Dennis Hardin

Richism: The Self-Righteous Bigotry of the Wall Street Protestors

Recommended Posts

I think (but not sure) that even in Shayne's imaginary voluntary utopia that there will be at least some kind of Government of some small(er) size. No problem for me, I'm with him so far.

But...

What about a government contract for say...office space. Doesn't matter what product or service the Government is seeking. Anyway, a voluntary transaction between the administrator responsible for picking the office space and the property owner takes place where the administrator gets a 5% piece of the revenue ongoing - a kickback. Say what you want about this bribery, but it is certainly voluntary for both parties.

What about bribing a contract ajudicator? What about a lobbyist and his mutual-voluntary payments to government officials?

Should we point the guns? Gentle pursuasion? When does a voluntary transaction warrant gun-pointing? Certainly somewhere because you complain that big-business lobbying is a big problem? But it's clearly voluntary for all parties involved.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All he needs to do is list some websites from companies that are selling custom stock to the public.

Ninth, the fact that you found a website that sells stocks does nothing...

...

lucy-football1.jpg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just re-read the beginning of this thread and I think someone needs to say something fundamental about fascism.

First, fascism is leftist-code for authoritarianism in the sense of strict law enforcement. The real fascism of italy and Nazi Germany is a collectivist ideology, one can indeed detect in America, but only with a microscope (tribal nationalism, racism and national socialism).

The aspect of fascism we're talking about here is corporatism (see Mussolini). It has nothing to do with leftist-code for authoritarianism.

People who say America is fascist are employing the usual leftist strawman.

America's economy is very highly regulated. You have no idea what you are talking about.

And also: I strongly disapprove of the equality of rights of all men.

You either have no idea what that phrase means in a pro-liberty context or you are a very twisted person.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All he needs to do is list some websites from companies that are selling custom stock to the public.

Ninth, the fact that you found a website that sells stocks does nothing...

...

Are you serious? Do you even read the words you quote? Nothing about that stock was demonstrably tailorable in the sense I've been specifying all along, nor was there any evidence given that any person, small business, or company had an equal right to offer custom stock to the public. It's just a website with stocks listed.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://walkercorpora...ing-up-in-jail/

Securities Laws. Finally, a violation of applicable securities laws could result in criminal liability. Some of the most common securities laws violations by startups are (i) making materially false or misleading statements in connection with the offer or sale of securities; (ii) retaining unregistered finders (commonly referred to consultants, financial advisors or investment bankers) that offer and/or sell securities on a startup’s behalf for a commission; (iii) advertising, or improperly soliciting investors in connection with, the offer or sale of securities, including via email, Twitter or Facebook; and (iv) improperly offering and/or selling securities to “friends and family” who are not “accredited investors.”

What's your point? That you condone and want to license fraud?

If you're that dumb that you can't see what the point is I think there's no point in you continuing here. Go do something you're actually capable of, that's fitting to your appalling lack of intellect and imagination. Like nailing some boards together with Bob.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're that dumb that you can't see what the point is I think there's no point in you continuing here. Go do something you're actually capable of, that's fitting to your appalling lack of intellect and imagination. Like nailing some boards together

Ditto. :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A note about private placements.

To meet the requirement of Regulation D or the requirements of Section 4(2) of the 1933 Act (the private placement exemption), the issuer is almost always required to make extensive disclosures regarding the nature, character and risk factors relating to an offering. The disclosure document often is labeled "Offering Memorandum" or given a similar title, which, in the normal course, is based upon information provided to counsel to the issuer. While a properly executed private placement is exempt from the registration provisions (i.e. Section 5 of the 1933 Act) of the federal securities laws, the transaction (and the disclosures made or a lack thereof) is subject to the anti-fraud provisions (link).

While pink sheet stocks fall in the private placement category, private placement bonds are probably the biggest category money-wise, and "private placements" usually mean those. As the Wikipedia article says the investors are usually institutional ones. Typically a transaction is in the multi-million dollar category. For example, the borrower may sell $250 million in bonds and 10 lenders take an average of $25 million each.

Isn't it a shame that Shayne isn't an "accredited investor" like these lenders? It's much like him pedaling his bike down the road and cursing a sign saying the speed limit is 65 mph. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While pink sheet stocks fall in the private placement category, private placement bonds are probably the biggest category money-wise, and "private placements" usually mean those. As the Wikipedia article says the investors are usually institutional ones. Typically a transaction is in the multi-million dollar category. For example, the borrower may sell $250 million in bonds and 10 lenders take an average of $25 million each.

What does any of this have to do with the "crowd funding" approach that Valve was entertaining doing, where people would chip in $50 in return for right to the game plus stock in it?

It's much like him pedaling his bike down the road and cursing a sign saying the speed limit is 65 mph.

