The usual assorted welfare queens and rent-seekers have rammed through congress a bill that regulates crowdfunding. The very same people who could not see Enron, Madoff, Solyndra and whose judgment is to bail out what has died now believe they can manage a perceived threat.
Note how they all talk about how crowdfunding must be regulated because someone might rip off the people who are offering money. Not that it has ever happened, just that it might. The article calls the law a pre-emptive strike. Note again how "pre-emptive strike," a war crime in international law, has become standard for all government action, ever since we used it to criminally invade Iraq.
This was led by lawyers, and the article names names. Always remember, all lawyers are government workers, and anything you pay them is a direct tax.
Lawyers have no role in business. If you look a the two most critical sets of laws governing commerce, the law merchant and the UCP, both came out of merchants practices, in essence self-governance among merchants. We need no welfare queens interfering with self-governing bodies, we need separation of self-government and state. States have arrogated unto themselves "jurisdiction" where none was needed, in either case, in order so that they may seek rents. This effort makes as much sense as the state writing down the rules of Chess and then charging people $1000 to play.
If a problem emerges, let private companies come up with ways to deal with it, not regulators and the vulture lawyers who suck the lifeblood out of people trying to start businesses in USA.
The article names people who pushed for this who ought to be considered pariah among business people:
Sara Hanks
Kevin Berg Grell
http://www.crowdcheck.biz/
Jeff Stibel, chairman and chief executive officer of Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
and of course the politicians who voted for it...
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Note how they all talk about how crowdfunding must be regulated because someone might rip off the people who are offering money. Not that it has ever happened, just that it might. The article calls the law a pre-emptive strike. Note again how "pre-emptive strike," a war crime in international law, has become standard for all government action, ever since we used it to criminally invade Iraq.
This was led by lawyers, and the article names names. Always remember, all lawyers are government workers, and anything you pay them is a direct tax.
Lawyers have no role in business. If you look a the two most critical sets of laws governing commerce, the law merchant and the UCP, both came out of merchants practices, in essence self-governance among merchants. We need no welfare queens interfering with self-governing bodies, we need separation of self-government and state. States have arrogated unto themselves "jurisdiction" where none was needed, in either case, in order so that they may seek rents. This effort makes as much sense as the state writing down the rules of Chess and then charging people $1000 to play.
If a problem emerges, let private companies come up with ways to deal with it, not regulators and the vulture lawyers who suck the lifeblood out of people trying to start businesses in USA.
The article names people who pushed for this who ought to be considered pariah among business people:
Sara Hanks
Kevin Berg Grell
http://www.crowdcheck.biz/
Jeff Stibel, chairman and chief executive officer of Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
and of course the politicians who voted for it...
No
26
(25, 0, 1)
Not Voting
1
(0, 1, 0)
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
2 comments:
Am I reading this list right? Rand Paul supported this? I thought his leanings would be closer to his dad's. Looks like they probably don't see eye to eye on some things...
-sash
Yes, I had to read that a couple times myself to make sure... I guess that is a good thing that he is his own man, but too bad he is same as usual. I warned that the tea party would not bring change.
Post a Comment