Expect this decision from a Federal judge striking down the healthcare mandate to be all the rage in the next 24-hour news cycle.
I look forward to an informative discussion from our press corps about Federalism, the Commerce Clause and the limits placed on the Congress by Article I.
But I won't hold my breath. I have a funny feeling they will mostly talk about how this decision affects Obama's 2012 chances, and his negotiations with the Republicans over other issues, and, of course how this will "play" with the "base/far left/Tea Party/Middle America" .. mostly.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Probably A Lot of Each
What drives someone to get to the point that they are pushing through a NATIONAL policy controlling what kids eat in school? What is wrong with someone's brain that when asked whether this policy should also touch on bake sales, she responds: "The most important rebuttal to all of these arguments is that schools can make money other ways — you don't have to harm kids health?"
Is this just momentum? As in, you once saw some fat kid and it made you sad, and you thought you'd encourage others not be or have fat kids and they were happy and so you though you had to make this difference in the life of every child in your town, until one day you were being asked to talk at other schools, and started joining some message boards on the web, and then you just figured 'why stop anywhere?' and nothing gets people to change their behavior like a law, until you were totally comfortable dictating eating habits to every child in America?
Is it arrogance? As in, you honestly hold the belief that you know whats best for these children more so than their parents, teachers or communities, and that even though, sure, something close to at least half of all children can eat and have eaten tons of pizza, ice cream, hot dogs etc. and wind up in a completely healthy (not that BMI bullshit) weight-range with absolutely no health problems means just that those natually healthy kids with kid-like metabolism can go screw because you and Michelle Obama have got this?
Is it about being intergalactically stupid? As in, you will allow thoughts like the following to not only form in your brain, but to fall out of your mouth: "This is really about supporting parental choice. Most parents don't want their kids to use their lunch money to buy junk food. They expect they'll use their lunch money to buy a balanced school meal."
Hear that, parents? Your choices are being supported. Your problems are solved! Sleep well. And, you're welcome!
Is this just momentum? As in, you once saw some fat kid and it made you sad, and you thought you'd encourage others not be or have fat kids and they were happy and so you though you had to make this difference in the life of every child in your town, until one day you were being asked to talk at other schools, and started joining some message boards on the web, and then you just figured 'why stop anywhere?' and nothing gets people to change their behavior like a law, until you were totally comfortable dictating eating habits to every child in America?
Is it arrogance? As in, you honestly hold the belief that you know whats best for these children more so than their parents, teachers or communities, and that even though, sure, something close to at least half of all children can eat and have eaten tons of pizza, ice cream, hot dogs etc. and wind up in a completely healthy (not that BMI bullshit) weight-range with absolutely no health problems means just that those natually healthy kids with kid-like metabolism can go screw because you and Michelle Obama have got this?
Is it about being intergalactically stupid? As in, you will allow thoughts like the following to not only form in your brain, but to fall out of your mouth: "This is really about supporting parental choice. Most parents don't want their kids to use their lunch money to buy junk food. They expect they'll use their lunch money to buy a balanced school meal."
Hear that, parents? Your choices are being supported. Your problems are solved! Sleep well. And, you're welcome!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
One More Kick to the Fly-Infested Decaying Horse Carcass that was the Rule of Law
In continuation of the embarrassing, politically dominated tenure of Eric Holder's time as Attorney General, Eric is now contemplating prosecuting Wikileaks for total non-crimes, and is apparently of the view that First Amendment protections of Free Speech and the Free Press are dependent on how "responsible" you are with what you print or say.
The contrast with his response to obvious and irrefutable evidence of War Crimes by high level political officials is glaring, pathetic and disheartening. It's difficult to imagine an Attorney General more influenced by politics. What did Alberto Gonzalez do that was so bad again?
The contrast with his response to obvious and irrefutable evidence of War Crimes by high level political officials is glaring, pathetic and disheartening. It's difficult to imagine an Attorney General more influenced by politics. What did Alberto Gonzalez do that was so bad again?
Saturday, November 20, 2010
.. Then They Grabbed My Junk and by That Time No One Was Left to Speak Up.
So, I guess we finally know how far is too far for American citizens to take...
