TWiL 96 Video — Come Together Y'all

Episode 96 Discussion Points. Video archives for this WEEK in LAW are available at TWiT.tv, on YouTube, and ODTV.  TWiL is on Twitter and Facebook, if you're so inclined. Please also rate the show in iTunes.

This WEEK in LAW on Facebook



Comments

[DonkeyHotey]

Hi Denise,

I did not keep track of which guest, Eric E. Johnson or Matt Macari, made the arguments that I am about to comment on. I am addressing the self professed Libertarian.

My main point is that in discussions of law I would give arguments more weight if they were founded on the Constitution and actual laws of the United States rather than vague claims of being Libertarian. There is no one definition of Libertarian ideals, but with the law there is a common starting point.

I find it ironic that an attorney can be such a rabid advocate for zero government intrusion and oppose the very institution of government. Laws are rules enacted by governments. Police, courts, regulatory agencies, legislatures, and prisons are institutions supported by government. Therefore every attorney in the United States owes their entire existence and ability to earn salaries to tax payer supported institutions. Also, the laws that enable them to make a living define the rules of markets and therefore make markets not free, but bound by rules defined by competing interests.

Another point that I found odd is the idea that giving ISPs a tax break would pay for the costs of instituting various laws that give the government access to our private data. A tax break pays for nothing because is does not actually require anyone to pay directly. It taxes our grand children through debt by underfunding the government and causing the government to borrow money to meet expenses. A more direct method would be to require the ISPs to collect a tax or just force them to raise rates if they needed to. In this case I am leery of the requirement to keep private data in the first place.

Thanks for your great show.

DonkeyHotey