says that to your wife. I'd take the fucker apart.
"Indeed, fraud is very much NOT on the list of things that libertarians want to legalize, if they are not benefiting from its commission."
FIFY.
One of the wonderful things about the internet, is that it's restoring some of the accountability that we once had when living in small communities where most people knew each other. For a pretty long time, if an unscrupulous vendor screwed you over, your only options were either to sue them (expensive) or hope that your local government would punish them for you or your local TV "consumer beat" reporter would find your story interesting enough to give it some air time.
Today though, it's amazingly easy to check out anyone you're considering doing business with by looking them up on the net. The guy in this story will most likely be out of business, and soon.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Eat the big dick you fuckwad! Now take your hand, make a big middle finger, turn your hand around and point it at yourself!! mwahahaha!
Ok...what exactly does this law entail? I'd have to guess it was so broad that almost any internet action would be illegal??
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm happy this happened. When this story was earlier on /. I was asking where are the police in all of this.....threats of sexual assault and "I'm watching you" accompanied by photos of one's house are quite disturbing.
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
Why the fuck don't you know the difference between "queue" and "cue?" You ignorant, slack-jawed sack of shit. Cue the slash-fags taking a hot load of jizz in the face.
I say we take said libertarians, this guy, and lock them in a windowless room together. Give the Libertarians that say people should be able to defend themselves, violently if necessary, an appropriate sidearm. And, then take the "libertarians" that say this asshat should be able to do whatever the hell he wants to anyone he wants and bind their wrists to their ankles. After all, who are they to try to stop him? The ones that mention the free market get to go in without any pants. Protections hinder the free market after all.
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I'm bitter when it comes to the libertarian equivalent of the Green Party's watermelons.
Are you having an affair with his wife? Is that why it would anger you so?
Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
Good thing he wasn't leaking classified documents or he'd be in real trouble.
No, snorted.
You mean, the libertarians?
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
he found it on street view.
He stole Google's intellectual property and sent it to his customers? That is a matter of national security!
This man must be stopped at all costs.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
That's why you're insane. You're just waiting until most of society will sympathize with your actions.
He is being charged with cyberstalking, wire fraud, mail fraud, and making interstate threats, and faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all counts.
FIFTY YEARS? Holy crap. I am so glad I got out of SEO. Shady, shady business is that industry.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Hearsay. I hate to take the role of devil's advocate, but you really think a pissed off customer wouldn't fabricate claims to exact revenge on an online seller?
Yes, call the po-lice
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Indeed, you'd probably find more libertarians who'd support the right of the stalked to shoot said stalker.
That's the part people forget.
We wouldn't need so much protection by the government if we were allowed to protect ourselves.
A response of "Try it and I'll cut your fucking balls off" would have sent this guy off looking for easier prey, particularly if castration was considered a legitimate defense against rape.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
The libertarians want the criminals punished, but don't want courts, police, jails, or the like. I guess they just want a tree and a rope. They believe that whatever crowd has the better numbers and armament to pronounce sentence.
Under 18 U.S.C. 875(c), it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another. Internet-based communication is not exempt. Is this something you do a lot?
You have never met a libertarian who believes that. You cannot name a single one.
the libertarians would consider the regulatory and law enforcement infrastructure to catch and punish the stalker to be intrusive expensive bureaucracy our taxes shouldn't pay for
additionally, they would insist on taking justice in their own hands, since every yahoo with a gun is a perfect judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to matter of justice
libertarianism is mirror image of communism: equally foolish and equally destructive. communism's folly is altruism conquers all. libertarianism's folly is selfishness conquers all. both mirror image ideologies fail, because true human nature is both altruistic and selfish at the same time, like two sides of a coin. the only effective ideology in this world is one which reflects the nature of the humans you are attempting to foist it on: a moderate mix, not an extreme like communism or libertarianism. socialism with a capitalist engine, or capitalism with socialist safety nets: these are the ideal ideologies. moderation is the king. all other ideologies fail
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
>The libertarians want the criminals punished, but don't want courts, police, jails, or the like
Only the anarchists. Most libertarians have no issue with government operating a criminal justice system. What we object to are things like embargoes and undeclared wars.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
... to Joe Nocera, the NY Times columnist who wrote the story.
Ok..thanks. It mentioned "commerce" in there...I was wondering how the feds could do this. Bastardizing interstate commerce again.
After reading this law...I have to ask myself, does ANYONE do this often? Is this really a problem that required a law?
Or..are the Feds just now trying to make any law for anything, and stick commerce in it, so they can try to enforce something?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Easy question. Most people I know are capable of doing the above, provided they meet their own personal definition of justice.
IME the people's sense of justice is determined by two factors: how closely the person is intimately involved, and the lovingly embraced coverage by the media.
Where you get this idea I am uncertain, but that's not how it works.
Libertarians want the government the U.S. originally intended to have. It was all a REALLY good idea based on the notion of getting rid of all the crap and nonsense that England's government was imposing and never wanted to see again. Well, it's back and stronger in many ways. For example, the tax rates imposed by England would be a dream come true by today:s standards.
As for justice, no. The Libertarian stance on crime in general might appear as if it is a criminal's "free for all" position, but that would be a mistaken interpretation. Laws based on morality would be removed, but not laws based on individual safety and good public conduct. For example, it would still condemn the case under discussion. But matters between consenting adults and the right of people to put whatever crap they want into their own bodies [drugs] would be defended. Not that it is relevant here, but Sane Libertarians also seek to protect child development by defending them against child labor, sexual molestation and other forms of abuse that would inhibit them from growing into healthy adults who are capable of leading healthy, self-sustaining lives.