I often find myself lamenting the willingness of American society and Americans specifically (sometimes, sadly on an individual basis) to accept the erosion of their rights. Freedom (to quote Andrew Shepard in the clip I put up last post) “isn’t easy… you gotta want it bad.” And most people don’t really want something they already feel they have. (Though, let's not forget, if you've got it, you don't need less of it!) That is, most people in America generally feel free and un-intruded upon so they don’t want more freedom, and don’t worry about intrusions into their freedoms if they can’t feel it or see it. Maybe this is why so many people talk about freedom but really just mean “lower taxes” (I’m looking at you Tea Party people - although to be fair). I mean, you feel your taxes when you pay them, but you don’t really feel the government spying on your email unless some G-man rolls up to your door or tries to put you in handcuffs...
.. Or tries to touch your balls!
Then we get seriously pissed. But what better metaphor for Americans’ tolerance of civil liberties erosions than the fact that there was so little outrage about warrantless spying, the Patriot Act, the plan to make the whole internet wiretap ready, torture, assassinating American citizens, rampant secrecy (the list goes on), that only when government agents started literally placing their hands on Americans’ genitals do we pipe up a little bit.
It’s really pretty pathetic, and anyone who fails to see the causal chain between tolerating all of that other – and quite probably worse – bullshit and the government even thinking about implementing this crap in the first place is a fucking dumbass. A lack of vigilance has a cost, civil libertarians like to say. That cost? The government will grab your junk. As if the case needed anymore evidence, the TSA flap proves we have not been very vigilant with our rights and our privacy.
This lesson will be missed though, of course. As is often the case, folks tend not see the inter-connectedness of all these issues. That’s the flip side to the same coin of not caring until it affects you personally. But I would like to at least state my hope that people getting groped will have an epiphany on this relationship (the one between different laws and policies, not the fleeting but intense one they are enjoying with a TSA agent – hey-yo!).
We see this short-sightedness all the time: most people understand that a trip to your favorite burger joint is delicious for about 15 minutes but will contribute to you feeling and looking slightly worse in the longer term. It’s a trade off. Not that we ever seem to notice, but policies work exactly the same way.
This is a very informative article laying out the clear connection between all the different issues that involve a large and intrusive federal government. It points out how progressives and conservatives love big government when it does what they want, but then hide behind Constitutional principles in areas where they don't quite want it to be so big:
And vice versa. The article effectively points out the tension, and possibly hypocricy, of the views themselves, but I actually don't think the people who hold those views - even the most craven politicians in the group - are themselves hypocrites. They're not compromising a principle for convenience, they never started with the principle to begin with. They don't see the connection.
For example, much has been made of these comments by Senator Jay Rockefeller, where he says that perhaps FOX News and MSNBC should be taken off the air by the FCC. Most of the attention has been critical which is actually in contrast with most people's views on the Citizens United ruling that "gave corporations free speech rights!" In response to that opinion, many people have said that sure, they concede the importance of free speech but don't think it applies as strongly to corporations and think it can be bent to "improve public discourse," or some such justification. But in the case of the Senator's proposal, FOX and MSNBC are corporations (for profit!) and Rockefeller's justifications for his idea are pretty familiar - wrong though they may be. In other words, if you hate the Citizens United opinion and disagree with Senator Rockefeller, then you're pretty mixed up when it comes to free speech.
There's also this incredibly bizarre editorial from the Philly Inquirer about WIkiLeaks, by William C. Kashatus. It starts by luading the importance of transparency in government and the role that the free press plays in that:
But then the editorial highlights the fact that some of what Wikileaks leaked was sensitive information that might endanger lives, and concludes:
So, according to Kashatus, WikiLeaks should be wiped from the earth essentially because they perhaps leaked too much information. No "do better next time," just jail. Moreover, even if that view is appropriate on this particular issue, does anyone really think that the government will only go after those who leak security-compromising info? Or will they also pursue those who leak its "misjudgments, incompetence, or misconduct" and just say it compromises security? (I emailed the author to ask him this, and to see if he could specify what criminal charges should be brought, twice. He replied once, only to suggest I might feel differently if I had a family member serving in combat.)
In many ways, that editorial is emblematic of the American view on these freedoms: we can write flowery words about how great they are, and we teach them to our kids, and we talk them up on Independence day, or when we talk about the troops. But, when we see them in action, in the lives of others, they make us pretty uncomfortable. And, when we see them slowly dissipate in our own lives, we just sit by silently.
At every turn the government is more emboldened and takes a little more, until they are literally grabbing you by the dick.
