Reddit Trolls Wall St. Hedge Funds, Buying Up GameStop Stock

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's a recent article on naked short selling by Robert Murphy that I think strikes the right balance.
https://mises.org/wire/when-short-selling-fraudulent

These are the last few paragraphs:


Murphy doesn't get into any prescriptions for what should be done to prevent naked short selling from crossing that line between when it is and when it isn't "problematic" (note that he refrains from repeating the word "dubious or fraudulent" from his previous sentence). But note his analogy between naked short selling and fractional reserve banking. I suspect that his prescription for both would be not to ban them, but rather to let the market sort them out. And I further suspect that he would argue that government regulations will have a tendency to promote the exercise of these practices on a problematic scale, rather than to temper them. In the case of fractional reserve banking, if the government would passively allow bank runs to happen, then the potential for them would put pressure on banks to hold a high enough amount of money in reserve to keep themselves in business. They would still engage in fractional reserve banking, and it wouldn't be fraudulent to do so, but the market would temper it. Likewise with brokerages lending out shares they aren't able to borrow immediately (i.e. lending them out on credit, which they rely on buyers to trust them to be good for), they would need to mitigate their own risk and work to maintain a reputations with their business partners as firms that can be counted on to be able to buy back all the shares they allow people to naked short sell through them.

An article that says essentially what I have been saying all along.

And arguments that good business practices will prevent fraud and theft are fantasy. Saying Bernie Madoff would never engage in criminal fraud because his business reputation might be tarnished and he might lose money makes no sense at all.

 

[Invisible Man]

An article that says essentially what I have been saying all along.

Really? Because it says what I have been saying all along and you seemed to be disagreeing with me.

 

[Invisible Man]

And arguments that good business practices will prevent fraud and theft are fantasy. Saying Bernie Madoff would never engage in criminal fraud because his business reputation might be tarnished and he might lose money makes no sense at all.

Bernie Madoff did what he did in a heavily regulated marketplace. His story isn't a story about what happens when government gets out of the way. It's a story about how government was very much in the way and didn't do a lick of good.

Yes, the government jailed him. Big deal. That consequence is of no greater significance than the other losses he experienced both financially and to his reputation. If those factors didn't provide him with enough disincentive against defrauding people, then the government couldn't either. Free markets don't make the world a perfect place. But more government regulations over our abilities to enter agreements with one another with money that belongs to us, not the government, taking risks according to our levels of tolerance, not the government's, are no improvement over free markets.

As a matter of fact, I'll join Jeffrey Tucker in saying, "Free Bernie Madoff!"

 

[oyarde]

Is bernie still alive ? I was thinking he was deceased.

 

[Invisible Man]

Is bernie still alive ? I was thinking he was deceased.

You're right. He is as of a few months ago. I must have missed that.

 

[oyarde]

Come to think of it I've only ever known one bernie who was a value added kind of guy . I knew him from Junior High.

 

[Madison320]

1. I don't believe that this island being stateless makes it a better target for invasion than an island with a centralized ruling regime would be. The scenario with the centralized ruling regime would have the infrastructure of statehood in place so that all an invading force would need to do is conquer that regime. But in the stateless island the invaders would have to conquer each sovereign individual. Now, I'm not sure what anarchist island in the 1970's you're referring to. But let me go out on a limb and take a guess that the invading force they were unable to repel was an existing nation-state that claimed sovereignty over that island and didn't accept the claim of its inhabitants to be outside of its rule. And if this is the case, then as a thought experiment, consider the hypothetical alternative of that very same island, with the only difference being that the new order there was not anarchist, but rather a state in which some subset of the people conquered and subjugated the rest under their rule, establishing a central ruling regime, and consider what that other already existing nation-state that claimed sovereignty over that island would have done in response. They would have still reclaimed it, and they would have still succeeded. The presence of a state there would have done nothing to prevent that, and in fact it would have made it easier, not harder.

A stateless island absolutely makes a better target for invasion because it wouldn't have a collective force to defend itself.

The proof of this is in the fact that there aren't any anarchies in existence unless you want to call Somalia an anarchy.

If anarchies were a superior design then they would be more common, especially as time goes on.


