Well, not exactly, but the big picture is a disturbing one from the perspective of the millions of people criminally prosecuted every year for seeking to self-medicate using street drugs . If all of those mind altering street drugs are really "bad," then they should stay illegal. But maybe it's not so…
In Osama Bin Laden’s latest screed, one of the things he exhorts people to do is give up interest. The charging and paying of interest is forbidden in strict Islam. Known as riba (increase), it was the subject of some of Mohammed’s most vehement condemnations. One can see why with only a cursory look at history. Namely, moneylending was largely an uncontrolled practice that guaranteed a class structure that could not be broken, incurred debts that led to involuntary servitude, and was an all around nasty way to keep the serfs in the fields. Mohammed, rather than suggesting some form of regulation, vented spleen and condemned it outright. Christians, of course, had their own attitude toward it, which led to out-groups being the only ones allowed to lend money (Jews, famously, but not exclusively). The prohibition was based mainly on two Biblical passages (both Old Testament): Leviticus 25:36–37 (“Take thou no usury…”) and Ezekiel 18:13 (“He that have give forth usury, and hath taken increase: shall he live? He shall not live…”).
The Catholic Church used to excommunicate moneylenders. The law said: Quidquid sorti accedit, usura est “what exceeds the principal is usury.” (The Italian Renaissance, aside from great art and a few geniuses, also revolutionized banking. The bankers noted that this applied only to loans, not contracts, so they erected a facade behind which they could do exactly what they wanted. They made no loans. They traded in Bills of Exchange. Technically, it was a sale of one …
Silly bureaucracy in action! An internationally renowned cyber-guru who often comes into the U.S. to train DoD, DoE, and other alphabet soupers was held for 4 hours by customs, and deported as he came in to speak at a Black Hat convention. His own report on the issue makes it…
Best known for his dystopia, 1984, George Orwell cared deeply about language. A good example is Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." Judith D. Fischer reviewed Orwell’s contributions to the use of plain English in legal writing in “Why George Orwell’s Ideas About Language Still Matter for Lawyers.” Montana Law…
Businesses are increasingly inserting arbitration provisions into contracts to prohibit the employees and consumers from resolving important disputes in courts of law. Such arbitration provisions compel the employees and consumers to present his or her case to an "private arbitrator," who need not even be an attorney. There is no jury trial. There is no automatic right to engage in pre-trial discovery. There is no public access. There need not even be an in-person hearing (unless you pay extra). The arbitrator often has the right to decide the entire case by merely looking at paperwork and you might not even have a right to be there when it happens. If the arbitrator fails to apply the law correctly or if the arbitrator refuses to consider important evidence, too bad. There is no appeal. There is no accountability. Your claim against a big company will simply disappear. And here's another huge concern: the big corporations are repeat customers to the big arbitration companies, while you will be a one-time player. Under these circumstances, who is the arbitrator likely to favor? [more . . .]