Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MaximumZero]

You can carry large volumes of innocuous things without arousing suspicion to later exchange for things that would arouse suspicion. Also, lots of stuff that's easy for you to get would be much harder to get, say...in prison. Also, medical supplies are worth a fortune to gang members who can't afford to turn up in the hospital. Or, at least they were, back when I ran with that crowd. It's been a long time.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There have been plenty of articles on the "Tide economy". Not tide as in, the sea, but Tide, the detergent. Everybody needs it at some point and it has a far more stable value than the dollar, so in places with really bad economic standards people will either steal Tide or buy as much of it as they can to sell later. It is also essentially an undetectable form of money laundering.

[GavJ]

You can sell anything with any kind of value on the black market. It's not just for drugs and guns.

Not ANYTHING. In fact not even most things. Generally it has to be:
1) something significantly regulated or controlled somehow, AND
2) reasonably easily produced or traded out of sight and without too much overhead or infrastructure. I.e. compact and/or relatively simple to handle or manufacture things with reasonably high profit density.

Without regulation, there's little reason to go to a black market for it versus buying it legally, because the black market folks wouldn't be able to offer any significantly higher supply or lower cost, so why would customers risk breaking the law to trade with them? Without practicality of compactness or simplicity, there may be incentive, but no worthwhile method of doing it without getting caught.

So there's no black market, for, let's say, generic backpacks, because there aren't really any backpack laws or regulations to undermine in order to offer any cheaper product than legitimate backpacks, even though they're easy to make. It fails requirement #1.

There's also no black market for electricity. Electricity is highly regulated with all kinds of environmental and safety and zoning laws, right? So somebody producing it illegally could offer HUGELY lower rates and make a killing. But nobody does, because it's kind of difficult to build underground power plants and city wide power line networks without being noticed, so it fails requirement #2.

But there is a black market for Gucci hand bags, because unlike generic backpacks, copyright/trademark laws are sufficient regulation to qualify #1, and profit density is high, and knocking them off doesn't require huge manufacturing resources (#2), so the ingredients are all there.

[MaximumZero]

You can sell anything with any kind of value on the black market. It's not just for drugs and guns.

Not ANYTHING.

Okay, I'll concede that point. You can't sell anything. You can sell a lot of things that one wouldn't normally think you could, though. I was going to mention Tide, but I beat me to the punch in the past/future-past.

[GlyphGryph]

Also, there are definitely markets in black market electricity. You posted after people had already posted why black markets might exist for goods that don't meet the first definition (if they are used essentially as currency for other black market transactions), and there's plenty of other situations where these markets exist aside from that.

There is a black market in backpacks. It's a small one, but that's simply because backpacks aren't terribly lucrative.

Here, let me write you up a new, more useful list of reasons things enter the black market:
1) they can be stolen
OR
2) regulations, taxation, or consequences can be avoided by offering it
OR
3) it can be used as a currency for other transactions

There's very little available in the regular market you aren't going to see on the black market. Electricity, rental units, toys, labour, electronics, sex, children, food, gas, animals, passwords, playing cards, you name it. Even money is often a black market good.

[GavJ]

It is also essentially an undetectable form of money laundering.

That's not an example of money laundering, because the act of purchasing a bunch of detergent does not aid you in explaining how you afforded larger purchases than your legitimate income should support. E.g., if I make $10,000 illegally, and $5,000 legally, it draws suspicion and audits if I buy a $12,000 car.  Buying $12,000 of laundry detergent and then trading it for a car does nothing to lessen the suspicion or the chance of an audit, thus it's not money laundering.

An example of actual money laundering might be owning a hair salon, and claiming that you got three times as many customers as you did. Nobody can really prove otherwise, since it's usually a cash business with few (verifiable or name-including) records, and the service rendered is ephemeral. It's not like if you got that many customers you would have had to order more scissors that they could check shipping records for, or something, in any predictable way. Thus, you can pretend all $15,000 was legitimate and buy your car with less risk.

Also, lots of stuff that's easy for you to get would be much harder to get, say...in prison.

Because contraband is regulated in prison.

medical supplies are worth a fortune to gang members who can't afford to turn up in the hospital.

Because hospital care is regulated.

backpacks aren't terribly lucrative.

Because backpacks aren't regulated.

3) it can be used as a currency for other transactions

Using soda to buy cocaine is not "a black market in soda" because the soda is not the illegal part of the transaction. It's no more of a crime than using cash to buy cocaine. The only time the soda is illegal itself is the very first transaction after it is acquired for food stamps, in which situation it is a very poor and tenuous example of "currency." But sure maybe that very isolated example. Its next dozen transactions around town are legal, making it no more inherently black market from then on than dollar bills are. It may or may not happen to be used to trade in black markets, but might also be used purely for white markets. Just like dollar bills.

