Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So you are basically OK with any conduct that harms a large number of people? We don't need campaign finance laws, money laundering laws, antitrust laws, securities laws -- all of that has no immediate victim, so fuck 'em?
I reread. I confess that it's hard to figure out what your point is.
|
In order:
Campaign finance law: I don't care so much about prosecuting people for violating this in terms of donations. Dinesh D'Souza's case comes to mind as a recent, silly prosecution. I do care about violations where the money is stolen, such as Duncan Hunter's case.
Money laundering laws: Depends on the purpose of the laundering. Drug money I find hard to be offended about, given banks can legally accept and loan money to pushers like the Sackler family. Seems arbitrary to have a fit about holding El Chapo's money while countenancing banking for any opioid maker. And money laundering laws are also too broadly written. Structuring a transaction to keep it off uncle Sam's radar should be legal. The govt has no right to full disclosure of everything. It's a catch-all charge too often abused.
Antitrust: I have no problem at all with antitrust laws. I don't know why you included this here.
Securities laws: To this day, no one has clearly defined insider trading. How can that charge hold any credibility? Generally, I think securities laws are too numerous and byzantine. I don't even know where to start as so many of them should be repealed. But I can make one finite point about many of them: They more often act as barriers to entry, preventing changes in the securities industry, than they do as preventative or protective devices.
