Log in or Sign up

+++++++++ WELCOME Guest, TO LAKERSBALL's SECRET THEME +++++++++

The Libertarian Thread

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion and Philosophy -(FORUM CLOSED)-' started by revgen, Nov 10, 2016.

Page 2 of 3

revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

If people ages 18 to 22 shouldn't be allowed to vote, then they shouldn't be paying taxes either. Afterall, "No Taxation Without Representation" is what kinda started this country. Until that changes, I believe 18 is an appropriate age for voting.

revgen, Nov 16, 2016

#21

Lakerman JSJ, Punk-101, John3:16 and 1 other person like this.
Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

Joined:

Aug 31, 2014

Messages:

7,342

Likes Received:

19,012

Trophy Points:

113

Location:

Los Angeles

Offline

revgen said: ↑

If people ages 18 to 22 shouldn't be allowed to vote, then they shouldn't be paying taxes either. Afterall, "No Taxation Without Representation" is what kinda started this country. Until that changes, I believe 18 is an appropriate age for voting.
Click to expand...

I would even say if someone gets a job at 16 or something, if they are old enough to earn a pay check, they are old enough to vote.

Barnstable, Nov 16, 2016

#22

revgen likes this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Great news for Libertarian minded people in Arizona. Governor Ducey just signed bill HB2014 into law. The bill legalizes the use of gold, silver, and other metals to be used as "legal tender" in the state. Since these metals are now considered "legal tender", people who own gold and silver aren't subject to a capital gains tax on financial transactions involving these metals. Without the capital gains tax, gold and silver coins become a more practical alternative to federal reserve notes (dollars). At least in Arizona anyway.

revgen, May 23, 2017

#23

Lakeshow85, sirronstuff and Barnstable like this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

It's Harder to Become a Hair-Braider Than an EMT. Who's to Blame?

Why you should care
Because unnecessary licensing hurts the middle class most.

Last year, Jocelyn DoCouto stood before a handful of lawmakers at the Rhode Island capitol — and began to braid her daughter’s hair. Typically, the 26-year-old works with clients in the privacy of her home in Pawtucket, just north of Providence. But on that day, DoCouto was testifying before members of the House Corporations committee. Her goal? To prove the state shouldn’t require a cumbersome, and costly, license to practice natural hair-braiding.

Considering that braiders don’t always use chemicals, like other stylists or cosmetologists, it may seem like a no-brainer. Yet about half of all states require some license for natural hair-braiders. The cost can be prohibitive to small-time entrepreneurs — not just financially, but also timewise. According to the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning law firm that has pushed to end braiding regulations in more than a dozen states:

The average cosmetologist must complete 386 days of training, compared to just 34 for the average EMT.

What’s more, the required licenses sometimes have little application to hair-braiding —and if they do, they’re teaching the basics. Yet minority women like DoCouto, whose family is from the African nations of Senegal and Cape Verde, are disproportionately affected by what business-minded conservatives and liberals say is unnecessary licensing. It’s not just braiders who are stuck in a tangled mess of regulation: Everyone from florists and funeral attendants to locksmiths and upholsterers face inconsistent laws, requiring certificates in some states while not requiring them in others. Even the average tree trimmer needs 16 times the amount of education it takes to train an emergency medical technician.

The issue is being pushed by conservatives nationwide as part of a larger effort to reshape the debate around regulations. States like New Hampshire and Kentucky have passed laws recently to deregulate braiding. Both Virginia and Missouri will consider bills this session, although similar efforts failed last year. “Ideally, we’re looking for big-picture reform: changing the ways people and government interact rather than this ‘Mother, may I?’ situation where you have to get permission to do a job you already know how to do,” says David Barnes, policy director at Generation Opportunity, a Koch-funded conservative group focused on millennial issues.

Some states have argued the regulations are necessary. A federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled in January that braiders must remain accredited like barbers and cosmetologists — the licensing process takes more than 2,500 hours to complete. Health risks such as “hair loss, inflammation and scalp infection” were cited in the court opinion. Beauty schools, which are not keen to lose out on a portion of their student population, have also opposed deregulation.