I often find myself lamenting the willingness of American society and Americans specifically (sometimes, sadly on an individual basis) to accept the erosion of their rights. Freedom (to quote Andrew Shepard in the clip I put up last post) “isn’t easy… you gotta want it bad.” And most people don’t really want something they already feel they have. (Though, let's not forget, if you've got it, you don't need less of it!) That is, most people in America generally feel free and un-intruded upon so they don’t want more freedom, and don’t worry about intrusions into their freedoms if they can’t feel it or see it. Maybe this is why so many people talk about freedom but really just mean “lower taxes” (I’m looking at you Tea Party people - although to be fair). I mean, you feel your taxes when you pay them, but you don’t really feel the government spying on your email unless some G-man rolls up to your door or tries to put you in handcuffs...
.. Or tries to touch your balls!
Then we get seriously pissed. But what better metaphor for Americans’ tolerance of civil liberties erosions than the fact that there was so little outrage about warrantless spying, the Patriot Act, the plan to make the whole internet wiretap ready, torture, assassinating American citizens, rampant secrecy (the list goes on), that only when government agents started literally placing their hands on Americans’ genitals do we pipe up a little bit.
It’s really pretty pathetic, and anyone who fails to see the causal chain between tolerating all of that other – and quite probably worse – bullshit and the government even thinking about implementing this crap in the first place is a fucking dumbass. A lack of vigilance has a cost, civil libertarians like to say. That cost? The government will grab your junk. As if the case needed anymore evidence, the TSA flap proves we have not been very vigilant with our rights and our privacy.
This lesson will be missed though, of course. As is often the case, folks tend not see the inter-connectedness of all these issues. That’s the flip side to the same coin of not caring until it affects you personally. But I would like to at least state my hope that people getting groped will have an epiphany on this relationship (the one between different laws and policies, not the fleeting but intense one they are enjoying with a TSA agent – hey-yo!).
We see this short-sightedness all the time: most people understand that a trip to your favorite burger joint is delicious for about 15 minutes but will contribute to you feeling and looking slightly worse in the longer term. It’s a trade off. Not that we ever seem to notice, but policies work exactly the same way.
This is a very informative article laying out the clear connection between all the different issues that involve a large and intrusive federal government. It points out how progressives and conservatives love big government when it does what they want, but then hide behind Constitutional principles in areas where they don't quite want it to be so big:
A principled stand on the limits of federal power does not begin and end with health care. The Commerce Clause is a double-edged sword: Conservatives cannot wield it in the drug war without making it a useful tool for advancing progressive visions of federal power.
And vice versa. The article effectively points out the tension, and possibly hypocricy, of the views themselves, but I actually don't think the people who hold those views - even the most craven politicians in the group - are themselves hypocrites. They're not compromising a principle for convenience, they never started with the principle to begin with. They don't see the connection.
For example, much has been made of these comments by Senator Jay Rockefeller, where he says that perhaps FOX News and MSNBC should be taken off the air by the FCC. Most of the attention has been critical which is actually in contrast with most people's views on the Citizens United ruling that "gave corporations free speech rights!" In response to that opinion, many people have said that sure, they concede the importance of free speech but don't think it applies as strongly to corporations and think it can be bent to "improve public discourse," or some such justification. But in the case of the Senator's proposal, FOX and MSNBC are corporations (for profit!) and Rockefeller's justifications for his idea are pretty familiar - wrong though they may be. In other words, if you hate the Citizens United opinion and disagree with Senator Rockefeller, then you're pretty mixed up when it comes to free speech.
There's also this incredibly bizarre editorial from the Philly Inquirer about WIkiLeaks, by William C. Kashatus. It starts by luading the importance of transparency in government and the role that the free press plays in that:
As a self-governing society, we rightfully condemn any government - including our own - that attempts to shield its misjudgments, incompetence, or misconduct from public scrutiny. Such "government secrets" must be exposed because they threaten to destroy the individual liberties and collective freedom democracy depends on.
All too often, government officials attempt to maintain secrecy by invoking the claim of national security, as President Obama and his predecessor have been accused of doing. We rely on the integrity and wisdom of the free press to determine which national secrets are legitimate and which are illegitimate.
But then the editorial highlights the fact that some of what Wikileaks leaked was sensitive information that might endanger lives, and concludes:
WikiLeaks has acted recklessly, creating a clear and imminent danger to both U.S. and international security. The Obama administration should not only join other NATO countries in demanding the removal of classified documents from the WikiLeaks website, but also bring criminal charges against Assange and stop his travels across international borders. That would help restore the right balance between freedom of the press and international security.