You continue to fail to understand (purposefully I think) the Valve scenario I put forth. What we have here is a trusted game developer with an idea and no money, who is asking his fans for $50 in exchange for both a right to play the future game and stock in the company. Your task is to show that this is legally feasible, not only for Valve, but for an engineer who quit working at Valve and wants to go it alone. He has no capital, just ideas and a reputation and an ability to throw a website together. The shares of stock will stipulate whatever the engineer wants, including that the investment is risky and the contributors can't sue if the game doesn't come off, and they are free as consenting adults to agree or not.

I think the truth is that all three of you know it's not legally feasible, but you refuse to actually admit it, and everything you've been saying so far is you trying to say in some terms or other that it doesn't matter if it's illegal. If so you should come out and say it so we all know what this "debate" is about.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You continue to fail to understand (purposefully I think) the Valve scenario I put forth. What we have here is a trusted game developer with an idea and no money, who is asking his fans for $50 in exchange for both a right to play the future game and stock in the company. Your task is to show that this is legally feasible, not only for Valve, but for an engineer who quit working at Valve and wants to go it alone. He has no capital, just ideas and a reputation and an ability to throw a website together. The shares of stock will stipulate whatever the engineer wants, including that the investment is risky and the contributors can't sue if the game doesn't come off, and they are free as consenting adults to agree or not.

I think the truth is that all three of you know it's not legally feasible, but you refuse to actually admit it, and everything you've been saying so far is you trying to say in some terms or other that it doesn't matter if it's illegal. If so you should come out and say it so we all know what this "debate" is about.

No, in my opinion, it's not illegal, but I'm not a lawyer. Why don't you work up an offering memorandum and send it to Scott Edward Walker? Why would he title a webpage "How To Launch a Startup and Avoid Ending-up in Jail" if he couldn't make a venture legal? However, also my opinion, the venture would be a financial flop, a market failure, and attract very little money. I wouldn't be surprised if Scott Edward Walker would tell you the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, in my opinion, it's not illegal, but I'm not a lawyer.

Resolved: you don't know what you're talking about.

However, also my opinion, the venture would be a financial flop, a market failure, and attract very little money.

Your guesses here are completely irrelevant and self-serving. What matters is whether someone's right to trade value for value has been interfered with, not whether you think the transaction is worthy. Of course, as a fascist, you don't care about violating rights now do you? That's why you incessantly shift focus away from rights violation and toward "but it doesn't matter anyway." You don't know whether it matters or not, and you don't care that someone's rights are being interfered with -- a patently amoral response.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Resolved: you don't know what you're talking about.

Ditto. And you are oblivious to fraud.

Wrong. I'm going by what an accountant and lawyer told me, and by what I've found in research. I can't say that it's conclusive because nothing's conclusive given the complexity of our legal system. That you can't readily know what's legal proves my case.

And I'm quite aware of fraud. E.g., you three have been fraudulently pretending to know something when you in fact don't. Also, nothing I've suggested implies that I approve of fraud. Obviously all fraud should be punished, but that doesn't mean that it should be preemptively prevented, which amounts to attacking someone on the grounds that they might possibly do something (there's a legal term for this I forget at the moment...)

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. I'm going by what an accountant and lawyer told me, and by what I've found in research. I can't say that it's conclusive because nothing's conclusive given the complexity of our legal system. That you can't readily know what's legal proves my case.

And I'm quite aware of fraud. E.g., you three have been fraudulently pretending to know something when you in fact don't. Also, nothing I've suggested implies that I approve of fraud. Obviously all fraud should be punished, but that doesn't mean that it should be preemptively prevented, which amounts to attacking someone on the grounds that they might possibly do something (there's a legal term for this I forget at the moment...)

That's convenient for you. You allude to "evidence" that we can't see or evaluate. We have no info about the accountant's or lawyer's credibility. Maybe there is something else you haven't told us about that makes it illegal. Based on your performance here, your research and conclusions are highly suspect. Now you say what you've learned is inconclusive. In other words, you "have been fraudulently pretending to know something when you in fact don't."

I didn't mean that you believed there was no such thing as fraud, but that you seem oblivious to any reasonable measures to prevent it or settle after it happens, sort of like rules of the road to prevent accidents. So I apologize for being too brief. I will be shocked if you apologize for all your abusive words to me (and others).

Maybe you or the engineer you mentioned who wants to go it alone hasn't been -- in your words -- "imaginative enough" and is content to "blame the system." If you are that person, then I wish you the best anyway. I rest my case, since I won't have time to post the next few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's convenient for you. You allude to "evidence" that we can't see or evaluate. We have no info about the accountant's or lawyer's credibility. Maybe there is something else you haven't told us about that makes it illegal. Based on your performance here, your research and conclusions are highly suspect. Now you say what you've learned is inconclusive. In other words, you "have been fraudulently pretending to know something when you in fact don't."