On the flip side, many of the laws on the books aren’t being enforced, because hair braiders simply work out of the privacy of their homes rather than rent a storefront. That’s what Zana Manning, a 33-year-old Clevelander who learned the art from her Trinidadian mother, did when the 35-hour per week, nearly yearlong process became too much to manage. “The hours they need, combined with a regular working schedule, it never seems to meet up,” she says. “A lot of people are avoiding beauty school because it’s just so much to get through.”

Still, the push for less licensing has drawn varied support from left-leaning bureaucrats, who see it as a way to make ground on the income-inequality gap. In July 2015, the Obama White House released a report tackling the topic. “Over the past several decades, the share of U.S. workers holding an occupational license has grown sharply,” it begins, before noting that a quarter of American professions now require a license, compared to just one-twentieth in the 1950s. Licensing requirements, it warns, “raise the price of goods and services, restrict employment opportunities and make it more difficult for workers to take their skills across states.”
Click to expand...

LINK

Licensing and regulation often has more to do with protectionism than consumer safety. Other professions that require licensing are interior decorators.

revgen, Feb 24, 2018

#24

GlickenGoshDebate Tactics likes this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Wyoming Legislature Passes Bill to End All Taxation of Gold & Silver - Both are Now Considered Legal Tender

CHEYENNE, WYOMING, USA, March 7, 2018 /EINPresswire.com/ -- Following a 44-14 vote in the Wyoming House last week, the Wyoming State Senate today overwhelmingly approved a bill which helps restore constitutional, sound money in Wyoming.

Wyoming Senators voted 25-5 to pass the Wyoming Legal Tender Act (House Bill 103), sending the measure introduced by Representative Roy Edwards (R-Gillette) to Governor Matt Mead’s desk. Sound money activists are already contacting Gov. Mead urging that he sign the bill.

Backed by the Sound Money Defense League, Campaign for Liberty, and Money Metals Exchange, HB 103 is a bill that removes all state taxation from gold and silver bullion and reaffirms their legal tender status in Wyoming, in keeping with Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

"Governor Mead should sign the Wyoming Legal Tender Act into law without delay and help Wyoming businesses as well as all citizens harmed by inflation”
— Jp Cortez"

Testifying before the Senate Minerals, Business, and Economic Development Committee, Sound Money Defense League Policy Director Jp Cortez made the case to Wyoming legislators that assessing taxes on purchases of gold and silver is unjust and undermines their constitutional status as money.

Representative Edwards said in support of HB 103, “Imagine going to the grocery store and asking the clerk for change for a $20 bill and being charged 80-cents in tax. That’s what we’re doing in Wyoming by charging sales taxes on precious metals and we’re taking steps to change that.”

Wyoming does not have an income tax. However, it does have a sales tax and it assesses this tax against precious metals bullion. If Gov. Mead signs HB 103, Wyoming would join all its neighboring states (South Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska) and more than 30 other states that do not assess a sales tax against precious metals.

Other states have eliminated income taxation on gold and silver (Arizona and Utah) or have established precious metals depositories to help citizens save and transact in gold and silver bullion (Texas).

Cortez’s testimony highlighted the harmful effects of inflation that flow from the Federal Reserve System and how erecting barriers to precious metal ownership harms those most negatively impacted by currency debasement wage earners, savers, those on a fixed income and local business owners who lose business to out-of-state dealers that don’t subject buyers with unfair taxation.

“Governor Mead should sign the Wyoming Legal Tender Act into law without delay and help Wyoming businesses as well as all citizens harmed by inflation,” said Cortez.

For more information on state laws dealing with gold and silver, click here.
Click to expand...

LINK

revgen, Mar 13, 2018

#25

sirronstuff, Barnstable and GlickenGoshDebate Tactics like this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Civil asset forfeiture reform bill passes Tennessee Senate

A measure that would protect individuals whose property is improperly seized by local law enforcement passed 30-0 in the Senate Thursday.

The "U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act," sponsored by Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, and Rep. Mike Carter, R-Ooltewah, lays out guidelines for damages to be provided to individuals whose property is wrongfully seized.

