The Fraud of Blogger "Guidelines"

Last week the Federal Trade Commission released "guidelines" requiring bloggers to disclose "material connections" (payments or free products) to advertisers for products reviewed or testimonials given. The alleged purpose of these "guidelines"--which can result in a fine of $11,000 per "offending" post--is to protect consumers.

Presumably, these "guidelines" fall under the purvey of "truth in advertising", which holds that advertising may not be deceptive or misleading. While I would agree that advertisers should not engage in fraud, this is not the purpose of the new FTC guidelines. And more significantly, it fails to address the true fraud being perpetuated on the American people.

Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts for the purpose of influencing a person's actions. Fraud is intended to convince a person to act differently than he would if he had all of the facts.

And what do the "guidelines" offer in terms of "guidance"? Not much:

The Commission will, of course, consider each use of these new media on a case-by-
case basis for purposes of law enforcement, as it does with all advertising.

The Commission does not believe that all uses of new consumer-generated media to
discuss product attributes or consumer experiences should be deemed “endorsements” within the meaning of the Guides. Rather, in analyzing statements made via these new media, the fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker’s statement can be considered “sponsored” by the advertiser and therefore an “advertising message.” In other words, in disseminating positive statements about a product or service, is the speaker: (1) acting solely independently, in which case there is no endorsement, or (2) acting on behalf of the advertiser or its agent, such that the speaker’s statement is an “endorsement” that is part of an overall marketing campaign? The facts and circumstances that will determine the answer to this question are extremely varied and cannot be fully enumerated here... [pages 8- 9, emphasis added]

The FTC claims that it will view a post "objectively", yet it cannot state what criteria it will use. How then is a writer to know if his post is an "advertising message" or not? The fact is, he can't know until the FTC comes knocking on his door.

Such arbitrary "guidelines" will not protect anyone. They will however, accomplish the unstated purpose of paralyzing writers with uncertainty and fear. As Diana Hsieh writes:

The inevitable result will be that many honest bloggers will stop discussing products entirely -- or they'll stop blogging. Seriously, how many bloggers make enough money to cover the potential fines? How many bloggers will have the time and the fortitude to read through all the regulations, to know whether they're complying or not with them? Many other people will not start a blog; it would be too much trouble -- and too risky.

The FTC is peddling these "guidelines" as consumer protection, when in fact the true purpose is to stifle the free exchange of ideas. If this strikes you as manipulative and misleading, you would be correct. The FTC--the agency charged with "protecting" consumers from fraudulent advertising--is perpetuating a fraud. If advertisers and bloggers must disclose all relevant facts, shouldn't the FTC be subject to the same "guidelines"?

And what of politicians who ply American voters with promises of unearned rewards in exchange for votes? What of those who claim that massive government programs can be enacted with no ill affects? What of politicians who renege on campaign promises? What of politicians who claim impartiality while accepting campaign donations from organizations seeking to influence legislation? Or those who first point a gun at businessmen to mandate their behavior and then point a finger at "greedy" businessmen in blame when the politician's schemes fall apart? Or those who preach "family values" while engaging in sordid behavior? Aren't these claims and promises fraudulent? Aren't these intentional misrepresentations of the facts for the purpose of influencing the actions of voters?

The fact that politicians and government bureaucrats are not held to the same standards as ordinary citizens speaks volumes. They try to "sell" the public on certain ideas while misrepresenting their own actions, beliefs, and intentions. If it is wrong for advertisers to misrepresent their products, why is acceptable for government officials to do so? The answer to that question reveals one of the greatest frauds of all.

Government officials allegedly act with the "public interest" in mind. Unlike businessmen who act for their own selfish interests, government officials allegedly act with the interests of others in mind. And since altruism--service to others--is the accepted standard of morality, the selfless actions of politicians and bureaucrats are covered with a veneer of moral rectitude while the actions of businessmen are tainted.

Obama has called upon all Americans to sacrifice. He has implored us to serve others. Why? Why should we serve others, rather than serve ourselves? Obama, and indeed nobody, has provided an answer to that question. And if Americans are busy serving one another, who is to benefit from this orgy of sacrifice? For a start, you might consider Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Al Gore, and Obama.

We are supposed to believe that if we all sacrifice, we will all somehow be better off. Do you think that you would be better off if you burned a $100 bill, or let the food in your freezer spoil, or gave your car to the bum on the corner? For most people these actions would be a sacrifice. How would this make your life better?

One of the greatest frauds in history is the idea that morality consists of service to others, that you must place the welfare and interests of others before your own, that you have no right to exist for your own sake. So long as you accept that premise, there will be a steady stream of Franks, Dodds, and Pelosis eager to direct your service to do their bidding. They will cajole you with guilt, and if that doesn't work they will prod you with a club. They take altruism seriously, and they will demand that you do as well.

If you value your life, you must reject altruism. You must assert your right to your own precious life. You must proclaim that you have a right to your own happiness. Until you do that, you will continue to be a victim of your own mistaken ideas. And that is what the FTC is counting on.

Gene Locke and Legalized Plunder

Mayoral candidate Gene Locke currently finds himself accused of a conflict of interest. He has served as counsel for the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority (HCHSA), which is currently attempting to get a taxpayer funded stadium for the Dynamos. (HT: blogHouston) Locke will get to appoint six members to the sports authority, and his law firm would benefit from any legal work it does for the HCHSA.

