Economic Meltdown (seconda parte)

[kandrathe]

but I don't see any major growth before we start seeing something different that can drive jobs without government subsidization.

I don't agree on government subsidy as the best method of instigating change. It can skew choice away from what would otherwise be the correct one, such as what has and is happening with ethanol or biodiesel made from crops.

I do not think I wrote what you think I wrote. Without subsidies.

Oh. Then I agree with you entirely.

I fully agree with you about ethanol / biodiesel. My actual vision is that non-farmland ethanol production is the next big thing for the US economy.

There is some bioengineering and R&D to take place yet, but I do not think it outside the realm of possibility to engineer some kind of organism that lives in salt water, eats some kind of animal feces, and "poops" ethanol or something that can be easily turned into ethanol. We clearly know of natural organisms and algae that eat something and poop ethanol (fermentation), but natural organisms only do this in the absence of light and very slowly. The main hurdle is bio-engineering them to do it in sunlight, as the sunlight energy should significantly speed the conversion process.

All current ethanol processes destroy whatever plant matter it uses. I think a truly viable ethanol process where ethanol is created from live matter rather than dead matter will eventually happen.

Meeting all the conditions I mentioned would be somewhat of a holy grail (salt water organism = ethanol plant doubles as desalination plant in drought prone areas, if it "eats" animal feces in some form, even if it needed processed, then "food" would be extremely cheap. While the US doesn't have tons and tons of hot arid areas near salt water, it does have a fair amount of the south, Texas and CA that would be close enough that pumping salt water shouldn't be too costly,) but meeting even one should dramatically reduce the cost of ethanol production compared to today. Ethanol is almost an economical alternative to gasoline now, just not able to be scaled to quantities needed.

I honestly think we are close to a breakthrough here. I think much closer than we are to any breakthrough that would make electric vehicles feasible on a large scale.

The biggest problem right now with ethanol is with it's association to farming. This is why it's become such a political issue. Any funding towards ethanol research instead becomes branded as a farming handout, even if it is not. Breaking the ties between ethanol and farming, not just at a government level, but in the mind of the everyday person is an uphill battle. It's one of those things where people in the US hear ethanol and think corn. It's a terrible starting point, with two major lobbies against any rational decision making (oil lobbies and farm lobbies).

And besides the potential gain, the irony circle of such a discovery would be good for a laugh.
After all, if an ethanol process were discovered that would make ethanol cheaper to make in hot, sunny areas near salt water than the cost of extracting oil from the ground, the US would have a brief period of sticking their tongue out at the Middle East before they realized the Middle East is one giant hot & sunny desert bordering salt water and it would probably end up cheaper for them to make ethanol there and ship it to the US than it would be to make it in the US at US labor rates.

You are probably spot on. My sister and her husband work at UCSD in molecular biology, and bioengineering. One of the labs there run by Dr. Mayfield is working on an algae that makes ethanol.

[eppie]

[quote='kandrathe' pid='188471' dateline='1312910307']
I don't know that solar panels on everyone's roof is the correct answer. I've done the math for my home, and it is not cost effective. It would cost me more money to keep my home outfitted with solar panels, than I would ever get back in savings from energy costs. [quote]

No, kandrathe, as I CLEARLY stated in my previous post I think the world can only be saved when everybody in Minnesota will start using solar panels. I even want to go further and find the US army needs to force all you minnesoteanians at gunpoint to install solar panels......today!!!!

(you didn't answer/react on my statement, you reacted on a statement I didn't make.....I used solar panels as an example of subsidizing something without too much harm)

[quote='kandrathe' pid='188471' dateline='1312910307']

I'm just realistic to the idea that unless people SEE it or be harmed by it they won't change their behavior.
[/quote]


And I am realistic enough to see that that will never happen, and so I find that governments need to step in.
How do we see, or understand enough to care, that eg they are completely emptying the south china sea from everyhting living?
I mean people(roughly 50% of non experts) don't believe that the climate is changing. I don't want to get into a discussion about the greenhouse effect but is sure that public opinion on this is not given in my knowledge and intelligence but only by emotions.
People will only see the consequences of human impact if they e.g. build a road in your backyard, or if someone spills a truckload of oil in a small lake.
Even if people could see the impact of their behaviour (say with the case of CO2.....which you cannot see) most of them would not have the capacity to appreciate and understand it.