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows police officers to take a person's property when it is suspected to be connected to criminal activity.

Supporters for civil asset forfeiture argue it is necessary to weaken criminal operations. Opponents have said the practice has little oversight and violates an individual's rights.

But the bill states that law enforcement must notify the owner by mail within five business days of a Notice of Forfeiture Warrant Hearing.

The notice must come whether the owner is present at the time of the seizure or not, and wrongfully seized property must be returned in five business days after an order of dismissal.

A seizing agency that fails to return the property seized may be considered to be acting in bad faith and subject to civil law, the bill says.

Among other things, the bill says a seizing agency that wrongfully seizes property must pay the attorney fees of the owner an amount not to exceed the lesser of 25 percent rough trade-in value of a motor vehicle seized, 25 percent of currency seized and returned, 25 percent reasonable value of personal property or $3,000.

A 2017 incident involving a Mt. Juliet man brought attention to the issue.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee cited the Mt. Juliet Police Department's seizure of disabled military veteran Lewis Cain's car as an example that makes civil asset forfeiture unconstitutional.

The police department defended taking a 2009 BMW belonging in September 2017 for evidence even though it was Cain's son who was suspected in the investigation for selling cocaine.

Detectives witnessed the son selling cocaine from his father's BMW multiple times, according to police.

This led the ACLU-TN to file a complaint with the Tennessee Department of Safety that claimed taking the vehicle without a search or forfeiture warrant violated Cain's Fourth Amendment rights.

The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security later dismissed the claim of forfeiture against Cain’s vehicle that was returned, according to the ACLU-TN.

The House previously passed the measure 88-0.
Click to expand...

LINK

In the Libertarian community we typically call this "Civil Asset Theft". In many states, it's almost impossible to get back your property once it's been seized by police. It doesn't matter if they they never charge you with a crime. To get your property back, you have to prove you're innocent, even though the police and the prosecutors have never proven you're guilty. Many police departments sell off seized assets to pay for new police vehicles, weapons, or "bonuses" for their officers.

revgen, Apr 6, 2018

#26

Lakeshow85, John3:16, sirronstuff and 2 others like this.
sirronstuff - Lakers Legend -

Joined:

Oct 5, 2014

Messages:

32,435

Likes Received:

78,608

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

Your time is running out Ham

Location:

Laker Purgatory

Offline

If I read that right, they are only responsible for 25%? How is that right?

sirronstuff, Apr 19, 2018

#27

Lakeshow85 likes this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

They will only pay attorney fees up to 25% of the value of seized property. If attorney fees exceed 25% of seized property value, then the plaintiff will have to pay the rest.

Is that fair? Attorneys can be expensive. It's certainly a deterrent if the seized property value isn't large enough to cover attorney fees. It's still progress and a welcome change than what was in place before the law was passed.

revgen, Apr 19, 2018

#28

Lakeshow85 and sirronstuff like this.
sirronstuff - Lakers Legend -

Joined:

Oct 5, 2014

Messages:

32,435

Likes Received:

78,608

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

Your time is running out Ham

Location:

Laker Purgatory

Offline

revgen said: ↑

They will only pay attorney fees up to 25% of the value of seized property. If attorney fees exceed 25% of seized property value, then the plaintiff will have to pay the rest.

Is that fair? Attorneys can be expensive. It's certainly a deterrent if the seized property value isn't large enough to cover attorney fees. It's still progress and a welcome change than what was in place before the law was passed.
Click to expand...

For some reason I didn’t read it as “in addition to getting your property back”

That makes much more sense

sirronstuff, Apr 24, 2018

#29

Lakeshow85 and revgen like this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Domino's Pizza fixes streets, fills potholes across America

Domino’s Pizza is hitting the streets to help “smooth the ride home” for deliveries by making pothole and road repairs in towns customers have nominated online.

The “Paving for Pizza” initiative will fill “cracks, bumps, potholes and other road conditions [that] can put good pizzas at risk after they leave the store,” the press release said.