Libertarianism just seems far too different from what we generally accept as common sense and wisdom. But when you think it through rationally, it makes a lot more sense than what we are doing now. The short of it is "your rights end where mine begin." Once you adapt your view around that simple notion, you will begin to see where things are wrong. For you to tell me that I should be forced to live my life based on YOUR ideals and morality is just as stupid as you being forced to live your life based on MY ideals and morality. But there are some constants that must still be maintained and I see those as self-evident as well.
"Don't want courts"? Really? It:s provided for in the US Constitution. Libertarians just want the constitution followed in spirit and intent. This includes the institutions of courts, police, prisons and more. They are simply necessary for a healthy society. As you see things for the way they are, you will find that a lot of violent crimes (certainly not all) are connected with the operation of business that is determined to be illegal. For example, the drug trade sees gang violence just the same as it was when alcohol was illegal. Why we repealed prohibition of alcohol but not other drugs is pretty stupid -- the truths are pretty much the same. Once alcohol was legalized and controlled, violence related to the alcohol trade all but disappeared. The same would be true of the drug trade.
Many people fail to see cause and effect for what it really is. Crime is very often the effect of bad law.
I guess it's hearsay to you and I since we're getting our info from the media rather than the complainant. The FBI, OTOH, have no doubt spoken to the complainant directly so it is not hearsay to them. It may still be a false complaint, of course. Or there may be a record of the threat if it was made by email or a phone call that was recorded.
to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.
It would have to be something more than "I am watching you".
There exist ways for evil people to send things that will scare people, with outright threatening they will injure the person.
If the shopkeeper sent a forged document or other communication to the bank withdrawing a credit card dispute, however, misrepresenting their identity.... that would seem to be a clear fraud; no different than posing as a bank account owner, at a teller window, and convincing the bank to let you "withdraw" $500 cash...
Yeah, much better if everything is legal if it occurs in a grey area between states where neither state really has jurisdiction.
After reading this law...I have to ask myself, does ANYONE do this often? Is this really a problem that required a law?
And... what answer did you get from yourself?
WHO@ stats (one of the sources, may be others):
WHOA receives an estimated 50-75 cases per week. If victims fill out the entire questionnaire, which includes demographic information, that is what we use to properly calculate our statistics.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
If Vitaly Borker was calling Ms. Rodriguez repeatedly, especially after 10pm, he was violating New York State laws against telephone harassment.
I had somebody calling me repeatedly late at night. I traced his phone number, complained to the local police station, and two detectives came to his house (several times until he answered the door) and arrested him. He finally left New York City, and stopped bothering me, so I didn't prosecute.
You can get more information about handling these calls at The Verizon Unlawful Call Center http://www22.verizon.com/residentialhelp/phone/general+support/support+tools/general/95622.htm
Examples of unlawful calls:
* Threat to Life (yours or someone else's)
* Bomb Threats
* Bodily Harm
* Excessive Obscene or Harassing Calls (The definition of excessive varies by state but generally means more than two to five calls.)
* Kidnapping
Verizon regularly works with Law Enforcement agencies to resolve unlawful call complaints. The Law Enforcement agency investigates all calls involving bodily harm, bomb threats and kidnapping.
Unwanted Calls are usually not against the law and typically include:
* Fax calls
* Hang-up calls
* Computer calls
* Solicitation calls
* Telemarketing calls
* Debt collection calls
* Obscene or Harassing Calls*
*If calls of this nature are deemed excessive, and you are willing to prosecute, we will handle as an unlawful call.
I recall the article said that her complaints were originally ignored by the police. It takes the NYT to shame your authorities into action?
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
'
You mean like the dishonest scumbags who started the Libertarian Party, who implied that "libertarianism" meant some form of capitalism when the term had a long history of use by socialists opposed to both direct government power and state-backed private power?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Conga!
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
No, that's still one line, ten deep. Just orthogonal.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
film at 11. Sounds like Straight to Jail is a good start toward justice for this guy. Wonder how the general population will accept his arrogance and attitude. If he turns out to be Russian Mob, then maybe he has a chance at not being someone's boyfriend while he awaits a jury of his peers
Most of these 'threats' are worded carefully.
Somebody has been naughty.
Nice place you have here.
It would be a shame if something happened to it.
Is this really a problem that required a law?
A state with a low population like AZ (not to pick on AZ undeservedly here) would be presented with a good motive to set itself up with a predatory policy based on e.g. light criminal penalties for making threats against people in general. (Which it wouldn't for crimes of local consequence, like car theft or vandalism.) The benefit would be to make AZ more attractive to anyone looking to set up shop who plans to make money ripping off and abusing customers who are mostly going to live out-of-state anyway. If the population of your state is low enough, policies start to look attractive that encourage picking on people in other states by encouraging picking on people in general.
/IANAL
This is similar to how NV legalized gambling, or how the credit industry is based in ND. In general interstate commerce is something that presents a conflict of interest to a state legislature, so crimes involving it get singled out for federal nitpicking. I'm not surprised that there's a law against threatening to injure the person of someone in an interstate business conversation. Interstate commerce gets used like a hat rack by the feds, but a law like that seems pretty basic if you're going to submit interstate commerce to any regulative structure at all.
