@jimnms I think the right lesson to take from the example of Brazil is "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime."

Also, you're wrong about gun shows, there's a pretty big loophole. From wikipedia:

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

In other words, you can always just say you're a private seller, and sell guns at gunshows without doing background checks or recording the sale.

There are videos, sifted right here on Videosift, of people going and buying guns at gunshows while literally saying to the seller "I don't need a background check, right? 'Cause I probably couldn't pass one" with the seller replying with some form of "no problem, here's your gun".

But more than anecdotal video evidence, there's also a been series of studies about drug cartels moving serious amounts of guns using straw purchases at gun shows.

Yet for some reason you're calling Moyers a liar for saying the same thing.

Also, the Assault Weapons Ban set the maximum legal size of a single clip at 10 rounds. IIRC, this latest shooting featured the shooter using a barrel mag with over 100. That used to be illegal. Also, the Tuscon shooting featured a shooter using 2 guns with 30-round clips -- and he was stopped when he had to reload.

Personally, I don't quite understand the anti-gun control side of the argument. Say banning assault weapons only reduces the number of people killed by gun violence by 1.6%. That's still what, a few thousand people's lives a year? Why is having assault weapons legal for civilians worth the deaths of a thousand people a year? Why would it be worth the death of even one person a year? You can still have a pistol, a hunting rife, a shotgun, etc., you just can't have a high-velocity, large-magazine firearm. What exactly is the harm in making that illegal?

@rbar First you state that free markets don't work, then you say most systems are not true free markets. So, how did you realize they don't work if apparently we don't have them anywhere?

My guess is that you rushed to conclude they don't work when, usually, more prosperity is experienced where there is most economic freedom?

Assuming workplace mobility is sluggish as you claim, ever considered that maybe it's not something inherent? Maybe it's policy that makes it sluggish. Worker's rights are designed to help the employed, but what most don't see is that they do so at the unseen expense of the unemployed, those looking for jobs, and the employers. Ever considered that maybe that's what's getting in the way of hiring and firing people more easily (i.e., more mobility)?

A free market wouldn't have worker rights guaranteed by government. The terms of job contracts would be freely negotiated between employers and employees/unions.

Unions are, more often than not, involved with government, how do you think worker's rights came to be? That's the threat they represent to economic freedom, the same way a cartel would be a threat if it corrupted authorities to obtain undeserved privileges at the unseen expense of competing businesses and consumers.

There is nothing daft about defending economic freedom, just as there was nothing daft about defending freedom of expression back when no country in the world would allow it. Today we all know and enjoy freedom of expression thanks to our open-minded ancestors who cared enough to fight for it.

This is overly confusing for my mind. In that, I have concluded that none of this is about guns, and it is all about drugs being illegal. Trying to make crazy gun laws because of bad drug laws is just kicking the ball down the road all the while creating new problem. Start at the root not at the symptom. Drug cartels want guns because they want to protect their interests in drug production to sell to the US drug user. Gun sales to cartels are financed by the fact that drugs are illegal. Statically, for drugs, crime does pay...so well that you can arm yourself with some of the finest guns on the market. This would likely continue even if stricter gun laws existed in the same way drugs still get sold even though they are HIGHLY controlled. /rant

For one thing in the video, wouldn't the NRA make more money if guns are seized? I mean, if the cops have it, then you don't...so you need to buy another one. Or are guns like razors, the bullets are the real money maker? At any rate, it doesn't matter. I don't expect to see eye to eye with Cenk on gun rights, but I would expect him to call out the real problem as drugs, but perhaps that is a little convoluted for this conversation exactly.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I have a way to get around Obama's objection about ending the drug wars. He said that if we legalize it in the USA drug cartels would take over other countries. They would--if we just open the borders.
Instead completely legalize it, with a provision to not allow foreign imports for 10 years. This would give the US time to stabilize our cannabis economy and cut the legs out from under the cartels. When we can grow our own, or simply buy it, there will be no more cannabis crossing the borders.