"We know that feeling is heightened when you're bringing home a carryout order from your local Domino's store. We don't want to lose any great-tasting pizza to a pothole, ruining a wonderful meal," said Russell Weiner, president of Domino's USA. "Domino's cares too much about its customers and pizza to let that happen."

The pizza chain has already started the road repairs, working with four municipalities including Bartonville, Texas, Milford, Del., Athens, Ga., and Burbank, Calif.

In Milford, Domino’s said its crew helped fix 40 potholes on 10 roads in 10 hours.

“Facing an already harsher winter than usual for Delaware, this is an opportunity to get additional money to stretch our city’s limited resources,” said Eric Norenberg, city manager of the town, on the website, Yahoo reported.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2...es-streets-fills-potholes-across-america.html

To quote a popular saying by libertarians and conservatives, "You spend your money more wisely than government will spend it." This is a perfect example.

revgen, Jun 16, 2018

#30

Lakeshow85, sirronstuff, Savory Griddles and 2 others like this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

There is a huge misconception, where Americans are led to believe that Government and Big Business are antagonists. We see it in Hollywood movies, and in the media all the time. Americans need government "regulations" to protect them from business. In reality, Big Business could not be happier with this slight-of-hand. They love government "regulations," and hate the free market.
Click to expand...

revgen, Jul 28, 2018

#31
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Philadelphia Will Dismantle Its Asset Forfeiture Program and Pay $3 Million to Victims
A legal settlement guarantees reforms to what was once one of America's most egregious asset forfeiture programs.
C.J. Ciaramella|Sep. 18, 2018 11:05 am

Four years after Philadelphia police seized the home of Markela and Chris Sourovelis for a minor drug crime committed by their son, the city has agreed to almost completely dismantle its controversial civil asset forfeiture program and pay $3 million to its victims.

The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, announced today that the city had agreed to a settlement in a federal civil rights class-action lawsuit challenging its forfeiture program.

"For too long, Philadelphia treated its citizens like ATMs, ensnaring thousands of people in a system designed to strip people of their property and their rights," Darpana Sheth, a senior attorney at the institute, said in a press release. "No more. Today's groundbreaking agreement will end years of abuse and create a fund to compensate innocent owners."

The Institute for Justice filed the suit in 2014 on behalf of the Sourovelises, a couple whose house was seized without warning after their son was caught selling $40 worth of drugs outside. The same day the Sourovelises dropped their son off for court-ordered rehab treatment, they returned to find police had locked them out of their own home, even though there was no evidence they were aware of the drug activity.

The lawsuit alleged that the city was seizing 300 to 500 homes a year, violating residents' constitutional rights and creating an illegal profit incentive, since forfeiture revenue directly funds police and district attorney budgets.

Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize property—cash, cars, and even houses—suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner is not charged with a crime.

Law enforcement groups say such laws are a vital tool because they let them disrupt organized crime by cutting off the flow of illicit proceeds. Civil liberties groups reply that the practice has far too little due process for innocent property owners and far too many perverse profit incentives for the police. Those incentives often lead law enforcement to target everyday people rather than cartel bosses.

As I wrote in 2014, reporting on the daily happenings inside Philadelphia's asset forfeiture court:

Philadelphia hauled in $64 million in seized property over the last decade, according to an investigation by the Philadelphia Inquirer. That's more than Brooklyn and Los Angeles combined. Not only does Philadelphia take in more than other cities, but the average seizure is significantly more petty. A City Paper review of 100 cases from 2011 and 2012 found the median amount of cash seized by the District Attorney was only $178.

A 2015 report by the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union found that almost a third of cash forfeiture cases in Philadelphia involved money owned by people who had not been found guilty of a crime. In one of the worst examples, police seized $2,000 from an 87-year-old pensioner after finding two joints (her husband, a retired dock worker, smoked marijuana to relieve his chronic arthritis) in their apartment.

Residents caught in the asset forfeiture machine had to repeatedly appear for hearings in Room 478, a small "courtroom" in the upper floors of Philadelphia City Hall. The hearings were run by prosecutors. No judge was present, and defendants were not afforded court-appointed lawyers. If a defendant missed a hearing, their property could be summarily taken.

