I did, but the local software added at the next level reply and at the bottom. I deleted and attempted to move it further upthread as a direct reply to satta, as I'd intended... Thanks!

Ah, I get it... "...ensure people around the world can achieve a relative level of prosperity to live good lives, take care of their families and build strong, healthy, sustainable communities."

... means "to each according to their wants and needs," right? How else would that translate? How does any system 'ensure' that kind of 'prosperity' to EVERYONE in the world?

Sounds like there might be some 'force' involved, inevitably... no? Or do you believe in altruism? I don't.

As a response to satta, I'm just comparing the similar promises stated in two ways to centrally plan an economy using "Fair Capitalism" and the looters plan.
I definitely don't believe in either of these ways.
You should post your concerns and reasoning to satta above as I did.

and, as usual, my first thought was, "would someone please define 'fair' FIRST?"

"Fair market capitalism is a combination of fair trade along with social and sustainable business entrepreneurship that will ensure people around the world can achieve a relative level of prosperity to live good lives, take care of their families and build strong, healthy, sustainable communities. Fair market capitalism is for the 99% while so-called free trade is for the 1%. We know that there is no such thing as free trade - it's the work of the 1% to control the world. The 99% need a system that works for them and their communities. Fair market capitalism is the best and only way to achieve that. Also, imbedded in the philosophy of fair market capitalism is the Golden Rule - "treat others as you would like to be treated" and Tithing versus Taxation - "the way that communities and governments pay for the public services required by society and to maintain the commons for all to share and enjoy". http://upriser.com/posts/fair-market-cap...

verses another plan that will...

"reconcile all conflicts. It will protect the property of the rich and give a greater share to the poor. It will cut down the burden of your taxes and provide you with more government benefits. It will lower prices and raise wages. It will give more freedom to the individual and strengthen the bonds of collective obligations. It will combine the efficiency of free enterprise with the generosity of a planned economy." - From Atlas Shrugged

But "free" markets (meaning both parties to a deal are voluntary, and therefore both are winning out of the deal) provides the best result in terms of true "fairness".
If a third party imposes their idea of a "fair" deal, then one of the two parties dealing will not be doing it voluntarily. So the result moves away from true "fairness".

Free Market Capitalism doesn't work, only Fair Market Capitalism works; something the US Trade Representatives have totally ignored or forgotten over the past fifty years.
When Free Market is applied somebody always assumes, "Oh free for me and F bombs on you!" With Fair Market, i.e. mirror trade laws, everybody usually makes a living.
Fair is the objectivist lesson here!

"Fraud" is not a component of "free market capitalism".

"Crony capitalism", on the other hand...

Free market? A market is not free when it is supported by unethical morally reprehensible marketers. There may be an iota of excuse for scalpers, but the whole wheelchair thing, I; e; selling handicap tickets to the non handicapped, shows the true picture of the enterprise. There is no problem in making a profit. There is a problem in making a profit through fraud or just downright despicable activity.

Well said, teri-amborn.

Principled living consists of dedication to reality. Lawyers are dedicated to re-creating reality, manipulation and falsification of facts.
We have a REALLY good lawyer in the White House!

Too many "rules" and not enough principles make for very rich lawyers.

I'm not arguing a who is the "owner" of the ticket idea, I'm arguing a fraud that may have been used to get in the park with that ticket. It is anyone using the special ticket AND needing to fake or forge their identity to enter that is committing a fraud.

"If you forge alumnus credentials, that would be fraud?"
If used as above, yes.

Mike Marotta -

I read your blog article. Hmmm. Something to think about. I made the error of the below assumption once, about a martial artist who kept damaging his opponents.

"So, when you are harmed by someone else, you assume that like you they had no intention and having committed a transgression, they are remorseful, and cannot be content until they have rebalanced themselves with some propitiatiation."

In the long run, it did not turn out well for him, but it would have gone much better for me and my friends if we had not based some of our approach to the problem upon that incorrect premise.

I will think over what you wrote.

Jan

I can see your point and I agree with much of what you said, but I counter.
If a person was to fraudulently use your identity to benefit in a transaction wouldn't you want that person identified? Let's say it is someone under 21 wanting to buy a beer with his own money. Is there there really any harm in that? Shouldn’t it be up to you to decide whether to press charges or not?
If a person was to fraudulently use the identity of a handicapped person to benefit in a transaction, wouldn't also some handicapped people out their want that person identified? And shouldn’t it be up to those who created the terms of the tickets or even handicapped people to decide whether to press charges or not?
When I say, “These people should be identified and dealt with by a very limited government,” by the very concept, other (free) individuals need to take more responsibility to assist in this. Not that government should be everywhere looking for this.

How would that apply to patent law? Thinking more broadly here, FreedomForAll, consider that you license a process say, from Intel, to make some kind of chip which you claim is for smart roller skates. But you actually bring in AMD who puts the chips into boards of their own that compete with Intel's. Now what?

You assume that the tickets are SOLD with a transfer of TITLE. Apparently, as Rozar suggested, the real terms make it a lease, not a sale.

On a much deeper level, I do agree with your "laissez faire" viewpoint - and do so a step farther than I think you are prepared to go. See my blog article here on "Laissez Faire Criminology".
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2012/...

Maybe it is not necessary to punish all crimes. Sometimes, you get the bear; sometimes the bear gets you. Are you that laissez faire when it comes to busybodies interfering other people's activities? If you don't care who cheats on a lease, what do you care about?

I see your point and agree in this limited context. As you say, the terms of the agreement were specific and the fans who got around it by claiming something untruthful. Indeed, the story did mention youngsters in seats assigned to pensioners (retirees; seniors, as we say here in the States). Alumni seating and pricing is common here in the States for high school and college football and basketball. If you forge alumnus credentials, that would be fraud.

But to see the counter-argument, suppose that as an alumnus myself, I bought a ticket and "gave" it to you. (And I put that in quotes because very likely _ALL_ exchange is ritual gift-giving, not the impersonal economizing of the theoreticians: I gave you the tickets as a favor... you will do something for me sooner or later... ) So, then what? Can you not have a proxy attend the event for you?

Again back and forth, many products and services are non-transferrable in their conditions.

But in American English we have the phrase "Indian giver" for someone who takes back a gift.

But in _Atlas Shrugged_ Rearden says that there can be so such thing as conditional property: either I own something or I don't.

In that case Rozar's point above is telling: You never _own_ the ticket, you only _lease_ it. Like software...

Technically, if you sell your computer, you are supposed to wipe the OS and all Applications, not just your own data.

If it is a choice of the seller without any legal coersion to offer the special tickets then the seller can enforce it on site. If the seller thinks he has been defrauded after the event has ended and the seller thinks it is good business to pursue the users of the tickets in court then it should be the choice of the injured party, in that case, the seller.
If the seller has the evidence and the identity of the party he believes is guilty of fraud then he should present it to the court in a suit.
I don't want government to have the manpower to go chasing after unknown petty offenders like this. If it is important to the ticket seller, then he should be the one paying for such an investigation, and he should have to prove the guilt of the offender. If it is important the free market will devise a satisfactory solution.
Government that has the power to intrude in this way will use that power in many other ways, and I do not want to live in such a society.

If a fully able body person uses a (lower cost) handicap ticket, rolling in some wheel chair so they can get past the security gate looking like a handicapped individual, that is fraud. These people should be identified and dealt with by a very limited government.
Fraud has nothing to do with capitalism or ticket scalping.