This case is different from your typical predatory industry. A collection agency for example is trying to get money out of people; it may be perfectly willing to abuse them, but only in order to get the money. What makes this guy weird is that he stalked people in order to get free advertising.
(Shrug) Capitalism is exactly what happens when you give people the liberty to trade with each other. The only way to stop capitalism is to shoot people for practicing it. Is that what you, personally, advocate?
As would the roads, city plumbing, heating, electricity (including street lights), fire department, equipment for emergency rescue personnel, military, etcetera. Oh, if only our horrible modern moral intrusiveness wouldn't get in the way of us going back to those terrific times!
According to the NYT Time article, Ms. Rodriguez was using T-Mobile and attempted to get them to do something but was told by T-Mobile they could do nothing because he was calling from a blocked number. All utter bullshit from the T-Mobile rep and a very good reason to NEVER use T-Mobile.
To throw the book at him!
Can't agree more
If there's one thing which worries me, it's the lynch-mob mentality that can be seen here. kill him! rape him! put him away for 50 years!
I mean: good he's been caught, good he is put to trial. But the main aim should be to protect society and not to punish. And never forget: he's a human being. Misled, criminal, what not: but a human. No slime. Society has some duties even towards him.
Wow! I work really hard to provide a high integrity reputation with my company that provides Nationwide Auto Transport Service, EZ AutoShippers. If I treated my customers like that, I would have to believe that no amount of first page Google listings would create buyers. I guess that people ignore the bad press more than I had ever imagined. I truly believe though, most companies would have a complete drought of customers if they treated like Borker does.
Perhaps, but if a reasonable person would interpret it as a threat, if there is clear evidence that it was intended to have that effect, and if there's a pattern of that behavior, it may be hard to sneak out of it on the technicality that you didn't use particular keywords.
50 years for threatening of rape, interstate?
Whoa. That's gross.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
"Lets not forget Dude that keeping wildlife, um... an amphibious rodent, for... um, ya know domestic... within the city... that ain't legal either." - Walter Sobchak
Seriously. Would you be okay if the Taliban were in charge of making law in this country? If so, then your perspective would be consistent. If not, then you most certainly understand my point. My point is that "morality" is a point of view, not a universal constant. The government's job isn't to push a limited point of view, but rather to do what the constitution says it must.
Where you get that this other stuff wouldn't happen, I don't know. You are apparently unable to form more than a few words in series to actually make a coherent point. Besides that, your ridiculous list includes electricity -- not paid for by government.
Wouldn't you have to call the Police on the Police after that video ?
Thanks I needed a good laugh
How does one sign up to become a Libertarian ?
I cant stand the Republican viewpoint anymore. And as for the Democratic party the dont seem to have the will to to what it takes.
They had the Presidency and both houses of congress and still didn't get much done. With the exception of 2 things.
1. Credit card changes. This one I liked
2. Health care changes. So far I have not been effected by this either way.
But having the political advantages they had they should have gotten a lot more done.
No offense to anyone who is a Republican or Democrate here but I for one am sick and tired of Politics as usual in DCland.
Over 100 replies and not one person has commented on the fact that clearly Citibank have crap security procedures. According to the article they first accept somebody claiming to be the credit card holder without authentication and then won't re-open the claim after they've been told they've been suckered. Glad I'm not an account holder with those muppets.
I think Vitaly will find that intimidating federal prison inmates won't be as easy as intimidating the young ladies. Especially with a pussy name like "Vitaly." I forsee mouth-rape in his near future.
All utter bullshit from the T-Mobile rep and a very good reason to NEVER use T-Mobile.
So which phone company doesn't have any incompetent staff and therefore never makes an incorrect statement to a customer?
Oh, I see, the commerce clause...
Or..are the Feds just now trying to make any law for anything, and stick commerce in it, so they can try to enforce something?
The Feds have been abusing the "commerce clause" since ages. Almost any federal law has some bizarre reference to "commerce" in it to justify how the Feds had authority to pass the law in the first place.
The most funny application was how a Californian resident was tried under a federal law for growing pot for her own consumption. You see, if she grows her own pot, she doesn't need to buy it, and thus her dealer doesn't need to import it from another state. That way, by growing her own she was "distorting interstate commerce", giving the Fed jurisdiction over a "crime" which should have been a local matter.
T-Mobile is an excellent company, and they are the only one that I know of that lets you call and tell them you cannot pay your bill on time and then schedule a date after the due date to pay, during which time your service will not be interrupted and no additional fees are assessed. I have had to do this on a number of occasions over the years. They also reduced my bill, without me asking them to do so, because I was a long time "preferred" customer, even though from time to time I had to make the aforementioned deferred payments.
Every company has issues, but I doubt anyone would have better luck with another provider, especially since they cannot do anything if someone calls from a blocked number without involvement from the police if I am not mistaken. Blocking your number indicates specific intent to have your number withheld from the called party. For all they know the person calling you is a women you met on the Internet who has not given you her number in case you are a stalker rapist, and you are a stalker rapist trying to social engineer her phone number. Maybe the calling party is your wife, and she is blocking her number because you are estranged but she wants to know why she hasn't received her child support, but doesn't want you to start harassing her again.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
She is obviously a CIA plant making shit up to besmirch his good name.
That is not the point, he was obnoxious and and maybe financially criminal, Is he facing financial penalties? No he is facing the loss of his life (I.E. the loss of 50 years of his liberty) for never physically harming anybody. Beware of the government that so enthusiastically protects you for what will they do to you when they decide you have horrifically offended them. Even if there is a low chance of him getting it the fact that he faces is it is what should be taken into account.