Philadelphia dropped its forfeiture case against the Sourevelises after their plight drew national media attention, but last year a federal judge allowed the Institute for Justice's suit to proceed as a class action. The city also put stricter rules into place for when houses could be seized and voluntarily stopped using forfeiture funds to pay the salary of police and prosecutors.

Under the terms of the settlement, codified in two binding consent decrees, Philadelphia will no longer seek property forfeitures for simple drug possession and will stop seizing petty amounts of cash without accompanying arrests or evidence in a criminal case. It will also put judges in charge of forfeiture hearings, will streamline the hearing process, and will ban the Philadelphia district attorney and Philadelphia Police Department from using forfeiture revenue to fund their payroll.

The city will disburse the $3 million settlement fund to qualifying members of the class action based on the circumstances of their case. A Philadelphia resident whose property was forfeited but was never convicted of a related crime, for example, will receive 100 percent of the value of the property.

Last June, the Pennsylvania legislature passed modest reforms of state asset forfeiture laws. The reforms increased the reporting requirements for asset forfeiture, raised the burden of proof necessary to seize property, and codified Philadelphia's new procedures for seizing homes into law. More than half of all U.S. states have passed some form of asset forfeiture reform in recent years, and in July a federal judge declared Albuquerque's asset forfeiture program unconstitutional.

"I'm glad that there is finally a measure of justice for people like me who did nothing wrong but still found themselves fighting to keep what was rightly theirs," Chris Sourovelis said in a press release. "No one in Philadelphia should ever have to go through the nightmare my family faced."
Click to expand...

LINK

revgen, Sep 19, 2018

#32

sirronstuff likes this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

A fantastic piece by Ben Swann illustrating how our invasive foreign policy affects US immigration.

revgen, Oct 30, 2018

#33
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Here's an excellent article about junk science funded by taxpayer dollars.

Junk Science Has Become a Profitable Industry. Who Will Stop It?

By S. Stanley Young & Henry Miller

Should we believe the headline, “Drinking four cups of coffee daily lowers risk of death”? How about, “Mouthwash May Trigger Diabetes. . .”? Should we really eat more, not less, fat? And what should we make of data that suggest people with spouses live longer?

These sorts of conclusions, from supposedly scientific studies, seem to vary from month to month, leading to ever-shifting “expert” recommendations. However, most of their admonitions are based on flawed research that produces results worthy of daytime TV.

Misleading research is costly to society directly because much of it is supported by the federal government, and indirectly, when it gives rise to unwise, harmful public policy.

Social science studies are notorious offenders. A landmark study in the journal Nature Human Behaviour in August reported the results of efforts to replicate 21 social science studies published in the prestigious journals Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015.

The multi-national team actually “conducted high-powered replications of the 21 experimental social science studies — using sample sizes around five times larger than the original sample sizes” and found that “62% of the replications show an effect in the same direction as the original studies.” One out of the four Nature papers and seven of the seventeen Science papers evaluated did not replicate, a shocking result for two prestigious scientific journals. The authors noted two kinds of flaws in the original studies: false positives and inflated effect sizes.

Science is supposed to be self-correcting. Smart editors. Peer review. Competition from other labs. But when we see that university research claims – published in the crème de la crème of scientific journals, no less -- are so often wrong, there must be systematic problems. One of them is outright fraud – “advocacy research” that has methodological flaws or intentionally misinterprets the results.

Another is the abject failure of peer review, which is especially prevalent at “social science” journals. The tale of three scholars who tested the integrity of journals’ peer review is revealing. They

wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable: By the time they took their experiment public on [October 2nd], seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals. Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected.
Click to expand...

The articles were designed to be an easy call for reviewers to reject. For example, one dismissed “western astronomy” as sexist and imperialist, and made a case for physics departments to study feminist astrology or practice interpretative dance instead.

Another way to cheat is to publish in “predatory journals,” which will publish virtually anything for a hefty fee. They are commonly used by ideologues who are trying to further some social or economic agenda. Even when their “research” is discredited or retracted, it continues to be cited by activists.