Republic of Minerva
Main article: Republic of Minerva

Flag of the Republic of Minerva
In 1972, real-estate millionaire Michael Oliver, of the Phoenix Foundation, sought to establish a libertarian country on the reefs. Oliver formed a syndicate, the Ocean Life Research Foundation, which had considerable finances for the project and had offices in New York City and London.[6] In 1971, the organization constructed a steel tower on the reef.[6] The Republic of Minerva issued a declaration of independence on 19 January 1972.[7] Morris Davis was elected as the President of Minerva.[8]

However, the islands were also claimed by Tonga. An expedition consisting of 90 prisoners was sent to enforce the claim by building an artificial island with permanent structures above the high-tide mark.[9] Arriving on 18 June 1972, the Flag of the Tonga was raised on the following day on North Minerva and on South Minerva on 21 June 1972.[6][10] King Tāufaʻāhau Tupou IV announced the annexation of the islands on 26 June; North Minerva was to be renamed Teleki Tokelau, with South Minerva becoming Teleki Tonga.[11] The Tongan claim to the reef was recognized by the South Pacific Forum in September 1972.

In 1982, a group of Americans led again by Morris Davis tried to occupy the reefs, but were forced off by Tongan troops after three weeks.[citation needed] According to Reason, Minerva has been "more or less reclaimed by the sea".[12]

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Bernie Madoff did what he did in a heavily regulated marketplace. His story isn't a story about what happens when government gets out of the way. It's a story about how government was very much in the way and didn't do a lick of good.

Yes, the government jailed him. Big deal. That consequence is of no greater significance than the other losses he experienced both financially and to his reputation. If those factors didn't provide him with enough disincentive against defrauding people, then the government couldn't either. Free markets don't make the world a perfect place. But more government regulations over our abilities to enter agreements with one another with money that belongs to us, not the government, taking risks according to our levels of tolerance, not the government's, are no improvement over free markets.

As a matter of fact, I'll join Jeffrey Tucker in saying, "Free Bernie Madoff!"

And I suppose you support massive daytime shoplifting and looting of stores too. After all, if damage to their reputations isn't a deterrent, then laws aren’t a deterrent either.

 

[Madison320]

And I suppose you support massive daytime shoplifting and looting of stores too. After all, if damage to their reputations isn't a deterrent, then laws aren’t a deterrent either.

Although it's not really laws that are the deterrent, it's the collective force behind those laws.

 

[Invisible Man]

A stateless island absolutely makes a better target for invasion because it wouldn't have a collective force to defend itself.

I don't see any reason why a stateless island is any less able to have a collective force to defend itself than an island with a state. The market proves itself more than capable of providing collective services all the time.

But a stateless island would have less of a need to defend itself because it would be less desirable to an invading force in the first place.

If anarchies were a superior design then they would be more common, especially as time goes on.

The proof of this is in the fact that there aren't any anarchies in existence unless you want to call Somalia an anarchy.

I don't see how that proves anything. It took many millennia to get to that point.

If anarchies were a superior design then they would be more common, especially as time goes on.

I don't see how this logically follows either. It seems to assume that the trend we see societal governance taking over time is one of improvement. By my estimation the general trend we see is the exact opposite. Switch out central banks for states and this argument would lead to the conclusion that central banks are a good thing.

However, the islands were also claimed by Tonga.

See? Without even knowing what you were talking about I predicted exactly what the backstory was. There's a lot missing from the account you gave, like how many people even lived on these islands. It sounds like practically nobody even did. But do you honestly believe that replacing this scenario with an alternative where one group of people living on the islands enslaved the rest of the population (i.e. a state) would have resulted in its being able to fend off Tonga? Hardly. Unless they had a very large population and economy, in which case, that would have been the crucial factor and not the presence of the state.

 

[TheTexan]

If I weren't an anarchist, I couldn't even say those invaders were doing anything wrong, as I would concede that their might makes them right.

Might does make right. Always has, always will.

If you want anarchy to succeed, you will need to adapt that fact of life into your ideology. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Invisible Man]

And I suppose you support massive daytime shoplifting and looting of stores too. After all, if damage to their reputations isn't a deterrent, then laws aren’t a deterrent either.

No.

And I have no problem with laws. I just have a problem with make believe laws that one day don't exist and then the next day do exist because some politicians dreamed them up and voted on them.

 

[Invisible Man]

Might does make right. Always has, always will.

If you want anarchy to succeed, you will need to adapt that fact of life into your ideology. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Like I said in the post you're quoting, anarchy, as I see it, is not a goal to pursue such that something can be achieved that I could call a success. I'm not sure what anarchy succeeding is supposed to mean. But whatever that is, it's not something I'm striving after or hoping for.

