This is a good cause for a boycott. DirecTV... who else?

The people really hurt by this were the proprietor, his sister (the government stole $7-million from her, according to the article I read (not this FA)), and the close to one million customers who had accounts with BetOnSports. All told, the US government stole about $50-million from about a million people.

Point of fact, Krugman always expresses this type of perverse opinion. It's not restricted to the article in question. Maybe it sounded like a "troll" to a couple of uninformed moderators, because his opinions are so bizarre, but you really can't make this stuff up. Go read a few of his articles.

So according to your political theory of America, the Constitution explicitly specifies several things as within the domain of Congress and implicitly specifies every other imaginable issue as within Congress's domain? I wonder, then, why did they bother to explicitly enumerate a list of things within Congress's power? Wouldn't it have been enough just to write the "general welfare clause" and "the interstate commerce clause" and head home, since their goal was to give all powers to Congress? They could have saved quite a bit of time that way, couldn't they? And all that paper wasted on printed copies of debates and printed copies of the Constitution and whatnot?

True, but he'll have to work harder to come up with a voting system as stupid as that used at the "Jesus Seminar".

Actually, this is exactly the method (well, one of them) used to push committee decisions through party conventions in the United States, and presumably the people that make up the conventions at large are among the most civic-minded individuals in the county/state/country.

There's a separate room for every vote, with a waiting room right outside. Wouldn't election day be such a fun month?

What does Social Security, "a social insurance program funded through dedicated payroll taxes" (Wikipedia), have to do with voting?

But it's harder to rig an election if the votes are counted in the open. Plus, electronic voting is not stupid. It makes it so much easier to obscure the fact that they're manipulating the votes when no one can actually watch the process in action. It might be "stupid" on account of the fact that their dishonestly is so obvious, but governments generally take the gamble that they can get away with fooling the majority of people, and most of those who see what's happening them will be too afraid to oppose them openly. It's worked far too many times in the past. Why would they stop doing it?

One would be a fool to believe that office-holders running for re-election -- and the people who support and use them -- want honest elections. Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by malice.

No, he's not overstating the uniformity between the Two Parties. The are united in their will to rule the rest of us. He is, however, understating the degree to which the United States are unique in this respect. Government everywhere is united against the people. A glance at recent events in Britain and the rest of Europe reveals as much.

I agree. Here's an even greater insight: The differences between the people and the government are greater than the differences between the parties. This is true no matter what country you live in.

Actually, it's government regulation that requires perfect information. When there's a single entity regulating the business of an entire society, that entity would need perfect information about all aspects of society in order to achieve the optimal regulation. This is what's known as the 'economic calculation' problem, and it's part of the reason centrally planned economies are weak ones.

On the other hand, if property rights are respected, each individual is free to choose how best to utilize his own assets.

Do people want to verify that produce was not sprayed with pesticides? Many people certainly do, and you hint at a solution: bring your own lab kit to the market. Of course it's not practical for everyone to do this, but one of the wonders of the market is that it permits specialists to do just that kind of thing.

I hope you're not going to bother pointing out that such specialists might commit fraud or collude with deceitful growers in some way. If you were planning to, consider this fact first: it's your position that assumes an absolutely honest arbiter, while the market approach allows multiple independent specialists to compete on the basis of their honesty.

For anyone who thinks parent might be exaggerating, it's no joke. Krugman is quite literally insane. Here's a direct quote from the linked article (emphasis added):

Especially considering his "solution" to the meltdown is more of what brought it on in the first place.

And they make slightly less money.

And then they shoot us.

See the difference?

By the way, when you said we could stop buying products from a company "because of their abuse of us", what did you mean? By "abuse", did you mean something like "refusing to sell us their products at the prices we think they're worth" or "refusing to sell us products or services on the terms we would prefer"? Or, on the other hand, did you mean something like "lobbying the government to get higher regulations placed on their competitors" or "bribing legislators to make their services mandatory"?

The two are very different. They are polar opposites. On the one hand, an owner of a good chooses to keep that good rather than let it go on terms unacceptable to him. You may think your $100 is worth more than the company's product, or the businessman may think his product isn't worth letting go for a mere $75.99. Since it's his property in the first place, such a decision is eminently justified.

It is far different to use government power to get what we want. Is there any action of government which does not depend on, or equate to, holding a gun to the head of an innocent person? A company, non-profit organization, or person which uses government force to enlarge its business or accomplish its goals has stepped out of the realm of controlling the disposition of its own property and into the realm of thuggery.