A subtler manifestation of dishonesty in research is what amounts to statistical cheating. Here is how it works… If you try to answer one question – by asking about levels of coffee consumption, for example, to test whether drinking certain amounts a day are associated with more or less cancer; or whether being married is associated with increased longevity -- and test the results with appropriate statistical methods, there is a 5% chance of getting a (nominally) statistically significant result purely by chance (meaning that the finding isn’t real).

If you try to answer two questions, the probability is about 10%. Three questions, about 14%. The more you test, the more likely you’ll get a statistical false positive, and researchers exploit this phenomenon. Researchers have thereby created what is for them a winning “science-business model”: Ask a lot of questions, look for associations that may or may not be real, and publish the result. Just how many questions are typical in a university research project? It varies by subject area, and researchers have become masters at gaming their methodology. Often, they ask thousands of questions. And they get away with it, because there are no scientific research cops.

In the absence of outright, proven fraud or plagiarism, universities provide little oversight over their scientists, in contrast to industry where monitoring quality-control is de rigeur. Universities claim that peer review is sufficient, but as discussed above, in many fields, it is unreliable, or at best, spotty. The peers are in on the game. In a research-publishing version of The Emperor’s New Clothes, editors wink and nod if the researcher seems to be following the rules. And there are no consequences if a researcher’s findings are repudiated by others’ subsequent research. Their ultimate product is a published paper. The way the game operates is publish, get grants (thanks, taxpayers) and progress up the academic ladder.

The realization that there’s something rotten in academic epidemiology research, in particular, is hardly new. As long ago as 2002, two epidemiologists at the University of Bristol (U.K.) wrote in a journal article:

When a large number of associations can be looked at in a dataset where only a few real associations exist, a P value of 0.05 is compatible with the large majority of findings still being false positives [that is, spurious]. These false positive findings are the true products of data dredging, resulting from simply looking at too many possible associations.
Click to expand...

An equally disreputable practice related to data dredging is formulating a Hypothesis After the Result is Known, or HARKing, which might be thought of as making up a story to fit the data, instead of the correct practice of accumulating data and seeing whether it confirms or contradicts your a priori hypothesis.

Together, data dredging and HARKing violate the fundamental scientific principle that a scientist must start with a hypothesis, not concoct one after the data set has undergone analysis.

Data dredging and HARKing that yield invalid results can also be applied to laboratory animal experiments, as explained here by Dr. Josh Bloom, a chemist at the American Council on Science and Health. Those phenomena apply as well to clinical studies.

This situation creates a self-serving, self-aggrandizing process. Researchers have been thriving by churning out this junk science since at least the early 1990s, and as most of the work is government funded, it’s ripping off taxpayers as well as misleading them. It’s a kind of business model in which the dishonest researchers win, and you lose: You lose on the initial cost of the research, the flawed policy implications, and the opportunity costs.

Because editors and peer-reviewers of research articles have failed to end widespread statistical malpractice, it will fall to government funding agencies – or their appropriators, the Congress -- to cut off support for studies with flawed design; and to universities, which must stop rewarding the publication of bad research. Only last month a tenured professor at Cornell University was forced to resign for data dredging and HARKing, but to truly turn the tide, we will need pressure from many directions.

Dr. S. Stanley Young is a statistician who has worked at pharmaceutical companies and the National Institute of Statistical Sciences on questions of applied statistics. He is an adjunct professor at several universities and a member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a Senior Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. He was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Follow him on Twitter @henryimiller.
Click to expand...

LINK

revgen, Nov 26, 2018

#34

JohnnyComeLately2k6 likes this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

A new Senate bill legalizes hemp nationwide. Rand Paul and others have been trying to get it passed for six years. It may finally happen. Now we can potentially stop importing hemp from Canada and...gasp...China.

revgen, Nov 29, 2018

#35
trodgers Administrator Staff Member

Joined:

Sep 6, 2014

Messages:

12,304

Likes Received:

18,684

Trophy Points:

113

Occupation:

Professor of Humanities

Location:

Orlando

Offline

I'm a kind of libertarian (lowercase l). In addition to some more academic stuff I've written, I had this piece published earlier this year.