"A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
But won't the free market sort it out?
Is 1563649 a prime number?
The people I just read above taking exception to the federal government using the commerce clause to prosecute this guy.... They're not libertarians then? Maybe they're liebertarians or libretarians or something else? OK. That was a little snarky, but the assertion to which I'm responded is too funny. Liberal, right-winger, or what-have-you, people don't come out and openly say that they want to protect child molesters, or companies making exploding toothbrushes, or snaggled-toothed halfwits with epic gun collections. No, they come out in public to talk about big gubmint or mean rich people or the Consteatution. And they may not even hear the 60-cycle hum of the cognitive dissonance between their ears. (This includes everyone, including yours truly.) So, of course, a libertarian isn't going to come out and say "What this country needs is more sketchy guys threatening a smackdown because you don't like the fraudulent crap they sold you." No, libertarians are more likely to come out plucking one of the well-worn 5 or 6 strings on their little lyre, just like the rest of us.
I know what a slashdot libertarian is. It's a selfish git who could never actually live without any of the government services like police, or roads, or hospitals, but thinks that there's a magical way where they don't have to pay for them. Somewhere there may be libertarians who truly believe in civil liberties, but everyone I've ever met has had a philosophy which basically boiled down to "Hands off my wallet fuck the rest of you". Even the religious right has more integrity than that.
It depends. Some hard core libertarians believe there is no such thing as fraud. If you've been "defrauded" it just means you haven't done your research and haven't made good choices. You could have gone out and found out more about this transaction or this seller, etc if you really cared to avoid fraud.
Now to me that's a pretty messed up philosophy given the extreme costs in research time that it would add to every transaction. At least the current situation where in general parties are expected to be honest about the information they disclose and to disclose enough in certain transactions that it reduces the likelihood that parties will attempt to defraud others. If there were no legal teeth to enforce those provisions I can only imagine fraud would increase.
Now on the other hand there would indeed be less fraud if people held more of the attitude that it was up to them to do their homework to make sure they weren't getting scammed. Those that do don't get scammed much.
Ummm .... if you and I are in the same room, and you threaten to injure me, it's an illegal act and in most jurisdictions counts as assault and you can be charged for it. See, if someone reasonably believes you have made a threat against them, you have committed a crime.
In the case of interstate commerce, communicating a threat across state lines or internationally, you have now turned it into a federal crime.
I'm pretty sure the cited law has been on the books for a long time.
Are you laboring under the belief that it is perfectly legal to go around making threats against people? The interstate commerce parts is to mostly make sure that things like organized crime don't send a threatening letter to someone in another state and be able to act with impunity -- the Feds take such things really seriously.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Which demonstrated that he actually took steps that would lead someone to reasonably conclude that he both could, and would, act on his threats.
If the person on the receiving end of the threat reasonably believes you will carry it out, you have committed assault. If you do this across state lines, you have turned it into a Federal offense.
I suspect this guy is going to be on the receiving end of a world of hurt.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The problem with "Libertarians" is that there's no consistency in who calls themselves a Libertarian. Ranging from the most bat-shit crazy militia kind of people to the Tea Party wanks.
Those who claim to be "Libertarians" often are the ones pushing for morality based laws and regulation of other people's stuff.
In short, unless you can get a single, consistent, set of people saying they're Libertarians, the whole lot gets lumped in with every ranting idiot who wants to change the world to be the way they want it, and be able to opt-out of any taxation and other program they don't want so they can undermine the whole system.
I've never met two Libertarians with the same point of view, so I more of less have to discount the whole lot. The term is essentially meaningless -- but usually accompanied by some ranting screed that is anything but Libertarian.
And, like pure free-market worshipers, Libertarians make some awful assumptions about how their perfect utopian society would operate -- assumptions for which there is no evidence humans can live up to en masse. It's just way too overly idealized, and generally, downright naive.
if he tried it on me, I would have filed a police report within minutes.
Filing a police report is often futile. I filed a police report about a theft a few weeks ago, even gave them the thief's name. I found out after I filed the report that I wasn't her first victim, but she's still not in custody.
About thirty years ago my home was burglarized, and I later found out that they caught the burglar, who was let off in return for turning in some drug dealers, and they even let the guy keep the stolen propery -- I heard this from a policeman I knew.
The police are a boon to the rich, but they're useless to the middle class and dangerous to the poor.
Free Martian Whores!
I believe it's because historically things like kidnapping and extortion used to be readily conducted across state lines and made it almost impossible to track down and police due to jurisdictional challenges.
When the FBI and others decided that they were going to go after kidnapping with a vengeance, that was one mechanism they had available to them. The phone and mail system allowed them to hone in on the method of transmission.
This wasn't case of "Hey, let's expand the commerce clause just for fun", this was a case of trying to prosecute real and very serious crimes.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The people complaining about the Feds using the commerce clause to smack this asshat down are simply misinformed, whatever their political inclinations. Doing business over the Internet, especially* when the buyer and seller are in different states, is most definitely interstate commerce and has to be policed by the Feds.
*I say "especially" because it's possible for a buyer to be in one part of a state and the seller in another, but their transaction runs across routers and/or servers in other states, making their transaction fall under interstate commerce. A small mom-and-pop retail store in Oklahoma that hosts with GoDaddy in Arizona is going to be engaging in interstate commerce regardless of their buyer's location (someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong on the legal details involved).