[kandrathe]

I don't know that solar panels on everyone's roof is the correct answer. I've done the math for my home, and it is not cost effective. It would cost me more money to keep my home outfitted with solar panels, than I would ever get back in savings from energy costs.

No, kandrathe, as I CLEARLY stated in my previous post I think the world can only be saved when everybody in Minnesota will start using solar panels. I even want to go further and find the US army needs to force all you minnesoteanians at gunpoint to install solar panels......today!!!!

I knew it! You commie dog! I will resist your Cuban manifesto, along with all the other castrati 3rd world dictators!

(you didn't answer/react on my statement, you reacted on a statement I didn't make.....I used solar panels as an example of subsidizing something without too much harm)

Ok, let's see... you said, "But when people are urged to buy solar panels for their roofs by giving them tax rebates, all kinds of companies (american and foreign) will start competing."

I believe a tax rebate is a subsidy, but paid once per year (or often as a reduction to energy bills). I'm not against solar panels, I'm against distorting a market (especially on the consumption side) to make something illogical, logical. If you help a producer (solar panel manufacturer) with some start up loans/grants it becomes a limited investment, but, when you intercede in the operational cost then you've created a dependency on the subsidy. The producer still needs to create a viable cost effective solution and market it to the consumer.

I'm just realistic to the idea that unless people SEE it or be harmed by it they won't change their behavior.

And I am realistic enough to see that that will never happen, and so I find that governments need to step in.
How do we see, or understand enough to care, that eg they are completely emptying the south china sea from everything living?
I mean people(roughly 50% of non experts) don't believe that the climate is changing. I don't want to get into a discussion about the greenhouse effect but is sure that public opinion on this is not given in my knowledge and intelligence but only by emotions.

People will only see the consequences of human impact if they e.g. build a road in your backyard, or if someone spills a truckload of oil in a small lake.

Even if people could see the impact of their behavior (say with the case of CO2.....which you cannot see) most of them would not have the capacity to appreciate and understand it.

Well, this is the crux of our disagreement. I am against communitarianism when it is enforced by governments.

I believe that leadership, and an informed electorate will make the correct decision, and the coercion of government force is not necessary. We shouldn't burden everyone (e.g. TSA grope) for the wrong actions of a few, and we need to ensure that "Law" is reserved for when the State actually really does need to defend the individual. Our republican liberty is based on the idea that people collectively are wiser than governments, otherwise we eventually succumb to be the sheep of the monarchies, dictatorships and other tyrannical governments. At some point we surrender citizenship, and return to that of subject or slave. You can make a case that YOU need to defend people by eliminating (by force of law) the bad choices they make, like eating meat, or driving a gas guzzling vehicle, consuming too much electricity or producing too much CO2. I believe everybody has the natural law right to "pursue happiness", or in other words, live their life as they wish as long as it does no harm. When you narrowly define harms as reckless consumption, you intrude into the realm of tyranny. Rather, I believe the approach should be to make the case, educate the electorate and lead them to making an informed decision.

I'm writing to you and looking at a reply card next to me from my local township asking my opinion on whether they should pass an ordinance prohibiting people from feeding the deer. You see, we periodically have a bumper crop of wild deer who eat expensive ornamental shrubs, and then they choose to hire people to go shoot them. But that's because, I live in a more suburban area that pretty much does not allow hunting. I said "no", of course, and I'll go attend the meeting and lend my voice to the idea that it is absurd to make feeding wild animals a crime. It's foolish to feed them, but it's not a crime and I don't want my government spending my money to run around catching and chiding fools.