But no, you are wrong. Might has never made right. Might does make success. But history is full of examples of success by way of doing wrong.

And if might does make right, then why not just join up with whoever is the mightiest, regardless of their cause? Then you'll always be on the right side. If you're worried that the extreme left is on a winning trajectory to take over America and crush its enemies, then rather than worry about it, just join them and be one of the crushers instead of the crushed. You will be a winner, and you will stand faultless.

If you see a reason not to do that, then it's because you know that might does not make right.

There exists an objective, timeless, universal moral law that doesn't change with our opinions, legislations, social mores, or success in violating it. We all know this inherently. We are incapable of not knowing it, and we prove this constantly in ways that could be pointed out if necessary. But we also have a tendency to suppress our knowledge of this law in order to excuse violations of it.

I don't hold out any hope of ever seeing a world without any theft in it. But that won't stop me from being able to say that theft is wrong and that less theft is better than more theft, even if zero theft is not an option on the table. Nor does the fact that people succeed at theft and enjoy material benefits from it make it right.

 

[TheTexan]

There exists an objective, timeless, universal moral law that doesn't change with our opinions, legislations, social mores, or success in violating it. We all know this inherently. We are incapable of not knowing it, and we prove this constantly in ways that could be pointed out if necessary. But we also have a tendency to suppress our knowledge of this law in order to excuse violations of it.

I don't think there is such a thing as a set of universal moral laws that can be applied to everybody.

Besides perhaps the right of secession.

Upholding the right of secession means that both parties in an arrangement must make good faith efforts to allow the other to equitably separate. (e.g., splitting assets in a divorce). It also means that there is no such thing as a contract without an exit clause (implicit or explicit).

All other laws, "thou shall not steal", "thou shall not kill" are not even universal. There are a great many philosophers that believe that theft has many justifications. Even murder can be justified in some ethical contexts.

The right of secession, when properly upheld, allows an individual to choose what society (and thus, what set of ethics) that the person belongs to.

The degree to which anarchy is "achieved", can be measured directly by how much the right of secession, is upheld.

 

[Invisible Man]

I don't think there is such a thing as a set of universal moral laws that can be applied to everybody.

Besides perhaps the right of secession.

I don't think this is possible. If you really believe that the right of secession is a universal moral law that can be applied to everybody, then it can't just stand on its own. It must have a foundation in a coherent moral framework that exists.

All other laws, "thou shall not steal", "thou shall not kill" are not even universal. There are a great many philosophers that believe that theft has many justifications. Even murder can be justified in some ethical contexts.

That's a great segue into some examples of exactly what I said: We are incapable of not knowing that a universal, timeless, objective moral law exists, and we prove this constantly in ways that could be pointed out if necessary. Those philosophers you mention by virtue of the very arguments you allude to are showing that they recognize the existence of a universal, timeless, and objective moral law, which provides the justifications for those exceptions to "thou shalt not steal," etc. We could debate whether their arguments are right or wrong in each instance. But debating those specific claims would be beside the point, because the very debate itself would proceed on the basis of the assumption that such questions can be answered at all, which presupposes the existence of a standard against which the claims can be judged. And that standard is the thing that you're claiming doesn't exist.

As an analogy, the fact that Newton's Laws of Motion can be violated under certain circumstances doesn't mean that universal laws of physics don't exist at all. It only means that whatever those universal laws of physics are, they're something other than Newton's Laws. Newton's Laws are special cases of more general laws that serve us well practically as approximations of those general laws that apply as well as most people could ever want to any motion we are capable of experiencing. And the ways that today's best physicists may give expression to those more general laws may also prove to have exceptions, and themselves be special cases of a more universal set of physical laws out there that we haven't attained knowledge of yet. But even if we don't know with perfect exactness what the laws of physics are, we know that they exist, and we know good approximations of them.

 

[Madison320]

I don't see any reason why a stateless island is any less able to have a collective force to defend itself than an island with a state. The market proves itself more than capable of providing collective services all the time.

How would that work? Who would pay for the collective defense? Who would decide when and how to use it?

I think the logical mistake anarchists make is that you can have a free market with force. You can't shop around for a "protection agency", they pick you, you don't pick them.

