ml_group Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Martha, I'm so sorry to hear you got 5 months in prison, 5 month house arrest and $30K fine. If it were any one of the other 99.99% of the population it would have been 5-10 years, 5-10 years probation and a forfeiture of almost all of our assets to pay for the fines. Please kindly refrain from whining as it is ruining my TV watching experience. Enjoy your last gourmet meal as you are about to be treated to the best spam the US Government could afford. Good riddance, ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the best news I've heard in quite a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 So sorry, but this is no place for such sarcasm and value-hatred. This is an Objectivist board and we are on Martha Stewart's side. http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/marthastewart.shtml http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/pr062602.shtml http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/insidertrading.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearmint Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 This is an Objectivist board and we are on Martha Stewart's side. I've never been completely sure why. Obviously insider-training laws are unjust, but I was under the impression that many felt that the 'rule of law' should be respected even if the laws in question were objectively wrong. I completely disagree with this attitude myself, but it seems fairly common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRoberts Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Read the articles from the links that Betsy provided Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walsh Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Spearmint- The insider trading laws are non-objective just like anti-trust laws. There is little or no way to absolutely obey them. They don't precisely fall under the rule of law because of that, but I'd still respect them, to the extent that I could, because of the rule of law. But at certain extremes, there isn't a way of following them, and so the actions of not following them are at certain specific points not immoral. That's my take, but I'm still learning. Perhaps Betsy or one of the more knowledgable could weigh in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Your stockbroker calls you. You listen. POOF!!, you have committed the CRIME of insider trading. No law-abiding citizen must answer his phone when it's his stockbroker calling with information that the government will subsequently characterize as "inside." More evidence of how absurd the notion of the "rule of law" becomes when it is divorced from the requirement for the laws to be just. I believe in the rule of law because I believe in the rule of justice--and that means that I believe in the rule of law to the extent that the laws are just. What do you believe in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaktree Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Spearmint, One of the most inciteful posts I have seen. Perhaps because I agree with both the points you make. Some objectivists think that holding "rule of law" as a "near primary" sets them apart from anarchists. The tricks is to understand that each individual may be breaking different laws based on their individual judgement, and yet not be whim-worshippers. Your post alludes to a deep issue within the objectivst "community". It is much more critical to address this issue than it is to swat flies like the original poster and his anti-Martha rant. PS: As for insider trading laws being impossible to obey, Martha was found guilty of lying to government investigators. It is a law that can be followed just as much as most others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 I'm so sorry to hear you got 5 months in prison, 5 month house arrest and $30K fine. If it were any one of the other 99.99% of the population it would have been 5-10 years, 5-10 years probation and a forfeiture of almost all of our assets to pay for the fines. No, if it were any one of the other 95% of the population, the same actions would have drawn no reaction at all from the government. If average people were persecuted for what their stockbroker told them, there would be a revolution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_Connery Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 I think the idea that Objectivists should follow the rule of law is absurd, probably downright evil. Following laws just because they are laws is a terrible evasion morally. One step away from "we were just following orders" in my mind. I think Objectivists should properly break unjust laws, when the pros outweigh the cons, and more importantly, I think it is important that we defend ourselves, through any means necessary, from those that legislate and enforce these laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 I've never been completely sure why. Obviously insider-training laws are unjust, but I was under the impression that many felt that the 'rule of law' should be respected even if the laws in question were objectively wrong. I completely disagree with this attitude myself, but it seems fairly common. Insider trading isn't relevant, since she was never tried for it. One of the counts she was convicted on is US Code 1001, which makes it a criminal offense to conceal a material fact from the authorities in a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The details are very hard to come by, but as I understand it, the conviction itself is dubious because it seems to have been obtained by a perversion of the two-witness rule. The support is not over her having lied (assuming that she did) but over the fact that her prosecution was due to her being successful in business and generally a target of derision. The rule of law is a two-edged sword, and one edge is that law enforcement should be objective. The goverment should either rigorously prosecute all violations of 1001, or it should repeal that law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSabbath Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 The person who started this thread can endure the sun as long as Sauron's will endures. Or maybe he/she is off to eat Bilbo and the dwarves. Ladies and gentlemen, you have been trolled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearster Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 guilty of lying to government investigators. It is a law that can be followed just as much as most others. The SS Officer demands "are you a Jew?" Only an intrinsicist would see a conflict between honesty/justice on one side vs self-preservation on the other. Folks, there is *not* a duty to tell the truth to a persecutor. The difference between Objectivists and Anarchists is that the former have values, about which they are passionate. The latter don't want to live; they want you to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearmint Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Insider trading isn't relevant, since she was never tried for it. One of the counts she was convicted on is US Code 1001, which makes it a criminal offense to conceal a material fact from the authorities in a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government.Well ok, I admit to not having indepth knowledge of the case. However, it seems that all that should be significant to the 'rule of law' brigade is whether she actually broke a law (be it lying/insider trading/whatever). There doesn't seem to be grounds on which to condemn the prosecution because the injustice of the law itself. The support is not over her having lied (assuming that she did) but over the fact that her prosecution was due to her being successful in business and generally a target of derision. The rule of law is a two-edged sword, and one edge is that law enforcement should be objective. The goverment should either rigorously prosecute all violations of 1001, or it should repeal that law. No, I dont think this is the reason at all. Other successful people have been proseucted for non-crimes such as drug use and possession of child pornography, and none have received the zealous defence from within the capitalist community which Martha has. These people's situations are similar in that I assume they would not have been pursued to such a degree had they not been fairly famous. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people each day are imprisoned for breaking unjust laws, and their cases are normally ignored, or dismissed with a blithe appeal to the "rule of law". It has been different with Martha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 More evidence of how absurd the notion of the "rule of law" becomes when it is divorced from the requirement for the laws to be just. As a supporter of the rule of law, I would like to make some points. 1) Non-objective laws aren't an example of the rule of law, but a violation of it. Non-objective laws, like anti-trust and insider trading laws, are worse than unjust laws. They are NON-laws which don't specify what is or is not to be punished by force. They are merely a license to use arbitrary force by government. 2) Unjust laws cannot be fought by disobeying them or by government agents (including police and juries) refusing to enforce them. They have to be fought with IDEAS. 3. Unenforced unjust laws also lead to arbitrary use of force since, as long as they are on the books, they can be arbitrarily enforced. Unjust laws should be abolished or consistently enforced until the obviously evil consequences lead to their abolition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 I think the idea that Objectivists should follow the rule of law is absurd, probably downright evil. Following laws just because they are laws is a terrible evasion morally. One step away from "we were just following orders" in my mind. I think Objectivists should properly break unjust laws, when the pros outweigh the cons, and more importantly, I think it is important that we defend ourselves, through any means necessary, from those that legislate and enforce these laws. This depends on whether your job is to enforce the law or not. A citizen who is not an agent of the government may morally choose to violate the law IF he is willing to take the consequences. Civil disobedience or willingness to pay a fine as a "cost of business" may be rationally justified. As least he is acknowledging the existence and the sovereignty of the laws. An agent of the government, on the other hand is charged and sworn with enforcing the law. If he is unwilling to do so, he should resign from the police force, the jury, etc. Otherwise, he is violating his agreement and he is using force arbitrarily. Of course nobody can obey or enforce non-objective laws, so they are not within the context of the rule of law at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearmint Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 An agent of the government, on the other hand is charged and sworn with enforcing the law. If he is unwilling to do so, he should resign from the police force, the jury, etc. Otherwise, he is violating his agreement and he is using force arbitrarily. In enforcing an unjust law, an egent of the government is personally initiating the use of force, and should be treated accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 However, it seems that all that should be significant to the 'rule of law' brigade is whether she actually broke a law (be it lying/insider trading/whatever). There doesn't seem to be grounds on which to condemn the prosecution because the injustice of the law itself. In fact, I think the laws that she was convicted of violating are just laws (although very badly written because they can be interpreted in many ways). Insider trading laws are just plain and simple wrong, whereas laws against obstruction of justice are actually decent laws. But federal investigators should not have been investigating insider trading. If you look at Bernstein's op-ed, his criticism is against insider trading laws, not the prosecution for violating the law. And the dismissed charge of fraud based on the fact that she maintained her innocence is certainly a quite valid reason to criticize the prosecution: it is prosecutorial coersion of the worst kind, inventing new and non-existent crimes. No, I dont think this is the reason at all. Other successful people have been proseucted for non-crimes such as drug use and possession of child pornography, and none have received the zealous defence from within the capitalist community which Martha has. These people's situations are similar in that I assume they would not have been pursued to such a degree had they not been fairly famous. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people each day are imprisoned for breaking unjust laws, and their cases are normally ignored, or dismissed with a blithe appeal to the "rule of law". It has been different with Martha. Different in what way? As I have pointed out, there is a substantive issue about whether she is actually guilty or at least whether the prosecution met its legal burden. Be that as it may, she has been convicted and the rule of law demands that she do the time. So who exactly is advocating that the law be broken? There is a good reason why Stewart receives a (somewhat) zealous defense within the capitalist community. There are millions of people who will advocate justice for people convicted of drug use. Virtually nobody is willing to speak up for a person who engages in the unspeakable crime of making a profit. Perhaps you would prefer to start a separate thread on how child pornography is perfectly moral? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 In enforcing an unjust law, an egent of the government is personally initiating the use of force, and should be treated accordingly. But he is obliged to enforce the law. When a person is coerced into an action, they do not bear moral responsibility for that action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottkursk Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 This depends on whether your job is to enforce the law or not. A citizen who is not an agent of the government may morally choose to violate the law IF he is willing to take the consequences. Civil disobedience or willingness to pay a fine as a "cost of business" may be rationally justified. As least he is acknowledging the existence and the sovereignty of the laws. An agent of the government, on the other hand is charged and sworn with enforcing the law. If he is unwilling to do so, he should resign from the police force, the jury, etc. Otherwise, he is violating his agreement and he is using force arbitrarily. I'm a stockbroker and a manager who trains people on these laws. I can say that the insider trading laws are the most mindnumbingly complex and arbitrary laws. 1. Any person who is a broker that sells ANY sort of investment device is licensed by the federal govt. So in a very real sense, we are federal agents. 