[eppie]

I believe a tax rebate is a subsidy, but paid once per year (or often as a reduction to energy bills). I'm not against solar panels, I'm against distorting a market (especially on the consumption side) to make something illogical, logical. If you help a producer (solar panel manufacturer) with some start up loans/grants it becomes a limited investment, but, when you intercede in the operational cost then you've created a dependency on the subsidy. The producer still needs to create a viable cost effective solution and market it to the consumer.

This subsidy should of course not be forever. Just to create a change. Smart governments will never subsidize things that will never become a viable alternative.

I believe that leadership, and an informed electorate will make the correct decision, and the coercion of government force is not necessary.

Having an informed electorate is more unlikely than having non-egoistic politicians.

Rather, I believe the approach should be to make the case, educate the electorate and lead them to making an informed decision.

But if in most western countries the budgets for schooling are already going down for decades?

I'm writing to you and looking at a reply card next to me from my local township asking my opinion on whether they should pass an ordinance prohibiting people from feeding the deer. You see, we periodically have a bumper crop of wild deer who eat expensive ornamental shrubs, and then they choose to hire people to go shoot them. But that's because, I live in a more suburban area that pretty much does not allow hunting. I said "no", of course, and I'll go attend the meeting and lend my voice to the idea that it is absurd to make feeding wild animals a crime. It's foolish to feed them, but it's not a crime and I don't want my government spending my money to run around catching and chiding fools.

Having a law, and enforcing it actively are two different things. In a 'good' society, just having a law that prohibits something is enough to make to a change....without having to spend money on extra police action.

[kandrathe]

This subsidy should of course not be forever. Just to create a change. Smart governments will never subsidize things that will never become a viable alternative.

You said, "Smart governments..." Huh?

Having an informed electorate is more unlikely than having non-egoistic politicians.

It is an imperative for an elected representative to do the work of holding this conversation with their constituency. I see no other viable way for a democracy to work.

But if in most western countries the budgets for schooling are already going down for decades?

The schooling is going down, but not the budgets. Cost per pupil in the US is higher, and the outcomes are lower. I wouldn't assume we use the school systems.

Having a law, and enforcing it actively are two different things. In a 'good' society, just having a law that prohibits something is enough to make to a change....without having to spend money on extra police action.

That is worse. Unenforced law is the path to arbitrary justice.

• A 12-year old girl arrested and handcuffed for eating one French fry on the Washington subway system.

• A cancer-ridden grandmother arrested and criminally charged for refusing to trim her hedges the way officials in Palo Alto, Calif., were trying to force her to.

• A former high-school science whiz kid sent to prison after initially being arrested by FBI agents clad in SWAT gear for failing to affix a federally mandated sticker to his otherwise legal UPS package.

• A 67-year-old grandfather imprisoned because some of the paperwork for his home-based orchid business did not satisfy an international treaty.

• A Port St. Lucie resident faces one count of criminal mischief, a second-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail, for writing "Color fades and so does hatred" on the sidewalk with sidewalk chalk.

Arbitrary justice makes everyone a criminal, and the State can selectively enforce its power at will.

[eppie]

Arbitrary justice makes everyone a criminal, and the State can selectively enforce its power at will.

Well, there is a difference between felony and misdemeanor (wikipedia said that these definitions are not used anymore).
Eating a french fry in the metro could land you a fine, but not jailtime....in a normal country. If this girl really got handcuffed I would serious consider emigrating.

But selective enforcement is more normal than you might think. I think on average a person gets one traffic violation fine for every 1000 or more offences he commits (1 in 1000 is just my estimate.....based on personal experience....and I am a very careful driver)....and still people complain.
Nothing wrong with the law that you can't go faster than 65 though.

[Jester]

That is worse. Unenforced law is the path to arbitrary justice.

• A 12-year old girl arrested and handcuffed for eating one French fry on the Washington subway system.

• A cancer-ridden grandmother arrested and criminally charged for refusing to trim her hedges the way officials in Palo Alto, Calif., were trying to force her to.

• A former high-school science whiz kid sent to prison after initially being arrested by FBI agents clad in SWAT gear for failing to affix a federally mandated sticker to his otherwise legal UPS package.