So, according to Kashatus, WikiLeaks should be wiped from the earth essentially because they perhaps leaked too much information. No "do better next time," just jail. Moreover, even if that view is appropriate on this particular issue, does anyone really think that the government will only go after those who leak security-compromising info? Or will they also pursue those who leak its "misjudgments, incompetence, or misconduct" and just say it compromises security? (I emailed the author to ask him this, and to see if he could specify what criminal charges should be brought, twice. He replied once, only to suggest I might feel differently if I had a family member serving in combat.)
In many ways, that editorial is emblematic of the American view on these freedoms: we can write flowery words about how great they are, and we teach them to our kids, and we talk them up on Independence day, or when we talk about the troops. But, when we see them in action, in the lives of others, they make us pretty uncomfortable. And, when we see them slowly dissipate in our own lives, we just sit by silently.
At every turn the government is more emboldened and takes a little more, until they are literally grabbing you by the dick.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
(I Posted This to Get a Piece of that "Obama + Impeach" Google-Search Traffic)
The only way in which Obama appears to resemble Andrew Shepard, Michael Douglas's fictitious President from The American President.
To be fair to Barry, seeing the famous speech at the end of that movie, as a cynical adult, compels me to conclude that it marks the end of President Shepard's political career, and that he was probably forced to resign or impeached within the month. I mean, Dennis Kucinich finds this speech a little too liberal.
A "Card-Carrying Member of the ACLU!?!" That's just not Obama - unless you get a free membership card the 25th time they sue your ass...?
To be fair to Barry, seeing the famous speech at the end of that movie, as a cynical adult, compels me to conclude that it marks the end of President Shepard's political career, and that he was probably forced to resign or impeached within the month. I mean, Dennis Kucinich finds this speech a little too liberal.
A "Card-Carrying Member of the ACLU!?!" That's just not Obama - unless you get a free membership card the 25th time they sue your ass...?
Friday, November 12, 2010
In Which Eric Holder Reveals Himself as Too Stupid to Live or Too Unprincipled to not Resign Immediately
This is the most infuriatingly ridiculous series of statements I can imagine.
Perhaps, I knew this was true the whole time (I may, at one time or another, have questioned Eric Holder's reading comprehension) but to confirm it so clearly and explicitly is just too much. Could Eric Holder look more pathetic and out of his depth than he's portrayed in that article?
After spending the first half explainign Holder's views and his history, his devotion to lofty legal principles and blah blah blah, the article quotes Holder defending his decision not to pursue Bush for his crimes:
This "rationale" is such odious bullshit it doesn't even make any sense on its face. It is an argument explicilty and unapologetically antithetical to the rule of law. It's exactly like saying that prosecuting scumbags who prey on children over the internet will have a "chilling effect" on normal people who like to play checkers on Facebook against some 15 year old kid. "Chilling effect?" On fucking what? General behavior? Fucking hell, Eric, you're a lawyer, there are things all around that have a "chilling effect" on general behavior, they're called fucking LAWS. (Case in point, right now those nagging little laws are chilling me from randomly throwing heavy objects out of my window while blindfolded - if only I knew no one would come along and examine my decisions!)
Someone with a "deep love" for this country, who is a lawyer who dedicated his career to working at the DOJ should probably, ya know, have enough faith in the American Judicial System to be at least partially confident that simply "examining" past decisions won't lead to prosecutions unless there's actual evidence of criminal behavior.
Fucking "Chilling Effect!?" That's a notion to be applied to things we value and cherish like free speech. Not to government officials who might one day choose to murder people locked in cages, not even if the Presidential himself makes that choice. But he's right: if people who work in this administration feel like one day someone will look back at their activities, they might just... try to conform their behavior to the law! Holy christ, that would be a terrible thing. Average fuck-ups like me and this guy can go to jail (or get sued) for all kinds of shit, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. But we should adopt an explicit policy that the powerful, all-law-knowledgeable officials can just own slaves, marinate cats and compliment a White House intern on her tits and face no consequences because otherwise there will be a "chilling effect?"
This line of bullshit is so crushingly pathetic when you consider this same man once said the American people were owed a "reckoning." So Eric here wanted a reckoning, but, looking back on previous administrations is now something we "don't want." What a colossal pussy.
And, if any doubt remained, there is this exchange:
I don't know how it got to this point, Eric, and I'm sure at each turn you thought you could give a little here or there but stick around to fight the good fight. Well, you got knocked the fuck out! You're a political hack and a blatant hypocrite. "Resign in protest" or something and we'll just forget this whole thing ever happened.
Perhaps, I knew this was true the whole time (I may, at one time or another, have questioned Eric Holder's reading comprehension) but to confirm it so clearly and explicitly is just too much. Could Eric Holder look more pathetic and out of his depth than he's portrayed in that article?