2. The way the insider trading laws are written, if you know or should have known they were trading or even in possession of material non-public information then you are required to report them to your compliance department. They then pass the information along to uncle sam. The money laundering laws are even more so in their hindsight view. They say in effect if you should have know but just missed it, etc, you are still guilty. While yes, you can base your defense on you genuinely didn't know, you and your company are going to face some ugly legal bills. Basically, if a person learns of ANY news that can effect the price of a stock you can't act on it. This includes being an engineer that knows you aren't going to get your latest but very counted upon project finished or a guy that works for the printer of a magazine that contains a damning article on a company. 3. If a customer even intimates that they are acting on material non-public knowledge then you are required to report them. Hardly a day goes by that someone doesn't say they "have the good word" on one thing or another. 99.9% of the time they are making themselves seem more important or intelligent than they are. invariably when someone says they've got ahold of some really top secret info, they are just mooks that got some spam promoting a penny stock. Then there are the times when someone has incredible timing and mentions they share a girlfriend with the CEO of a company. 4. Like any law, it is up to a person to decide if they want to enforce it. Mind you, when you're choice is visiting a federal pound me prison or reporting someone who you think may be genuinely violating the law, well, you make the one you are comfortable with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Please kindly refrain from whining as it is ruining my TV watching experience. What, is it scratching and irritating that conscience that some of us call common sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottkursk Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 I agree that Stewart was crucified. From all I've been able to discern, her prime guilt was stating publicly that she was innocent. Normally, that is quite obviously ok. But since she was the ceo of her namesake company, they said this was equivalant of manipulating her stock price. Her fiscal and moral duty as a ceo is to do all in her power short of initiating the use of force through fraud etc to stabalize and guide her company. The other charges are corollary charges based on the assumption she was covering a crime that she wasn't even charged with. I will absolutely say that I feel Peter Bacanovic is a moron. He got sppoked when Stewart got charged and tried to "cover his a__" by modifying his notes. There are some insanely complex document retention requirements. A lawyer will tell you if you modify evidence (ie her stop annotation) it's as good as admitting guilt. I have no doubt what was going through his mind: If she did use inside info, I'm in serious trouble for not having reported her because he was keenly aware of Stewart and Waksal's realtionship. So he "should have known" that when she sold the stock and it fell later, she was performing a suspicious activity and is therefore guilty of insider trading. So he made an anotation of their previous conversations (which I would bet they did have) about the stop loss. He wasn't lying at all but making a notation of their previous converstaion. But, since he placed it after the fact he was toast. If he would have not made that notation and stuck with the truth that they did indeed have conversations about the stop loss both of them would probably be in a very different situation. It's for this very reason I take voluminous notes and make sure that their is an official record of every trade. It's so easy to prevent these sort of things..... Oh, by the way, Peter Bacanovic's manager also very likely faced censure. As a manager of brokers, you are legally responsible for all their actions. You are literally supposed to be psychic. If they do something wrong and you don't catch and correct it, you really can face some problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walsh Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Did anyone else see that Stewart was (somewhat) vindicated by the market? Her stock went up 36% today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travis P. Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 I think most of what has happened to Martha is unjust. I think she's a good person and I agree that insider trading is an arbitrary wrong law. BUT, the charge that involved her public statements (committing stock fraud) was thrown out for being a novel use of the law or something like that. Declaring public innocence should not cause one to be charged with manipulating stock price (if that was upheld, any CEO would be at risk of this arbitrary law). Not all of the remaining charges were good, but were much more reasonable. Especially lying to law enforcement. It's appropriate for there to be repercussions for this in the right context. Leading federal investigators on a wild goose chase costs resources and misdirects them from the appropriate area. Regardless that they were investigating her for an arbitrary law, it was a law she was aware of (and probably supported, at least prior to this) and she lied to investigators. Did this merit 5 months in prison? Probably not. In the context of everything, I would say the fine was enough punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottkursk Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 Did anyone else see that Stewart was (somewhat) vindicated by the market? Her stock went up 36% today. It's really a case of people waiting on the sidelines and the sentence wasn't nearly as bad as people expected. It was a best case scenario. Especially since she gets to stay free while they work on her appeal. So, she'll be able to better get her business in order for her five months in jail. Which if people remember Steve Madden is a good thing. But then Steve Madden wasn't reviled like Stewart is. He was the shoe maker that did time for insider trading but his company is still very much around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted July 17, 2004 Report Share Posted July 17, 2004 In enforcing an unjust law, an egent of the government is personally initiating the use of force, and should be treated accordingly. I disagree. In a government of laws and not of men, when it is shown that an unjust law has been enforced by agents of the government, the LAW is held responsible and not those sworn to enforce the law. In a government of laws and not of men, agents and employees of the government must act in accordance with the law and not on their own. When men can wield force against other men whenever they want to without being restrained by law, what you have is -- in fact -- anarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.