• A 67-year-old grandfather imprisoned because some of the paperwork for his home-based orchid business did not satisfy an international treaty.

• A Port St. Lucie resident faces one count of criminal mischief, a second-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail, for writing "Color fades and so does hatred" on the sidewalk with sidewalk chalk.

Arbitrary justice makes everyone a criminal, and the State can selectively enforce its power at will.

If arbitrary justice makes everyone a criminal, then anecdotes ("anecdata") make every proposition a truth. There is plenty of abuse of power on the part of the government, but a handful of exceptional cases that make the news indicates nothing more than the trivial "Noteworthy events will be noted."

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If arbitrary justice makes everyone a criminal, then anecdotes ("anecdata") make every proposition a truth. There is plenty of abuse of power on the part of the government, but a handful of exceptional cases that make the news indicates nothing more than the trivial "Noteworthy events will be noted."

-Jester

Granted, but these are not all that exceptional. Google "Arrested Sidewalk Chalk". I'm afraid that like an iceberg, the only unjust arrests we get to glimpse are the few that poke into the 24 hour news cycle. The injustice in the system only begins in the arbitrariness of arrest, it extends into the arbitrariness of investigation, prosecution and conviction. You see the real injustice applied when you begin to analyze the racial and socioeconomic demographics. I don't believe we want a system where when the State is against you, you invariably end up incarcerated.

[Concillian]

We have sidewalk chalk on our front porch for my daughter to play with when she wants to.
Our front porch is a good 20 meters from the public sidewalk. Some nut decided I'd like it if they wrote "Jesus Loves You" on my front porch while we were out grocery shopping.
I'm not christian and was not amused.

I'm sure they thought they were not doing anything wrong, but from my perspective it was quite rude.

I did not, however, notify local authorities. Though I potentially would have had a case, I guess.

[Chesspiece_face]

Having an informed electorate is more unlikely than having non-egoistic politicians.

It is an imperative for an elected representative to do the work of holding this conversation with their constituency. I see no other viable way for a democracy to work.

Unfortunately that means we need to define constituency. The political definition would be those individuals that vote in the representative's districts. The reality is that these representative's constiuencies are the people that pay for their candidacies, and the conversations that our elected officials have with each of those groups vastly differ.

[Jester]

Granted, but these are not all that exceptional. Google "Arrested Sidewalk Chalk". I'm afraid that like an iceberg, the only unjust arrests we get to glimpse are the few that poke into the 24 hour news cycle. The injustice in the system only begins in the arbitrariness of arrest, it extends into the arbitrariness of investigation, prosecution and conviction. You see the real injustice applied when you begin to analyze the racial and socioeconomic demographics. I don't believe we want a system where when the State is against you, you invariably end up incarcerated.

If you want the story of the state against its citizens, the story you want is the drug war. That's what puts otherwise harmless (and usually black or hispanic) people in jail. The number of people imprisoned, or even arrested, for these other trivial things like eating fries and writing with chalk is pretty small, although obviously higher anywhere they use the "broken windows" theory of policing. Stupid rules, stupid results.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Granted, but these are not all that exceptional. Google "Arrested Sidewalk Chalk". I'm afraid that like an iceberg, the only unjust arrests we get to glimpse are the few that poke into the 24 hour news cycle. The injustice in the system only begins in the arbitrariness of arrest, it extends into the arbitrariness of investigation, prosecution and conviction. You see the real injustice applied when you begin to analyze the racial and socioeconomic demographics. I don't believe we want a system where when the State is against you, you invariably end up incarcerated.

If you want the story of the state against its citizens, the story you want is the drug war. That's what puts otherwise harmless (and usually black or hispanic) people in jail. The number of people imprisoned, or even arrested, for these other trivial things like eating fries and writing with chalk is pretty small, although obviously higher anywhere they use the "broken windows" theory of policing. Stupid rules, stupid results.

-Jester

Yes.