After spending the first half explainign Holder's views and his history, his devotion to lofty legal principles and blah blah blah, the article quotes Holder defending his decision not to pursue Bush for his crimes:
"You only want to look back at a previous administration if you feel you really have to," Holder said. "Because it has a potential chilling effect. If people who work in this administration today think that four years from now, or eight years from now, the decisions they make are going to be examined by a successor administration, you don't want that to happen. So that's a political consideration."
This "rationale" is such odious bullshit it doesn't even make any sense on its face. It is an argument explicilty and unapologetically antithetical to the rule of law. It's exactly like saying that prosecuting scumbags who prey on children over the internet will have a "chilling effect" on normal people who like to play checkers on Facebook against some 15 year old kid. "Chilling effect?" On fucking what? General behavior? Fucking hell, Eric, you're a lawyer, there are things all around that have a "chilling effect" on general behavior, they're called fucking LAWS. (Case in point, right now those nagging little laws are chilling me from randomly throwing heavy objects out of my window while blindfolded - if only I knew no one would come along and examine my decisions!)
Someone with a "deep love" for this country, who is a lawyer who dedicated his career to working at the DOJ should probably, ya know, have enough faith in the American Judicial System to be at least partially confident that simply "examining" past decisions won't lead to prosecutions unless there's actual evidence of criminal behavior.
Fucking "Chilling Effect!?" That's a notion to be applied to things we value and cherish like free speech. Not to government officials who might one day choose to murder people locked in cages, not even if the Presidential himself makes that choice. But he's right: if people who work in this administration feel like one day someone will look back at their activities, they might just... try to conform their behavior to the law! Holy christ, that would be a terrible thing. Average fuck-ups like me and this guy can go to jail (or get sued) for all kinds of shit, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. But we should adopt an explicit policy that the powerful, all-law-knowledgeable officials can just own slaves, marinate cats and compliment a White House intern on her tits and face no consequences because otherwise there will be a "chilling effect?"
This line of bullshit is so crushingly pathetic when you consider this same man once said the American people were owed a "reckoning." So Eric here wanted a reckoning, but, looking back on previous administrations is now something we "don't want." What a colossal pussy.
And, if any doubt remained, there is this exchange:
"But before the inauguration," I said, "both you and the president said that habeas should apply to enemy combatants."
"I'm not sure I ever opined on that," Holder said.
"I could read you a quote."
Holder laughed uncomfortably.
"Here's the quote: 'Our government authorized the use of torture, approved secret electronic surveillance without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants,' and a few other things."
Holder was silent. "But I was talking about Guantánamo," he said. "I'm pretty sure I was talking about Guantánamo."
I don't know how it got to this point, Eric, and I'm sure at each turn you thought you could give a little here or there but stick around to fight the good fight. Well, you got knocked the fuck out! You're a political hack and a blatant hypocrite. "Resign in protest" or something and we'll just forget this whole thing ever happened.
Poor Poor People
There's a big difference between illegality and immorality. Many - perhaps even most - things that are immoral shouldn't be illegal. I think most people would agree that things like making fun of people in horrible ways or cheating in a high school football game are seriously reprehensible acts... that the government should not spend any time policing.
But many people often lose sight of this principle when it comes to a few topics, one of which is pay-day lending. In short, pay-day lending is the practice of loaning money to someone over a short period of time (like 2 weeks) and charging them something like 20-40 cents on the dollar for that loan. Obviously people who use this service are pretty desperate for the cash at the time, and they usually have to produce a pay-stub (so they likely have a job) as proof that they will get paid in the future and are good for it.
You're probably not human if this doesn't strike you as "taking advantage of people who are down on their luck," which clearly implicates the question of morality, but should this be illegal?
This is an interesting article about efforts by politicians to ban or heavily regulate this practice, and it explains why those policies actually end up leaving many people worse off.
But regardless of how it ends up benefiting or harming people's lives, the argument for heavily regulating or banning this practice is rooted in morality alone, at best, and bald-faced paternalism at worst.
Of course the argument is displayed with a handy catchphrase - "Predatory Lending" - which lends itself to the morality issue, these people are taking advantage of the poor! And, maybe they are and that seems wrong. The more nauseating, insulting and anti-freedom form of the argument is rooted in the idea that these poor people don't know any better. That they can't do a decent job of evaluating the price for having the money now versus waiting another week or two, that they will pay any price to get an extra 200 bucks so they can run out and buy spinning rims or a flat screen TV. Really, the paternalism argument is inseparable from the morality argument: in order for people to be "taken advantage of" they have to be signing up for something they don't understand, or have little to no choice.