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I think most people who actually buy any quantity of photo equipment online, who want to shop at a camera store (not a "we got everything" place like Amazon), and who have been in the game for a while eventually restrict their purchases to B&H PhotoVideo, Adorama, and maybe J&R. For high-end product, there's Calumet. There are also a few specialty shops (I really miss Zone VI) and some used dealers (e.g. Keh).
That's about it.
Those thousands of other shops that you've never heard of but who offer screaming deals? There's a 99% probability that they're a ripoff.
Given that there was the whole New York vs. New Jersey angle in the case (IIRC), and since basically all of the people involved either bought or attempted to buy something from this person, I'd say that Interstate Commerce was full engaged in and fully applies...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I don't think that the Federal Government has any misdemeanor-class laws, only felonies. Plus, if you've gotten to the point that the Feds have to get involved, my guess is that they aren't necessarily too worried about overkill.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Quoth George Carlin: "Ohhh, some people don't like you to talk like that. Ohh, some people like to shut you up for saying those things.
You know that. Lots of people. Lots of groups in this country want to tell you how to talk. Tell you what you can't talk about. Well, sometimes they'll say, well you can talk about something but you can't joke about it. Say you can't joke about something because it's not funny. Comedians run into that shit all the time. Like rape. They'll say, "you can't joke about rape. Rape's not funny." I say, "fuck you, I think it's hilarious. How do you like that?" I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. See, hey why do you think they call him "Porky," eh?"
More seriously, there's a whole genre of humour about bad stuff happening to someone else. E.g., the so called Gallows Humour or Black Comedy. It being about something bad is an integral part of the incongruence that makes it funny.
I.e., it doesn't mean we approve of anal rape, any more than anyone would need to approve of the Soviet dictatorship to laugh at Smirnoff's jokes about it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
No, capitalism is when you allow pretend "persons" (companies) to raise capital without liabilities for real people. It works, but it's a kludge, and doesn't sit comfortably with the moral responsibilities implied by enlightenment individualism.
qui homo libertarian est?
I mean, if someone is trying to sell me something, and starts acting like and ass...they've lost a sale.
Where is the benefit of acting an ass if they're trying to sell something to you? Again...is this really a problem?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well, the woman in the linked article had already bought some stuff from the guy, for which she was over-charged and given the wrong goods.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It's not logical, local threats are more credible (does anyone really believe a thug would come extra from California to NY to vandalize the home of an unhappy customer?)
That's a pretty silly example. Lots of thugs in CA visit their grandmothers in NY. Are you saying they should be no federal law prohibiting them from making a hit or something while in town, because they can't be expected to make an extra trip back to NY to vandalize a house? It's not logical.
to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another.
It would have to be something more than "I am watching you".
There exist ways for evil people to send things that will scare people, with outright threatening they will injure the person.
If the shopkeeper sent a forged document or other communication to the bank withdrawing a credit card dispute, however, misrepresenting their identity.... that would seem to be a clear fraud; no different than posing as a bank account owner, at a teller window, and convincing the bank to let you "withdraw" $500 cash...
If I had had an argument with someone and they then let me know "I am watching you" to me, I would sure as fuck take it as a threat and do something about it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Demanding money with menaces" doesn't mean you have to catch the gangster in the act of swinging a baseball bat at someone's leg.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Isn't this due to the way that you can have cumulative sentences in the US, whereas in most of the rest of the world you have concurrent ones?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Besides that, your ridiculous list includes electricity -- not paid for by government
The electricity or infrastructure isn't paid for by government, but rights of way are enforced at the end of a government gun.
The GP isn't very good at expressing himself, I think.
Free Martian Whores!
The NYT article said that the customer disputed payment and CITIBANK froze payment.
Payment was then made. The customer called CITIBANK. CITIBANK told her that the hold had been taken away by the customer.
The woman said she didn't do that.
CITIBANK said that that's not their problem.
If this isn't an outrage, I don't know what is. I will never hold a CITIBANK card.
Hearsay. I hate to take the role of devil's advocate, but you really think a pissed off customer wouldn't fabricate claims to exact revenge on an online seller?
It's not hearsay if it's something somebody has said directly to you. Hearsay would be "my friend told me that X threatened to rape her".
However, to paraphrase Samuel Goldwyn, verbal evidence isn't worth the paper it's written on in the absence of corroboration.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
We wouldn't need so much protection by the government if we were allowed to protect ourselves..
But we can protect ourselves. We just can't dish out punishments that are disproportionate to a crime.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
True enough. Thanks for the correction.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I used to work with ‘Vito’ Borker and can confirm that he is a slimeball with no sense of right or wrong. This was about 8 years ago and he was very blatant about the fact that he was running a business on the side and just gave off a vibe of shadiness so I decided to Google him – sure enough I found plenty of complaints and negative comments including that fact that he was using aliases. This was almost ten years ago so he’s clearly been at this for a while. Apparently he bought a million dollar (or something in this range) house around this time – which would have been far more than a rank and file developer could afford – so apparently his side business was very lucrative.
We had lots of Russian developers at this firm and most of them were straight forward decent people but a few of them were into selling counterfeit handbags, watches and eyewear on eBay and other assorted scams. I know of at least one other guy who received a lifetime ban from eBay.
A sort of funny anecdote - I used to listen to him walk across our floor and into the men’s room shouting into his cell phone. He’d continue his conversation in there and flush without even pausing. A real class act.
your ridiculous list includes electricity -- not paid for by government.