Similar to my thoughts on the matter, but with an addition of a 10 year dis-allowance for foreign imports. I hadn't considered that.

Now that i have, i think it's a great idea on the basis that as you stated would give time for the internal stabilization to occur as well as giving a decent amount of time to stably wind down the amount of resources that is currently dedicated to fighting it internally, and redirect their attention to resisting external imports during the 10 year dis-allowance while the dedicated forces are realigned into alternative programs, or if necessary/reasonable, largely cut.

@Porksandwich all good points. There is corruption and a lot of collusion between government and corporations. Can we consider the possibility that this collusion happens mostly because the role of government is not well defined, because the economy is a grey area, because businesses covet the power politicians have?

I don't see churches fighting over privileges with politicians, not since a clear separation of church and state was established.

I don't see big media networks fighting over censorship rights with politicians, because freedom of speech mostly outlaws censorship by the government.

Do you see where I'm getting at?

The businesses that hold a monopoly, most of the time, hold it because of regulation. If you remove the regulation, you remove the obstacles for competition. The business might still hold the monopoly even for a long while, maybe decades, but any dissatisfaction by consumers is an opportunity for competitors to step in, slowly pushing the monopoly to be more efficient or risk being toppled.

If we dial back regulation, that doesn't mean there won't be any regulation, that the industry will only answer to itself. Regulation will come from consumers, clients, advertisers, consumer groups, unions, shareholders, and competitors. Didn't GoDaddy pay dearly for supporting SOPA? That's a great example of society punishing a business for an unpopular decision.

Besides, we can't consider it unfair for a business to establish a monopoly or a cartel, if we're ok with workers forming a union. That's a double standard because, in essence, they're basically the same thing. I don't judge either to be good or bad, fair or unfair, it's all part of the market and the right for people to freely associate.

You are absolutely right when you say people are held to more standards than just making money, but who establishes those standards? Are there laws dictating that we shouldn't be dicks, that we should never take advantage of others or "negatively impact people"? Those aren't laws, it's social pressure and your reputation that ****regulate**** you to act as a better person.

Let society and people hold businesses to better standards, not laws and politicians.

I have a way to get around Obama's objection about ending the drug wars. He said that if we legalize it in the USA drug cartels would take over other countries. They would--if we just open the borders.

Instead completely legalize it, with a provision to not allow foreign imports for 10 years. This would give the US time to stabilize our cannabis economy and cut the legs out from under the cartels. When we can grow our own, or simply buy it, there will be no more cannabis crossing the borders.

I posted about this before, so many of the problems that drugs create are actually created by the War On Drugs.

Governments can't beat drug dealers, but Capitalism can. If Tesco's sold Fair Trade Cannabis, drug dealers would be utterly screwed in no time. Plus, farmers in Columbia/Afghanistan/etc would have a legitimate market, which would erode the illegal market, in turn decimating FARC/Taliban/etc's income and ability to operate. I saw one report that said half of the Afghan Taliban's $3B annual income is from heroin and cannabis sales.

The financial implications would be vast, tax revenue for governments would be a big help while the money, and therefore power, of drug cartels shrinks. There would be even more horrific violence here as cartels look to consolidate on their remaining business, I shudder to think of how the Zetas, the Tijuana Gang and the Juarez Cartel among others in Mexico would respond and it would take considerable political strength to get through.

Is legalising drugs the answer to peace on earth? The war on drugs is subsidising organised crime.

Yeah, I get that. usually the left is calling for more than "some" regulation.

As the scamulus proved, collusion between government and banks is also possible.

Also, "merriment". Good word.


>> ^Bradaphraser:

I think the point dystopianfuturetoday is making is that when regulation is reduced, there is ALWAYS collusion. Adam Smith understood this. "Two men of the same trade cannot meet, even for merriment and diversion, without the conversation ending in a conspiracy against the public."

The general idea is that SOME regulation is necessary to ENSURE that supply and demand are driving prices, and not guilds and cartels.