But that's just not the case. At least according to the article, the terms of these loans are clear ("in large type, outlined in a gray box, was the amount of money I would have to pay the company when my loan came due") and there are a host of other options simply through a robust lending market ("there are more than 20,000 payday lending outlets, more than all the Starbucks and McDonald’s stores in the country combined") or borrowing money from friends, using credit cards or even just accepting bounced check or overdraft fees.
The government heavily regulates the credit card industry and that seems to make a good amount of sense because those services are based largely on - and the regulations seem to target - screwing you over with fine print and changing terms. In other words, when you innocently trigger section 38, subpart b(43) of your credit card agreement and they jack your interest rate up to 50%, you've effectively been had because you didn't really know that was part of the deal. But if a credit card offered you a one paragraph contract that said "You get our card, everything you charge on it will be paid back at 50% interest. Enjoy!" and you, in your ignorant but well-informed and fully-comprehending glory, thought this made sense, the government should step in an tell you that's just no good? That they know better than you? (Well, maybe they do, I mean 50%!? what is wrong with you?) If you're bad with money, or just delayed gratification in general, does taking away one of your options help you make better decisions overall? Maybe you're totally hopeless and the government really is hooking you up here, but even if they do know better in the case of your hopeless ass, how is it their decision to make for everyone everywhere?
That's really the question here, if two separate private parties agree to exchange money and services on completely clear terms (in a market with reasonable competition) how is it at all appropriate for the government to regulate the terms themselves?
But many people often lose sight of this principle when it comes to a few topics, one of which is pay-day lending. In short, pay-day lending is the practice of loaning money to someone over a short period of time (like 2 weeks) and charging them something like 20-40 cents on the dollar for that loan. Obviously people who use this service are pretty desperate for the cash at the time, and they usually have to produce a pay-stub (so they likely have a job) as proof that they will get paid in the future and are good for it.
You're probably not human if this doesn't strike you as "taking advantage of people who are down on their luck," which clearly implicates the question of morality, but should this be illegal?
This is an interesting article about efforts by politicians to ban or heavily regulate this practice, and it explains why those policies actually end up leaving many people worse off.
But regardless of how it ends up benefiting or harming people's lives, the argument for heavily regulating or banning this practice is rooted in morality alone, at best, and bald-faced paternalism at worst.
Of course the argument is displayed with a handy catchphrase - "Predatory Lending" - which lends itself to the morality issue, these people are taking advantage of the poor! And, maybe they are and that seems wrong. The more nauseating, insulting and anti-freedom form of the argument is rooted in the idea that these poor people don't know any better. That they can't do a decent job of evaluating the price for having the money now versus waiting another week or two, that they will pay any price to get an extra 200 bucks so they can run out and buy spinning rims or a flat screen TV. Really, the paternalism argument is inseparable from the morality argument: in order for people to be "taken advantage of" they have to be signing up for something they don't understand, or have little to no choice.
But that's just not the case. At least according to the article, the terms of these loans are clear ("in large type, outlined in a gray box, was the amount of money I would have to pay the company when my loan came due") and there are a host of other options simply through a robust lending market ("there are more than 20,000 payday lending outlets, more than all the Starbucks and McDonald’s stores in the country combined") or borrowing money from friends, using credit cards or even just accepting bounced check or overdraft fees.
The government heavily regulates the credit card industry and that seems to make a good amount of sense because those services are based largely on - and the regulations seem to target - screwing you over with fine print and changing terms. In other words, when you innocently trigger section 38, subpart b(43) of your credit card agreement and they jack your interest rate up to 50%, you've effectively been had because you didn't really know that was part of the deal. But if a credit card offered you a one paragraph contract that said "You get our card, everything you charge on it will be paid back at 50% interest. Enjoy!" and you, in your ignorant but well-informed and fully-comprehending glory, thought this made sense, the government should step in an tell you that's just no good? That they know better than you? (Well, maybe they do, I mean 50%!? what is wrong with you?) If you're bad with money, or just delayed gratification in general, does taking away one of your options help you make better decisions overall? Maybe you're totally hopeless and the government really is hooking you up here, but even if they do know better in the case of your hopeless ass, how is it their decision to make for everyone everywhere?
That's really the question here, if two separate private parties agree to exchange money and services on completely clear terms (in a market with reasonable competition) how is it at all appropriate for the government to regulate the terms themselves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)