Re: Martha Stewart and her Merrill Lynch Broker

From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 17:55:51 MDT

  • Next message: gts: "RE: Martha Stewart and her Merrill Lynch Broker"

    > (Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>):
    > Lee Daniel Crocker wrote,
    >
    > > I see no compelling reason for legislation in this matter. If stock
    > > markets that contractually restrict insider trading are better than
    > > those that don't, then they'll succeed in the marketplace. If they
    > > don't, then the legislation is counterproductive.
    >
    > Is there something specific about these types of crimes that you think
    > should keep the government out? Or is this just a global statement that
    > you want the government out of all crime prevention?

    Just simple liberty. Is there some reason why you find it acceptable
    for the government to interfere in what free people choose to do with
    their own money by unanimous consent? The government should intervene
    when I break into a man' house and steal his TV without his knowledge
    or consent, not when I knowingly offer to sell him contractual rights
    which he has read in plain English to allow the possibility that I
    know more than he does, to which he has knowingly and willingly
    consented. Or, it should step in when he sues because the contract we
    signed did specifically forbid me from the trade and I breached it.
    Otherwise, it should butt the hell out.

    -- 
    Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
    "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
    are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
    for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 05 2003 - 18:06:00 MDT