Some have questioned whether Locke has been using his position to lobby for campaign donations, which would be illegal. Locke denies this, claiming that he has done no legal work for HCHSA since he started his campaign. Musings however, posts a time line that shows differently. And Slampo's Place posts:

For what it's worth, Locke's latest campaign finance disclosure lists a $3,000 donation from California billionaire Phillip F. Anschutz of Anschutz Entertainment Group, 50-percent owner of the Dynamo and would-be promoter of the now-canceled but once-upcoming Michael Jackson tour. Locke reported receiving another $2,500 from Dynamo co-owner Brener Sports & Entertainment of Beverly Hills (the corporate PAC, we assume, although it's not listed as such) and $2,000 more from Brener-associated Oscar De La Hoya, a "self-employed boxer" from Los Angeles (and one of our favorite fighters of the past couple of decades) who has been reported to have some ownership interest in the local major-league soccer franchise. We know these are wholly meaningless and random acts of generosity and that all of these California-based parties are simply interested in enabling GOOD GOVERNMENT in Houston, Texas.

I am personally not concerned about who donates to Locke's campaign. The wealthy have every right to spend their money as they choose, and that includes financing political campaigns. What concerns me is that government is even involved in the "sports authority" business.

If government were limited to its proper function--protecting individual rights--this would not be an issue. (Nor would a myriad other issues that has everyone all hot and bothered, like light rail and the Ashby High Rise). But when government extends beyond this function, all sorts of looters start lining up to feed at the public trough. This is the story that everyone is missing.

When government involves itself in things like sports stadiums, those who have a vested interest seek to curry political favor. And those with the ability to dispense political favors will naturally scratch the back of those who are scratching theirs.

The solution isn't more transparency. We already know that PACs and other pressure groups spend enormous sums of money to influence legislation. The solution isn't campaign finance reform. Individuals and businesses have a moral right to support the candidates of their choice with whatever sums of money they choose. The solution is to restrict the reach of government.

Locke is claiming that any decisions he makes as mayor will be in the best interest of "the public". But "the public" does not speak with one voice on the Dynamo's stadium, light rail, or any other issue. Which means, Locke (or whomever is elected) will decide what is best for everyone, and then impose that view on all Houstonians.

Politicians who invoke the "public welfare" believe that they know what is best for you, me, and every other Houstonian. We are simply too ignorant to know it. This is precisely the attitude that underlies government support for sports stadiums--we are too "selfish" to voluntarily support such an endeavor, so they will force us to do so.

I have nothing against billionaires. But I horribly resent anyone who thinks he has a right to take my money for his benefit. The size of his bank account, nor the number of political supporters he can gather, does not change the fact that he is a thief. And I harbor even greater resentment at the politicians who enable this legalized plunder.

Any politician who must justify any proposal or policy on the basis of the "public welfare" or the "common good" or anything similar is simply seeking to rationalize legalized robbery of the citizenry. Where I come from, taking money from someone without his consent is theft, and that is precisely what Locke and his ilk propose to do.

When Driving is a "Privilege" and Health Care is a "Right"

It is bad enough that the average citizen has no clear idea as to the meaning of the concept "rights". It is even worse when a judge is equally clueless. For example, in a letter to the Chronicle, County Criminal Court Jay Karahan writes:

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and there is a legal duty for each driver to give his or her best efforts to do so safely.

While a large segment of the American people think that health care is a right, another segment believes that driving is not a right. These views are simply flip sides of the same coin.

A right is, as Ayn Rand identified, a sanction to freedom of action in a social setting. Rights pertain only to action, not the consequences of action. Rights provide a sanction to act according to one's own judgment, free from coercion or interference from others, so long as you respect the mutual rights of others.

Those who view health care as a right seek to limit the freedom of doctors, patients, and insurance companies. Under the proposed health care "reforms" doctors will be force to accept payments as specified by the government and provide treatments dictated by bureaucrats. Patients will receive only those treatments allowed by government, while insurance companies will be compelled to insure pre-existing conditions and receive government approval for the policies they offer. No matter who you are, your freedom to act according to your own judgment will be restricted and controlled by government.

Having expanded the concept of "rights" into a meaningless term, statists can then declare that legitimate rights are merely privileges bestowed by the state. The state "allows" you to drive, so long as you meet whatever terms it demands. To the judge (and those who share his view) individuals may act only with the permission of government.

This perversion has profound implications. If legitimate rights are "privileges" and mere desires are "rights", every human action becomes subject to government scrutiny and control. If the freedom to act is only a privilege, government may revoke its permission at will. If the desire of one individual is a claim on the actions of another, each individual's life becomes subject to the whims of others.

The fact is, driving is a right. Individuals have a moral right to take the actions necessary to sustain and enjoy their lives. This includes the right to move about freely if one possess the means and desire to do so. (One does not have a right to be provided transportation--such as light rail or bus service--by others.) To declare otherwise is to claim that individuals do not have a right to their own life.

This is the meaning of "health care is a right" and "driving is a privilege". Those who advocate such ideas do not view individuals as independent, autonomous entities who may act for their own benefit. They view individuals as disposable "cells" in the organism of society and each must act for the "common good". Those who refuse to do so "voluntarily" may properly be forced to follow the demands and dictates of government.

While statists are aiming their regulations and controls at our actions, their real goal is to control our minds. They want to render the judgment of doctors and patients moot--we will not be allowed to act on our judgment without government approval. They dislike the choices made by some individuals--whether the developers of the Ashby High Rise, or "greedy" insurance companies, or "unscrupulous" doctors, or distracted drivers--and they want to eliminate everyone's ability to choose. Which means, they want to paralyze our minds, and destroy everything a thinking, rational mind makes possible.