Street lights are, and GP said "electricity (including street lights)". All the rest of his list were government services.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I mean, if someone is trying to sell me something, and starts acting like and ass...they've lost a sale.
Did you read the linked article?
She purchased something. He then had her credit card number. He made at least one additional charge on it.
He also repeatedly contacted her and threatened her. Hell, at one point he called her credit card company pretending to be her and got her chargeback canceled.
I don't know what sort of goofy naive world you're in, but there are crazies out there...and this was a crazy, who revealed themselves to be crazy after a customer had made a purchase on their totally normal-looking web site at the top of the Google search.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
> "taking a picture of someone's home
Boinker claimed to the Times reporter to have used a StreeView image. *Ahem!*
> and sending them a message saying 'I'M WATCHING YOU'" is not only a verbal threat,
The Times article demonstrates Boinker's astuteness. He used that verbiage in a _following_ missive. The threat was designed for _inference_. The easily/naturally _inferred_ threat was not overt nor linked in one thought, message. You are cherry picking words and conjoining them. In toto, the Boinker's intent is clear, oh! but he's a slippery one.
> but one involving an action. Frankly, I'm surprised it took two years to arrest this guy -
> if he tried it on me, I would have filed a police report within minutes.
Now I know you didn't read the article. The centerpiece piece victim in the story, a Spaniard residing in NYC, did just that. Repeatedly. Contacted the Attorney General's office, and the feds I believe to little avail. Their response in essence was, we are collating. It was the The New York Times publicity that has greased the wheels!
> And that still does nothing for the identity theft charges or the fraud. Hell, maybe we can
> get him on ACTA or something for selling counterfeits.
Frankly I was mystified about one aspect of the reportage that was not mentioned at all, that we know works.
(1.) Why were not the eyewear designers notified about this. Why did she not Tweet about this; it is not an urban myth that companies consider Tweets so magical currently that complaining on Twitter will get you high level support ASAP. This dude lives in NYC, Mayor Mike (Bloomberg) has been on a rampage to clean up NYC's Canal Street for bootleg LV, Gucci, Rolex purses wallets wares that even in these extremely short fiscal budget times he finds the money to fund the copyright NYC cops. Combining the former idea with this suggestion you would get a response ASAP from your Tweet about "piracy," "Canal Street," "Mayor Bloomberg," "fake Yankees merchandise?"
(2.) Why wasn't a DMCA notice(s) used?! This guy is bright but for most folks the DMCA is legal dynamite. It tends to stupefy. This guy would have been slapped around a whole new set of regs, threats, and no one would have said do you have proof Ms. Jane Q. Public.
We just can't dish out punishments that are disproportionate to a crime.
You know, I hear this arguement alot?
That's the thing about self defense. I'm not being a vigilante when I shoot somebody who's invaded my home, I'm defending myself, it's not about justice or punishment.
That's for if the person survives and is charged, THEN the justice system takes over and may pass sentence and prescribe punishment.
In the home or the alley, it's not punishment; it's defense, even if it kills the attacker. It's just that the same shots with the best chances of stopping an attacker is the best shots at killing.
I don't read AC A human right
Finally, my tax dollars put to good use.
It depends. Some hard core libertarians believe there is no such thing as fraud. If you've been "defrauded" it just means you haven't done your research and haven't made good choices. You could have gone out and found out more about this transaction or this seller, etc if you really cared to avoid fraud.
That's a pretty 'hard-core' libertarian then. I generally call myself a moderate. There's a difference between somebody who wins a $200 auction for an Ipod Box(that clearly says 'empty box') and somebody who wins a $200 auction for an Ipod and gets an empty box. One has been defrauded, one is just stupid.
At least the current situation where in general parties are expected to be honest about the information they disclose and to disclose enough in certain transactions that it reduces the likelihood that parties will attempt to defraud others. If there were no legal teeth to enforce those provisions I can only imagine fraud would increase.
This isn't the sort of situation I want to change. I want people to be free to write pretty much whatever contracts they want to, but I also want all parties to be *INFORMED*.
Deliberately misleading, outright lying, misrepresenting, are all things that make a contract one-sided(both parties should benefit). They should be treated harshly.
Now on the other hand there would indeed be less fraud if people held more of the attitude that it was up to them to do their homework to make sure they weren't getting scammed. Those that do don't get scammed much.
True.
I don't read AC A human right
I'll echo corbettw here. They're either misinformed, not libertarians, or got a really weird philosophy that doesn't fit into 'standard' libertarian views.
I'm a libertarian and I have no problems with what the feds are doing. As stated, it's federal jurisdiction, ergo federal involvment is the proper level. He WAS threatening people and committing fraud, both crimes with victims, which SHOULD remain crimes. He should get hit hard for what he's done.
I don't read AC A human right
According to Google's blog post on the issue, automated sentiment analysis doesn't really work...
which makes it seem like whatever fix they instituted in their algorithm in response to this problem is just a kludge and that the underlying problem remains...
There is a solution to this problem that a lot of people are already using, however: Web Of Trust, which lists user recommendations as to trustworthiness, vendor reliability, privacy and child safety. Sure enough, WOT gives decormyeyes the lowest combined rating, which according to my settings would not allow my browser to even visit such a site.
How 'credible' the threat is has nothing to do with the severity of the crime.