But, look at what the TSA is doing. Arresting people for filming their friends going through the screening process. Treating everyone as a criminal before he fact, and putting them through very privacy intrusive screening procedures. If you protest the procedure in any way, you are often arrested, or at least denied your flight, escorted out of the airport terminal and put on that airlines black list.

Look at how protesters are treated at political events.

Extraordinary renditions of US citizens...

Intelligence gathering, domestic spying and wiretaps... Einstein 3...

[eppie]

• A 12-year old girl arrested and handcuffed for eating one French fry on the Washington subway system.

• A cancer-ridden grandmother arrested and criminally charged for refusing to trim her hedges the way officials in Palo Alto, Calif., were trying to force her to.

• A former high-school science whiz kid sent to prison after initially being arrested by FBI agents clad in SWAT gear for failing to affix a federally mandated sticker to his otherwise legal UPS package.

• A 67-year-old grandfather imprisoned because some of the paperwork for his home-based orchid business did not satisfy an international treaty.

• A Port St. Lucie resident faces one count of criminal mischief, a second-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail, for writing "Color fades and so does hatred" on the sidewalk with sidewalk chalk.

Arbitrary justice makes everyone a criminal, and the State can selectively enforce its power at will.

When reading this list I can suddenly clearly see why you and so many other americans are so anti-government.
In western and north western europe we have maybe stronger (bigger) governments, but less excesses like the ones in the list you typed.

Even though I think most tea partiers and libertarians are not the ones that are most likely to be hassled by the police force.

[kandrathe]

When reading this list I can suddenly clearly see why you and so many other Americans are so anti-government.

In western and north western Europe we have maybe stronger (bigger) governments, but less excesses like the ones in the list you typed.

I don't tend to fault the police, as they are attempting to enforce the laws. It's the meddlers who want their world THEIR way, and use laws and ordinances to attempt to force everyone into their mold.

Even though I think most tea partiers and libertarians are not the ones that are most likely to be hassled by the police force.

Although, after they get hassled it is easier to have them join.

[Zenda]

• A 12-year old girl arrested and handcuffed for eating one French fry on the Washington subway system.

• A cancer-ridden grandmother arrested and criminally charged for refusing to trim her hedges the way officials in Palo Alto, Calif., were trying to force her to.

• A former high-school science whiz kid sent to prison after initially being arrested by FBI agents clad in SWAT gear for failing to affix a federally mandated sticker to his otherwise legal UPS package.

• A 67-year-old grandfather imprisoned because some of the paperwork for his home-based orchid business did not satisfy an international treaty.

• A Port St. Lucie resident faces one count of criminal mischief, a second-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail, for writing "Color fades and so does hatred" on the sidewalk with sidewalk chalk.

You forgot to mention these anecdotes are quoted from The Heritage Foundation. The original writer seems to think it somehow proves that too many laws turn innocents into criminals, but if these 'telling examples' show anything, it's that zero-tolerance policy sometimes makes 'innocent' victims, and that it doesn't care about age or medical condition. Did you expect otherwise?

Look at the first case, about the girl being arrested for eating fries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Trans...nvironment

It was not big bad governement harassing its citizens, but simply zero-tolerance policies by local authorities, in combination with a lack of regulations. The girl wasn't arrested for eating, but for refusing to stop eating when asked. The officer had no choice but to arrest her, because there were no other legal actions possible. The handcuffing was a mandatory part of the arrest. Since then, over 10 years ago btw, new regulations have made it possible to give non-adults a citation in such cases, avoiding the need for arrests.

It's obvious that the other stories will turn out to be very similar, if you go looking for more information.

Except the story about the 67-year-old orchid-growing grandfather, which was used in another piece on The Heritage Foundation site:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...nalization

Since I'm into orchids myself, this caught my attention. Luckily, the Heritage piece provides some names, so it was possible to retrieve information on the sentence:

http://openjurist.org/452/f3d/1275/unite...v-w-norris

As it turns out, Mr. Norris and his accomplice smuggled rare and protected orchids into the US. Not to keep them, but to sell them for thousands of dollars. To avoid detection, they falsified documents and mislabeled plants.

