Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : MANIPULATION IS RAMPANT --- Can We Stop It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave Gore who wrote (267)	5/22/2002 8:20:15 AM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 589

You're confused. I asked if, as you stated (and I agree to some extent) the "SEC is overburdened," you'd advocate piling more regulation on, and you appear to be answering "[a]bsolutely." But what does the sentence 'until something is officially made illegal that should be illegal, it is not a crime,is it?' have to do with that? Although, taken on its' own, it's a fairly predictable sentiment from one who would advocate the annulment of personal responsibility in favor of increased central political power. You speak of "[things]...that should be illegal." You believe, then, that you have the knowledge, the experience, and the wisdom to determine what "should be" illegal, and what shouldn't? Or do you believe that committees, commissions, or other political installations - composed of former politicians, bureaucrats, and attorneys - do? Neither? Both? That's kind of a naive question on your part, isn't it? Well, earlier you said that you believe that some of the regulators and politicians might be "in on" whatever wrongdoing is being committed (see the below link). Message 17494344 And having said that...now, you're saying that you "absolutely" would delegate more power to them? ROFL!!! Now; given that strange line of reasoning, it certainly doesn't seem naive or strange that I'd ask you to clarify your position. Does it? You think it's better to do nothing? For the most part, yes, but that would be a characteristic oversimplification of my point of view. I don't think, as you apparently do, that regulators of any sort are imbued with any particular skill or wisdom to fight wrongdoing better than natural economic forces can, although I do think that, in general, they have a knack for fouling things up. In my opinion, outside of pursuing fraud, stopping coercion, and protecting people from physical harm, nearly all regulatory efforts - whether it's the SEC, the FDA, the FERC or the FCC - manifest themselves as an arbitrary game of social and economic wealth redistribution - an undertaking fundamentally, and diametrically, opposed to the principles this country is founded upon. I also believe both (a) that you can't legislate ethics, and that (b) even when you try to alleviate their responsibility (a perilous prospect for everyone), fools will find a way to lose their money - so it's not only unjust but pointless - in the securities industry and in every aspect of American life, to make every individual, community, and business subsidize the stupidity, naivete, and/or misfortune of one subset of the population. And that holds whether we're talking about people who don't wear seatbelts or a class of folks who gleefully and mindlessly throw their money around without considering the potential outcomes. Here's a question for you, Dave: The SEC is a commission operating via a Federal mandate. In the Constitution, how many Federal crimes are named. (For extra credit, what are they?) LP.