It's a very short, very accessible way of thinking about the "point" of anarchism (libertarians are either minarchists - small government - or anarchists - no government). I don't receive anything if you click the link or read the article, by the way.

http://c4ss.org/content/50980

trodgers, Dec 9, 2018

#36

Lakeshow85, Lakerman JSJ, JohnnyComeLately2k6 and 1 other person like this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Opinion analysis: Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states
The Supreme Court today ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose luxury SUV was seized after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin. It is also a blow to state and local governments, for whom fines and forfeitures have become an important source of funds.

The case began back in 2015, when Tyson Timbs sold heroin to an undercover police officer. He pleaded guilty to drug charges and was sentenced to one year of home detention, living with his aunt, followed by five years on probation. The state court also ordered Timbs to forfeit his 2012 Land Rover, which he had purchased for approximately $42,000 with the proceeds of his father’s life insurance policy, on the theory that he had used the car to transport drugs.

Timbs challenged the forfeiture of his Land Rover as a violation of the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines, and a state trial court agreed. It reasoned that because the SUV was worth four times more than the maximum fine that the state could impose, requiring Timbs to forfeit it would be “grossly disproportional to the gravity” of Timbs’ crime.

An intermediate appeals court upheld that decision, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed. It ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically said that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines – part of the Bill of Rights, which was originally interpreted as applying only to the federal government – applies to the states.

Timbs asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, and today the justices held that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines does indeed apply to the states. In an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court seemed to regard the basic question before it as an easy one. The justices explained that the “historical and logical case for concluding that” the ban on excessive fines applies to the states through the 14th Amendment – which bars states from depriving anyone “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” – is “overwhelming.”

Even Indiana, the court noted, did not seriously challenge whether the ban on excessive fines applies to the states. Instead, it argued that the ban applies only to payments imposed as punishment and does not apply to this case, which involves the forfeiture of property used to violate the law, a procedure that was not traditionally regarded as a fine. But because the state did not make that argument in the Indiana Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized today, the court would not consider it. And it doesn’t matter whether the ban on excessive forfeitures of property was traditionally regarded as fundamental, the court explained; what matters is that the broader right to be protected from excessive fines has been regarded that way.

Justice Clarence Thomas agreed that the ban on excessive fines applies to the states, but he would have reached that result in a different way. Instead of relying on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, Thomas would hold that the ban on excessive fines is “one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed that thought in a separate opinion, but (unlike Thomas) he joined the court’s opinion, stressing that “nothing in the case turns on that question, and, regardless of the precise vehicle, there can be no serious doubt that the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect the freedom from excessive fines enshrined in the Eighth Amendment.”
Click to expand...

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/...ban-on-excessive-fines-applies-to-the-states/

This puts a serious dent in the Civil Asset Forfeiture program used by local and federal police departments. I never thought the Supreme Court would stomp down on it, but it's a welcome sign for the future.

revgen, Feb 20, 2019

#37

Lakeshow85 and John3:16 like this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Half-A-Cheer For Supremes' Civil Asset Forfeiture Ruling
Written by Daniel McAdams
Thursday February 21, 2019
Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on civil asset forfeiture - that states are bound by the Eighth Amendment - may be a step in the right direction, but it's only a baby step. Police are still free to steal from individuals not even accused of a crime, let alone convicted of a crime. They are just now told to not steal too much. The real issue that needs to be addressed is that the government should not be able to steal from the people. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...r-for-supremes-civil-asset-forfeiture-ruling/

revgen, Feb 21, 2019

#38

Lakeshow85, trodgers and John3:16 like this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

This is one of the "war-on-terror" policies from the Bush-era that needs to go. The idiotic pro-establishment comment by the anchor at the end of the video is priceless.

revgen, Sep 9, 2019

#39

Lakeshow85 and KareemtheGreat33 like this.
revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

Joined:

Oct 6, 2014

Messages:

1,833

Likes Received:

4,203

Trophy Points:

113

Offline

Excellent video contradicting many conservative misconceptions of what libertarianism is.

revgen, Nov 5, 2019

#40

Lakeshow85 likes this.

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 2 of 3

Share This Page