1) they can be stolen

I grant you that fencing is a form of black market not otherwise mentioned, yes.

[palsch]

The wider impact of the Hobby Lobby ruling.

Now this is not written in stone yet, but seems to be a clear indicator. The Supreme Court considered petitions to review six cases similar to Hobby Lobby but challenging all twenty forms of contraceptive. Three cases were returned to the lower courts for reconsideration while three were allowed to stand with the lower court's decision being binding.

All three being upheld had held that there was a religious exemption to all contraceptives. The other three that are now being re-decided are those where it was decided that there isn't.

All of which is to say that there is almost certainly a religious exemption to all contraceptive coverage under the ACA, and the odds are good it goes a damned sight further than that.

Combine this with the challenges to the non-profit exemption I linked the other day and this could go a lot, lot further than the supposedly narrow ruling from Monday.


EDIT: A conservative legal perspective of the ruling and its implications going forwards.

[Vector]

And here we go.

[GavJ]

Wait, couldn't Christian Scientists use the same logic to actually claim absolutely no healthcare of any sort provided for employees at all? Not even moving outside of the medical industry here (although of course you can do that too, as the above link shows) - even staying within the exact same example.

Not only is it the same logic, but theirs are actual religious beliefs that nobody would argue as legitimate ones (they stand by them and live them), not completely made up beliefs for the purposes of filing a lawsuit like Hobby Lobby that they conveniently ignore the moment it threatens their investment profits.

[palsch]

Wait, couldn't Christian Scientists use the same logic to actually claim absolutely no healthcare of any sort provided for employees at all?

Certainly possible by the direct logic here.

Basically the test;

1) Does the law create a substantial burden on their religious exercise?

Here, under the Hobby Lobby standard, any requirement to provide healthcare that the organisation (limited to those controlled by a group of people with shared stated beliefs) professes a religious objection to would qualify as such.

If yes, go to 2. If no, law is upheld on this basis.

2) Does the law address a compelling state interest?

Here healthcare certainly passes. Although in Hobby Lobby the status of contraceptive cover was never tested.

If yes, go to 3. If no law gets struck down.

3) Is the law narrowly tailored?

Basically, does it have too broad an effect or does it fail to address the primary goal. I don't believe this was a point of contention, although it could be.

If yes, go to 4. If no law gets struck down.

4) Does the law use the least restrictive means?

Boils down to whether the court can think of any method of achieving the compelling interest from 2 which would be considered less burdensome. It doesn't matter if the alternative method is practical or not.

This part of the test is what gives strict scrutiny its reputation as fatal to any law that goes up against it; you can almost always come up with some less restrictive hypothetical to eliminate laws you don't like. In reality it's not all that bad, but still relies heavily on the preferences of judges.

In the Hobby Lobby case the two alternatives were the non-profit exemption (itself subject to a challenge that looks likely to strike it down as still too burdensome under this same reasoning) or the government directly providing contraceptives.

If yes, law is upheld. If no, law is struck down.


A challenge to any healthcare by a valid religious group who bring a religious objection would fall down at stage 4 on the same basis. If the court views government provision of healthcare as less burdensome than an insurance mandate in the case of contraceptives I can't see how that's any less valid for wider healthcare. By that reasoning an American single payer, nationalised, universal healthcare system would be a less burdensome method in every case, so making any other system fail the test.

[GreatJustice]

Seems to me like this is a decent result with a very stupid justification. From what I can see, HL really didn't care much about "religious freedom", but the fact of the matter is that it shouldn't be forced to provide anything regardless of religious freedom or not. It's kind of sad that Americans have completely forgotten about basic property rights and have to hide behind religion to justify running their businesses the way they want to.

[Angle]

Seems to me like this is a decent result with a very stupid justification. From what I can see, HL really didn't care much about "religious freedom", but the fact of the matter is that it shouldn't be forced to provide anything regardless of religious freedom or not. It's kind of sad that Americans have completely forgotten about basic property rights and have to hide behind religion to justify running their businesses the way they want to.

There's so much wrong with that post I don;t even know where to begin.

Edit: alright, lets start with the basics. People are not property. You do not have the right to treat them however you wish, even if they work for you. That said, I do think our current system of employer provided Health insurance is rather silly. We should really switch over to a national system. Unfortunately, that's not in the political cards, so we have to make do with what we've got, at least for the time being.

[Sergarr]

So, is this Hobby Lobby thing a conservative win or what?

[Angle]

So, is this Hobby Lobby thing a conservative win or what?

Eyyup, at least for the time being.

[GlyphGryph]

Employee insurance plans should be banned, and a system set up for cooperative negoation groups not tied to employment or nationalized.