Thursday, September 20, 2007

Billionaires and those who blabber

I picked up this story off a liberal blog today and found it again under a few other sites. The comments were largely the same on each site. It's "obscene", the money is earned all on the "backs of the poor and middle class", they need to be more heavily taxed, beyond the normal obligations, too little charity, undeserving, and the usual "corporations are bad" talk. It never ceases to amaze me how some people do not live in reality.


With few exceptions, the people on this list had some innovative idea or creation, and they ran with it and made something of value. Through hard work and determination, they built their product into a business and became successful, exactly how capitalism works. They used the principles America was based on, and became a success using their own sweat and blood.


Many of the other names became educated in modern economics, be it in the classroom or trial and error. They played the market correctly, and developed a keen sense and understanding of the economy and business in America and in markets throughout the world.

Yet the sites I visited treats them as villans because of their success. I never understand this position. They harp on the success and say it is because of some travesty on the poor and middle class. This is not always the case, in fact, its probably rarely the case, yet you would never know that by reading some of the hateful things.

There is a lot more I could say, but I will wait for comments, if any.

Been on a brief vacation

I've been on a break dealing with some medical issues, but I am back and ready to post again. Check back for updates.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Fighter of our freedoms or freaking idiot?

I decided to take a break from studying for my upcoming major life event to comment on this story I found on another blog. Apparently, this guy was arrested after he left a store without showing his receipt. I will let you read the whole story, and will leave the second portion of this issue, the police arrest, for another day.


Under common law, there exists something called the shopkeepers privilege, which basically allows a shopkeeper to detain someone if he has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person has or will commit theft. The investigation must be done on or near the premesis of the building, there must be reasonable suspicion, the use of force must be reasonable and the detainment period can only be for a reasonable period of time.


This guy's argument appears to be based on a 4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure, and somehow claims that his civil rights are violated. But what he has not learned, is the premise of the amendment itself. First of all, the constitution is designed to protect public policy. While private policy could also be included in limited instances, it is generally reserved for public policy only. Which is why a restaurant could reasonably demand pay first provisions, or why non-disclosure agreements can be enforced between an individual or a business. Most protections deal with what the government is allowed to do to you. The relationship between private citizens is generally not included.


The second point he missed, is that it is not unreasonable to ask a customer to show a receipt upon leaving the premesis. As a customer, he voluntarily entered a store, and purchased merchandise from the company. The store has a right to reasonably protect their property from theft. And the argument that he is a loyal customer is irrelevant. I would be open to suggestions on how to further and more easily protect shoplifting, but he presents no possible alternative. Like it or not, EVERY customer is a potential shoplifter, and simply asking someone to show a receipt is by no means unreasonable. Defining what is "reasonable" is a term that will be debated until the end of time. Simply put, "reasonable" means what a reasonable person would interpret. A reasonable person is defined as an average person of the community with average intelligence and education.

I actually debated this in great detail at the Randi Rhodes blog site, so you can look there for further analysis.