I would argue that there's no such thing as "no state". Some group or person is ALWAYS going to have the most force in a given area and they will be making the rules and doing the enforcing. Even in in the cave man days I'm sure there was Grog, the biggest baddest caveman that everyone else took orders from.

 

[TheTexan]

I don't think this is possible. If you really believe this, the right of secession is a universal moral law that can be applied to everybody, then it can't just stand on its own. It must have a foundation in a coherent moral framework that exists.

Why can it not stand on its own? Seems pretty stand-alone to me. It's the fundamental basis of all other rights.

That's a great segue into some examples of exactly what I said: We are incapable of not knowing that a universal, timeless, objective moral law exists, and we prove this constantly in ways that could be pointed out if necessary. Those philosophers you mention by virtue of the very arguments you allude to are showing that they recognize the existence of a universal, timeless, and objective moral law, which provides the justifications for those exceptions to "thou shalt not steal," etc. We could debate whether their arguments are right or wrong in each instance. But debating those specific claims would be beside the point, because the very debate itself would proceed on the basis of the assumption that such questions can be answered at all, which presupposes the existence of a standard against which the claims can be judged. And that standard is the thing that you're claiming doesn't exist.

The age-old question of whether ethics is absolute or subjective. There is no way to prove it either way. Suffice it to say that I fall on the "subjective" side of the argument.

The idea that there is an "absolute" set of ethics just seems entirely distasteful to me, as it reeks of authoritarianism. "My ethics are better than your ethics!"

 

[Invisible Man]

How would that work? Who would pay for the collective defense? Who would decide when and how to use it?

There you go again.

As I said in my earlier post, gambit declined. There are countless ways it could work. The fact that states do it proves it can work, and there's nothing a state can do that the market couldn't do without a state. But whatever prediction I might make about how it would work would not be what would actually happen. The way that the market would provide that it actually would work would be better than anything anyone could predict, which is why central planning is always less efficient than the free market.

Take any other so-called "public good" you want, as an analogy, whether it be post offices, lighthouses, or any other kind of infrastructure. In any of these cases you'll see their defenders asking the exact same questions you just did about how it would work if the government didn't do it. And in all of those examples (as well as the example of military by the way), you'll find plenty of actual cases in history where they actually did exist privately and work without being under the purview of any state.

I would argue that there's no such thing as "no state". Some group or person is ALWAYS going to have the most force in a given area and they will be making the rules and doing the enforcing. Even in in the cave man days I'm sure there was Grog, the biggest baddest caveman that everyone else took orders from.

OK. On this point I actually agree (aside from the quibble that I don't think there was ever such a thing as cave man days), and I've said similar things before. I think that usually people have an unspecified line that they draw somewhere delineating when something is big enough to count as a state, and such a line is bound to be arbitrary and subjective. At the end of the day, every mugger in a dark alley is, at that moment in time and in that limited geographical area, no different than a state except in size.

However, in setting that point aside for the sake of this discussion, I was actually going along with the terms you had set. If you want to make this point, then you can no longer say that the island you were talking about had anarchy either. It had a state just like everywhere else does.

 

[Madison320]

There you go again.

As I said in my earlier post, gambit declined. There are countless ways it could work. The fact that states do it proves it can work, and there's nothing a state can do that the market couldn't do without a state. But whatever prediction I might make about how it would work would not be what would actually happen. The way that the market would provide that it actually would work would be better than anything anyone could predict, which is why central planning is always less efficient than the free market.

If I was asked "how would the market make a better pencil?" I wouldn't know how the process would be improved but I would answer businesses would compete with each other trying to make the best pencil for their customers at the lowest cost.

I'm not asking how the best defense would be provided, I'm asking how would it be paid for and who would run it. The fact that your answer is "the market will magically make it happen" is just a way of avoiding the question. The reason you have to avoid the question is that the free market does not function with the use of force.

I'll ask again "who will pay for the defense and who will run it"? Just give me a possible scenario.

 

[fatjohn]

Yet, John McAfee is the financial criminal, for posting on Twitter about crypto-currency.

He claimed he knew about IRS corruption in his extradition hearing (but the translator did not translate that)
McAfee had many enemies.
He got Whackd, plain and simple.
He expected this could be his probable end and made a crypto called WHACKD to bring attention to Epstein's death.
I bought some of the token, figure if the token blows up, the MSM will have to talk about McAfee and the possibility of a government hit.