According to the Heritage Foundation it was a mixup between (rare and expensive) Phragmipedium and (somewhat more common but unprotected and much cheaper) Maxillaria. But someone working with orchids for 20 years would not make that mistake. Phragmipedium are quite easily recognized, and grow, unlike other orchid types, in normal soil. Maxillaria have a distinct way of flowering, and might be mistaken for Lycaste, but never for a slipper orchid. Not surprisingly, both Mr. Norris and his accomplice confessed to all charges brought up against them.

So, maybe it's better you find your own examples for whatever it is you are trying to show, and check them out as well.

[kandrathe]

It's obvious that the other stories will turn out to be very similar, if you go looking for more information.

Right. Here is another rose colored lens for you. She knew it was wrong, but everybody does it. That is... until someone decides to crack down on you because of the way you look.

But someone working with orchids for 20 years would not make that mistake. Phragmipedium are quite easily recognized, and grow, unlike other orchid types, in normal soil. Maxillaria have a distinct way of flowering, and might be mistaken for Lycaste, but never for a slipper orchid. Not surprisingly, both Mr. Norris and his accomplice confessed to all charges brought up against them.

Be that as it may... The guy went to federal prison for growing flowers, while others get a fine. The "rare" orchids were probably grown in a greenhouse in Peru, and not in the wild. They were taken of the endangered list before the trial.

I've written extensively here about the drama surrounding George Norris and Manuel Arias Silva's troubles with the law. Both are elderly and in ill health, and from what I can gather from those "in the know", they are not big bad orchid smugglers guilty of stripping the wild of rare orchids species, but victims of a complicated web of petty politics, egos, and treachery. Oh, and of their own frustration with nonsensical CITES laws. Apparently, the orchids they "smuggled" were not rare, and were removed from the list of prohibited trade species after their shenanigans. The question remains as to whether the plants in question were collected from the wild, or cultivated at Jose's nursery in Peru.

How about felony selling of raw milk and eggs?

[Zenda]

Right. Here is another rose colored lens for you.

From your own link: “We really do believe in zero tolerance” by Metro Transit Police Chief Barry J. McDevitt

The guy went to federal prison for growing flowers, while others get a fine.

Your own link shows perfectly clear that he was not growing flowers, but smuggling protected plants. Tell me, would you also be so lenient with ivory smugglers?

The "rare" orchids were probably grown in a greenhouse in Peru, and not in the wild.

Why would you assume that? If that was the case, they would have had no trouble importing the plants legally.

Also consider that Phragmipedium are very hard to cultivate, and may not even survive simple re-potting. Collecting from the wild and shipping before most plants wither is by far the most profitable way, if you can hide the plants amongst legal imports.

They were taken of the endangered list before the trial.

Oh really? Which of the smuggled species would that be?

How about felony selling of raw milk and eggs?

You mean for selling health-risk foodstuffs WITHOUT A PERMIT. Such permits might be redundant in your world of smart and responsible entrepeneurs, but not in mine.

But, if you are looking for more examples, take a look here: Zero tolerance

[kandrathe]

Tell me, would you also be so lenient with ivory smugglers?

I would judge the cases on their merits. The little old lady who unwittingly buys a piano with ivory keys, is different than someone involved in bringing poached elephant tusks to market. The Norris case was not such a good example of a blithely innocent wrong-doer , so much as it is one of arbitrary justice and punishment. Norris was not involved in plundering the fauna of Peru, but rather the technicality of buying a CITES protected species from an unlicensed Peruvian greenhouse.

As for legalization of Phragmipedium peruvianum, check out the Wikipedia. "CITES-legitimate plants, both young and adult size, are now increasingly available commercially, thanks to the very good efforts of the Peruvian government in licensing the two nurseries to enable this to happen." The error was not "protection" of a rare wild orchid, but rather the licensing of the greenhouse that grew it.