What a dishonest representation. It was only when Ninth brought up the "pink sheets" that there was some evidence (if paltry) I was aware of to suggest that maybe it's not illegal. Do you have any idea how big and complex the legal code is? You can't even get lawyers to make definitive statements about anything. And again -- this complexity makes my case. Not knowing whether what you are thinking of doing is legal or not paralyzes your action. But you don't know the answer to my question, you know some of the complexity, and you don't give a damn. You're an amoralist.

I didn't mean that you believed there was no such thing as fraud, but that you seem oblivious to any reasonable measures to prevent it or settle after it happens, sort of like rules of the road to prevent accidents. So I apologize for being too brief. I will be shocked if you apologize for all your abusive words to me (and others).

You're an amoralist who doesn't care when someone's rights are violated. You incessantly distort and misrepresent, as you did yet again in this post. Why should I apologize? You've wasted a lot of time trying to attack instead of trying to learn something.

Maybe you or the engineer you mentioned who wants to go it alone hasn't been -- in your words -- "imaginative enough" and is content to "blame the system." If you are that person, then I wish you the best anyway. I rest my case, since I won't have time to post the next few days.

The "engineer" is a hypothetical Valve employee. And you are blaming the victim whose rights are violated. What a sick man you are. I can only wish that you get an awakening (rude or otherwise) concerning whatever it is that is sustaining your delusions about the system.

There are many people who are unjustly ground up in the wheels of the statist machine. Too bad it's mostly random, if there were any justice it'd grind up only those who condone the injustice.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, even Google can't escape the fascism:

http://www.forbes.co...googles-android

Imagine if you had a dozen engineers who want to create a brand new smartphone. Even Google can't keep Android alive without forking over billions of dollars for the fascist patent system. This effectively means that only about 5 people in the world have a right to create a smartphone (the 5 CEO's of the respective companies that have enough money and patents). Something is wrong when it is illegal for anyone other than 5 individuals out of 7 billion people to create and sell a given category of product.

Shayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ventura Decries “Fascist” America After Judge Tosses TSA Case

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura said he would now refer to the country of his birth as the “Fascist States of America” after a judge dismissed his case challenging airport pat downs, adding that his only recourse now would be to run for President.

http://www.infowars.com/ventura-decries-fascist-america-after-judge-tosses-tsa-case/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura said he would now refer to the country of his birth as the “Fascist States of America”

Yeah, well you know what’s really fascist? Take two lemonade stands, for ease of reference let’s say one is operated by Kyle Broflowski (KB), the other by Eric Cartman (EC). Both sweeten their lemonade with aspartame, which neither labels properly. In separate incidents, both are patronized by phenylketonurics who immediately suffer damaging seizures. The customers sue and win. KB, having consulted a lawyer (his father) in the setup of his business, loses only the table, jug, and remaining stock of lemons that he used in the business. EC, who did not consult a lawyer, loses not only his table, jug, and lemons, but also his Gameboy, Xbox, Playstation, and all of his stuffed animals, including his beloved Clyde Frog.

m.jpg

EC believes that the different treatment he received was not the result of the fascist conspiracy of complex legal rules with forms to fill out, all this nonsense having to do with limited liability, but is in fact the work of the Jews. Hence, this unedifying spectacle:

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:southparkstudios.com:154473" width="360" height="293" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s08e04-the-passion-of-the-jew">The Passion of the Jew</a></b><br/>Get More: <a style="display: block; position: relative; top: -1.33em; float: right; font-weight: bold; color: #ffcc00; text-decoration: none" href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">SOUTH<br/>PARK</a><a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s08e04-the-passion-of-the-jew">more...</a></p></div></div>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, the Occupy DC got pretty violent at a tea party speaking engagement that was paid for and the organizers had a permit for.

A group of citizens with permission to be in a public building get together to talk politics. They’re inside, they’re minding their own business and expressing their opinions.

Outside a gang of screaming thugs beats on the doors, shouts at them, busts into the event ans starts pushing people around.

Just watch. Just watch how the Occupods behave. Watch the 78-year-old lady get pushed down the stairs, watch some older guy in a suit get repeatedly shoved as he simply tries to leave the building.

I love watching people who claim that “free speech” gives them the right to gather on/destroy our public property trying to shut down a lawful speech event because they don’t like the speakers. Brilliant.

These are “Liz’s kids.” This is the movement Tom Menino [Mayor of Boston] supports. These are the people President Obama has praised.

You watch the video and you tell me: Are these people you would support?

http://michaelgraham.com/archives/what-the-occupods-really-think-of-free-speech/ <<<<video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...