Fucking shit. Thank you, Phraser!

@quantumushroom, this is why.

>> ^Bradaphraser:

I think the point dystopianfuturetoday is making is that when regulation is reduced, there is ALWAYS collusion. Adam Smith understood this. "Two men of the same trade cannot meet, even for merriment and diversion, without the conversation ending in a conspiracy against the public."

The general idea is that SOME regulation is necessary to ENSURE that supply and demand are driving prices, and not guilds and cartels.

I think the point dystopianfuturetoday is making is that when regulation is reduced, there is ALWAYS collusion. Adam Smith understood this. "Two men of the same trade cannot meet, even for merriment and diversion, without the conversation ending in a conspiracy against the public."



The general idea is that SOME regulation is necessary to ENSURE that supply and demand are driving prices, and not guilds and cartels.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jwray:

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

That's an incorrect assessment. Nothing forces corporations to pay union workers the same as non-union workers or give them the same benefits. Union negotiations don't necessarily have any effect on non-union workers. Union workers have effectively formed a cartel to raise prices, and in a free market, competitors would be free to come along and undercut them by working for less money or working on more flexible terms (c.f. the massive bureaucracy involved in firing blatantly incompetent teachers due to teachers' unions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law


That free rider problem is fictitious. Unions need not write contracts that apply to non-union employees.

RTW states have 3.2% lower wages on average, but they have 1% lower unemployment and 8% lower cost-of-living.*

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/briefingpapers/BriefingPaper299.pdf

>> ^jwray:

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

That's an incorrect assessment. Nothing forces corporations to pay union workers the same as non-union workers or give them the same benefits. Union negotiations don't necessarily have any effect on non-union workers. Union workers have effectively formed a cartel to raise prices, and in a free market, competitors would be free to come along and undercut them by working for less money or working on more flexible terms (c.f. the massive bureaucracy involved in firing blatantly incompetent teachers due to teachers' unions).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Right to work: I have the right to demand unions represent me even if I don't pay union dues.

That's an incorrect assessment. Nothing forces corporations to pay union workers the same as non-union workers or give them the same benefits. Union negotiations don't necessarily have any effect on non-union workers. Union workers have effectively formed a cartel to raise prices, and in a free market, competitors would be free to come along and undercut them by working for less money or working on more flexible terms (c.f. the massive bureaucracy involved in firing blatantly incompetent teachers due to teachers' unions).

>> ^schlub:

Fuck this fuckin' hypocrite. How come he can't have a fair and balanced argument about vaccines?


The difference is that there are many objective reasons to distrust the insurance/Big Pharma/Government cartel.

I don't agree with Maher's position on vaccines but being paranoid about them doesn't strike me as being inconsistent with logic (Tuskegee syphilis experiment).

It's definitely a blind spot for Maher and I bet he'll admit it eventually.

I am politically against the war on drugs. Personnally, I applaud the agent and wish there were more people on the border with his sensitivities.

When I say I would have fired the guy, I am speaking from the point of view of his employer. As such, my concerns would include this man pulling down the morale of his team by proselytizing for a group whose mission counters that of the agency, and espousing a point of view that does the same. I would believe he was entitled to his opinions, and even the entitled to express them outside of work. But on the job is too far.>> ^Skeeve:

I'd be interested to hear why. He never refused to do his job. He never did anything to help drug dealers or smugglers or anything. He simply expressed an opinion, which is his right.
Soldiers don't get kicked out of the military for bitching about their mission.
Public servants don't lose their jobs for disagreeing with government policies.
Plumbers don't get fired for grumbling about unclogging toilets.
And if the above people do lose their jobs for those things, they sue for wrongful dismissal.
This guy innocently suggested an alternative to the war on drugs (an alternative that is likely to be better for everyone except drug cartels and the people with a financial stake in fighting them) and he gets fired and you think that was the right thing to do?
>> ^longde:
I feel for him; but if I were his boss, I'd fire him too.