"{Manuel Arias} Arias, 70, was one of three Peruvian growers with permission to cultivate endangered and newly discovered orchids from recently deforested areas. He apologized in a letter to the judge asking for mercy and noting his “sincere” conservation efforts."

Once in awhile, the guard dog arbitrarily bites to show it has dangerous teeth. Fear him.

You mean for selling health-risk foodstuffs WITHOUT A PERMIT. Such permits might be redundant in your world of smart and responsible entrepreneurs, but not in mine.

Your spin in that statement defines your entire post. In your world, farmers and other producers need a license from the State in order to market their goods. The CPSIA of 2008 prohibitively requires that all small manufacturers, including home based (cottage industry) must submit each component to rigorous lab testing to ensure it's safety. This is a world of State control over the freedom of citizens to live their lives. Freedom is exchanged for protection. You might be fine with that, but I'm not. I don't want to live in a padded cell, made perfectly safe by the over reach of the State.

Health risk is certainly in the eye of the beholder. The natural foods people would have a different opinion of what is a dangerous food, where the corporate farm cartel monopoly (enforced by government) place hazardous food in our grocery stores.

The "responsible entrepreneurs" is a bonus, however obviously it is consumer choice which is being crushed. The consumers are being denied (protected) from a choice which the government has decided is too risky. The sellers are not attempting to hoodwink the consumers. The consumers know full well what they are buying.

It's the same mindset that protects us from choosing to use tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, or a myriad of other products deemed hazardous by the State. What is telling about the State approach in both the Norris, and Rawesome foods cases, was that the arrests were made with "a multi-agency SWAT-style armed raid". It's the same federal jack-booted thuggery that resulted in the tragedies at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

[Zenda]

Norris case was not such a good example of a blithely innocent wrong-doer

From your own link:

"But the record shows that it is extremely deceptive (or sloppy) to describe him as 'not having proper paperwork' or 'failing to navigate' bureaucratic requirements. The record shows that Norris conspired deliberate to violate, deliberately violated, and lied about those bureaucratic requirements. It’s one thing to say that bureaucratic requirements are ridiculous and burdensome; it’s quite another to say that someone is an innocent victim of circumstance when they knowingly and deliberately violate them."

Norris was not involved in plundering the fauna of Peru, but rather the technicality of buying a CITES protected species from an unlicensed Peruvian greenhouse.

And still you keep defending him.

First of all, he was in violation of the (American) Endangered Species Act, not just CITES. Secondly, the grower in Peru WAS licensed to sell Phragmipedium, as long as the plants were cultivated and not collected in the wild (CITES doesn't even prohibit trading in cultivated plants). Regarding plundering the fauna, how would you know he wasn't involved?

As for legalization of Phragmipedium peruvianum, check out the Wikipedia.

Wrong orchid. Norris never smuggled Phragmipedium Peruvianum (also known as P. Kovachii), as far as we know. But he did get caught for smuggling other illegal plants after he told buyers he could 'arrange' for some P. Kovachii, when this species was still very much protected (in 2003), and very pricy on the black market (discovery was in 2002).

Arias, 70, was one of three Peruvian growers with permission to cultivate endangered and newly discovered orchids from recently deforested areas.

Yes, and now there only two such growers, because Arias allowed himself to get criminally involved with Norris.

the arrests were made with "a multi-agency SWAT-style armed raid"

Could that be related to the well-armed citizens with out-spoken hatred towards authorities in your country?

[kandrathe]

And still you keep defending him.

I'm not defending him. I'm saying that his punishment was too harsh, and that the authorities put two old men in federal prison for the "crime" of not following the Government's rules for shipping flowers, which after proper licensing of the greenhouse made what they did not a crime at all.

Yes, and now there only two such growers, because Arias allowed himself to get criminally involved with Norris.

Well, Arias now has a criminal record for smuggling endangered species. They can't very well reward a "criminal".

Could that be related to the well-armed citizens with out-spoken hatred towards authorities in your country?

Right. Our government is in mortal fear of old men growing flowers, and a natural foods distributor. Our citizens have been well armed for over 200 years.