Either it would be credible to a hypothetical ordinary person, and hence is illegal assault, or it wouldn't be credibly to a hypothetical ordinary person, and hence isn't assault. There's not some fractional credibility where the offense scales. Either normal people would find it a threat, or they wouldn't.
Interstate threats are more serious to because to be credible, the threatener must put more planning into it generally. Or, at least, used to be...now you can look up all that info on the internet and pretend to be local, which makes you credible, without actually being local. (I'm not sure 'the internet makes it easier to threaten people' is a very good reason for making threatening people less punishable.)
Of course, interstate threats aren't punished 'more severely' than local threats. Different states have different punishments, and I suspect the Federal crime is in the middle somewhere.
As for the commerce clause's applicability...more interstate threats have something to do with money. This crime was actually about interstate commerce, so pretending it's some overreach of Federal jurisdiction is stupid...this is exactly the sort of thing the Federal government is supposed to be dealing with.
You can argue non-monetary threats should be dealt with locally. Technically, if you commit a crime in one state on a victim in another, both states can punish you for it. (Strangely, it's not double jeopardy. That's per-jurisdiction.) However, the problem is it's difficult to investigate such a crime....one state cannot issue a search warrant for a location in another state, or arrest someone in another state.
Even if the two states were working together, that doesn't solve the problem. You could easily end up in circumstances where evidence at the victim's end of the crime would easily justify a search warrant in the victim's state to search the criminal's house, but can't be used as evidence in the criminal's state (Because it's not actually part of that case, but of a case in another state.), so the criminal's house can't get searched, thus ending the investigation.
At some point, nearby states would start changing the law and making permanent joint task forces (Which essentially have dual-jurisdiction) to deal with this crap, which means that everyone would simply start doing crimes from states farther away. It gets really complicated, really quickly.
In the end, you'd end up with all the states operating some joint investigative force that looked near identical to the FBI, but had to deal with the minimal intersection of 50 state laws instead of Federal law. It is hard to see how this benefits anything or is somehow magically more 'democratic'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
To which of the standard libertarian views do you adhere? Wikipedia lists nine.... My point here and above is that claims about orthodoxy are a useful way to police an image but they are often deceptive, intentionally or unintentionally.
I didn't say the "in Soviet Russia joke" in particular, I said Boris Smirnoff jokes. Just because some people on Slashdot got stuck in the "In Soviet Russia" meme, most of them not even knowing the original joke, like the stereotypical lemmings following the horde off a cliff, doesn't mean everyone mentioning Smirnoff could only be talking about that one joke.
Frankly there are plenty of Smirnoff jokes that don't really illustrate any reality from the USSR.
E.g., "If you make joke, "take my wife... please", you come home... she's gone." Even during Stalin's worst years it didn't REALLY work that way. He's using the totalitarian regime to make an over-the-top joke, and really we're just laughing at the black humour there, rather than getting an education or anything.
E.g., "In Russia, if a male athelete loses he becomes a female athelete." You probably can figure out that it's not actually what happened in Russia at any time. You might have lost some privileges, but they didn't actually castrate people for losing a sports competition. Again, he's just using the totalitarian USSR setup for his own black humour.
E.g., "Homosexuality in Russia is a crime and the punishment is seven years in prison, locked up with the other men. There is a three year waiting list." You probably don't believe that anyone actually was trying to get locked up in the horrible communist prisons just for the gay sex.
E.g., "In Russia we only had two TV channels. Channel One was propaganda. Channel Two consisted of a KGB officer telling you: Turn back at once to Channel One." Not only it doesn't educate you much about the USSR, it doesn't even make any sense as a model.
E.g., "When I got to America, I saw an ad in the paper: "We guarantee our furniture and stand behind it for six months." That's why I left the Soviet Union. I don't want any people standing behind my furniture!" You don't think their way of spying on their citizens actually involved someone standing behind the furniture, do you?
And really, he does the same in his non-USSR jokes. Like the one where a Tennessee farmer let him milk the bull, followed by the remark that once you do that you've made a friend for life. The funny part is his being on the receiving end of something nasty or humiliating, or doing a horrible misunderstanding, rather than any USA-vs-USSR education.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Ugh, I mean YAKOV Smirnoff. Geesh, horrible mind-fart there. Sorry.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Is ANYTHING really a problem for libertarians, except "government regulations?" You demonstrate the utter moral bankruptcy of libertarian ideals. "You're not the boss of me" is not a valid political system, it is the cry of a selfish child.
Yes, this is a problem. Many people here have demonstrated how and why, and given you evidence that it is a problem. The article gives evidence that it is a problem. And yet you continue to ask "Is this really a problem?" This is the heart of libertarian "justice." No laws or regulations detailing what constitutes harm. In each case, the victim must prove harm, but the libertarians will always blame the victim, saying "Is this really a problem?" and "If this is a problem, it is YOUR problem." Libertarians will claim the victim should have known better, they should have protected themselves, they should just shut up and shop elsewhere.
This is because libertarians are at heart authoritarian. They believe they are better than others. They believe that the superior have a natural right to profit from the inferior. Protecting the victim is going against nature. The victim was weak, the abuser was strong, the abuser won and the victim lost, and now, a bunch of inferior little people are going to band together to try to subvert nature and punish the strong? Outrageous!
Libertarians will never believe any evidence that the strong profiting off of the weak is a problem because to them, it is not a problem. To them, the core assumption is flawed. The strong should profit off of the weak. Anything else is unnatural. Not that they will ever come right out and say that, it will always be cloaked in some other argument. They know that most others do not share their authoritarian beliefs. In Libertopia, when you are victimized, the authoritarians will always be there to ask, "Is this really a problem? Didn't you bring this on yourself?"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So all those posters above defending Mr. Borker are not libertarians? Obviously not, because No True Libertarian would defend something like this. Except they do. And your sig gives us a clue as to why they do.
Your sig is quite telling. All libertarians feel superior to others. They feel that in a libertarian system, they would be highly rewarded for their excellence. Libertarians are authoritarian at heart. They do not want government interfering with their ability to force others to recognize their superiority. Libertarians believe the strong have a moral right to profit off of the weak. Like all authoritarians, they worship power. They do not want an egalitarian society where "all men are created equal." They want a society where the weak do not have access to justice. Just like the defenders of Mr. Borker, they will always ask the victim "Is this REALLY a problem? Why didn't you protect yourself? Why didn't you perform due diligence? Why did you let yourself be taken advantage of? What's wrong with YOU?"
The desire for libertarianism is founded on the belief that the weak are the natural prey of the strong.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Using the wikipedia site,
Mostly Civil, with a good dash of Minarchism*, a bit of conservatism, a moderate amound of Green, and a smidge of transhumanism. For a libertarian I can get downright socialistic when it comes to taking care of people, but I'm all about giving a 'hand up' rather than a 'hand-out'. IE I don't have welfare, I have workfare. Instead of extending unemployment, I get very generous with retraining programs(yes, I'll provide support while you're in class).
I'm pretty standard on the 'victimless crimes' aspect, and believe that any rules should be held to an effectiveness standard. Want to keep DUI illegal? Show some proof that it's more effective at saving lives and property from DUI accidents than other methods.
*While a pure Minarchist would still be nailing this guy - he managed to do all three things they say government courts should still handle. Personally, I think that the government still needs to be involved in a bit more. For example, I have no problems with going entirely towards private schools, but I believe that they still need a bit of government control/funding. It's in my and the state's interest to make sure education standards are reasonable(teaching evolution over creationism), and that the kids of even the poorest/most negligent parents still get a practical education.
Basically, I don't want to have to support people, but as long as we're not willing to let them starve, we might as well be efficient in our support. If an education program is more efficient than policing after the fact, why NOT do the education?
I disagree with most parts of anarcho-capitalism, left-libertarianism, socialism, and geolibertarianism*.
*I'm going to have to look more into this one. How the heck do you set the rent rate? Can you not pay rent on land your house is on, and still exclude people from the house itself(it's a product of labor, after all)? What about land improvements?
I don't read AC A human right
This is similar to how... the credit industry is based in ND.
I think you mean Delaware. More specifically, Wilmington, DE.
Very well said.
Not that it is relevant here, but Sane Libertarians also seek to protect child development by defending them against child labor
Be careful not to equate "defending them against" with "outlawing" child labor. The reason children worked for thousands of years is because it was necessary and a pleasant alternative to starvation. As our productivity increased sufficiently, child labor became increasingly unwanted and less desirable. This may be a case where the law was more descriptive of a trend thand prescriptive in altering the trend itself.
Also, I doubt you speak for any number of libertarians beyond one. Firstly, they do not just "want the government the U.S. originally intended to have". There were clear mistakes then and now in the constitution. Also, you show some ignorance of history: "Once alcohol was legalized and controlled, violence related to the alcohol trade all but disappeared." We did not need the "and controlled" part. Not then, not now. Also, the more common term is "decriminalized" (among the libertarian circles you so clearly do not hang). It is the difference between "everything is illegal but for what we say" and "everything is legal but for what we say".
Here's where lack of democracy comes in: politicians (rightly or wrongly) feel that they would never get the necessary majority to repeal or supersede the 10th Amendment, and thus they prefer to play silly word games around "commerce". If your argument is so compelling, bring it before the people to convince them to make a democratic decision to fix the constitution, rather than working around it. Anything else is just hypocrisy.
Maybe. But I'm still more worried about somebody shouting at me who sits next to me, than about somebody with a sticky caps lock key halfway across the globe :-)
The thing is, before organized governments, and in areas without effective governments, that's generally the case (self-protection was allowed not just in the form of proximate self-defense, where it remains allowed in, e.g., the modern US, but also in retaliatory or pre-emptive action against those who had caused harm or who showed signs they might do so), and as it turns out, while it requires less self-protection against government, it doesn't actually lead to results that most people approve of, which is why in antiquity concepts of law like the lex talionis (the "law of retaliation" of "eye for eye and tooth for tooth") appeared, not to mandate harsh punishments (as it might seem to a modern eye unfamiliar with the context), but to dictate limits on punishments and to assign the judgement of retaliation to social magistrates rather than involved individuals.
Ah, but if you live near a state line (assuming relatively uniform population density in your area for sake of argument) you're only well-protected by state law from about half the criminals in your local vicinity; felonies committed against you by the other half can really only be prosecuted successfully by the feds. They're much harder to prosecute at the state level because of all the legal complications between states. Not every victim in NY gets murdered by someone in CA- there are troublemakers in NJ too!
where are my mod points when I need them
WhAt Do YoU hAvE aGaInSt StIcKy CaPsLoCk KeYs?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
a cop who molested (read raped as in not just fucked without a condom) two young girls , just got six years here, maybe you should send your criminals overhere they get much better conditions
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
This must be Bare Assertion Saturday. I didn't think it was that time of the month yet, silly me...