Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

scoobygang

Members
  • Content Count

    10,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About scoobygang

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 01/22/1972

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    scoobycommish

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chocolate City

Recent Profile Visitors

6,001 profile views
  1. There's a trailer for the remainder of the season that seems to at least show bits from Shirley's wedding episode, the Law & Order episode, the blanket fort war episode, and a shot of Evil Abed in the Dreamatorium. So those speculating that the bumper for Remedial Chaos Theory would have a payoff are definitely not wrong.
  2. They were under a CBA that allowed their spending. The league admitted they broke no rules. They were punished for violating an unwritten agreement among most of the clubs to restrict spending in a certain way.You two are talking past each other. There is a difference between feeling that the "Redskins got screwed" and whether the NFL instituted a conspiracy in restraint of trade. To say that the other teams "colluded" is the same as saying that I "discriminate" against onions on my pizza. In both cases, I am using the term correctly as a matter of English usage, but not in a manner that has any legal significance. It is important to understand the claims that are being made, and what renesauz is saying when he is saying that nobody colluded to impact salaries. If the Redskins, in an attempt to win the 2010 Super Bowl, has signed a bunch of free agents to one year contracts leaving them with a team payroll of $300 million, the NFL would have taken no action. What the NFL objected to, was structuring contracts so that obligations that would otherwise extend into future capped years come due only in 2010.The Redskins, and every other team, consented to the process by which the NFL would determine the salary cap for the 2012 season. The NFLPA agreed with that process. And in fact, the total compensation to be allowed for player wages is unchanged after the NFL's adjustments. Wages have not been restricted. For this reason, antitrust lawyers generally don't see a case against the league. That was my initial take, and every story I've seen that has gone to a top antitrust lawyer for comment has come to the same conclusion. I'm a Redskins fan. I'd love for them to have more cap room. But I'm also a lawyer. Not all wrongs are redressable. This isn't a good antitrust case for the Redskins, who might not even have antitrust standing. That doesn't preclude a possible breach of fiduciary duty claim or something, but the law isn't particularly favorable on that count either.
  3. How so? The exact same amount of money is available for salaries under the conditions that were collectively bargained for. It's just been reallocated. You're talking about the "punishment" Scoobygang, TankRizzo is talking about the "crime". The price fixing was 30/28 other NFL teams telling 2 others how they can and can't use their money when no rules were in place concerning the matter. Those 2 teams didn't listen and did what they wanted to, which wasn't against any rules at the time, and now 2 years later those 30/28 other teams are still mad.Make no mistake, this matter wasn't brought up by the Commissioner, it was brought up by one of the 28 teams who got the "bribe", Goddell is just going along with the majority on this one.I'm saying that no action was taken that actually fixed prices in 2010. That matters under the statute.Without pulling the look at me card, I know the NFL's lawyers. Particularly on antitrust matters, they just don't miss tricks like this.
  4. Obviously most of the people here have no idea of the actual legal issues (I doubt it implicates antitrust or the CBA at all).We can't begin to fairly evaluate a possible claim from Jones and Snyder without knowing what policy was actually violated (with specifics) and looking to the NFL Bylaws. This is likely an action that Goodell is taking under the inherent powers of the Commissioner under the bylaws.As such, I imagine Snyder and Jones would have a very hard case to make. There is very little law restraining voluntary associations from taking actions that aren't specificaly precluded by contract or their bylaws.Based on what we know, it sounds like horizontal price fixing which is ILLEGAL illegal....not NFL illegal.How so? The exact same amount of money is available for salaries under the conditions that were collectively bargained for. It's just been reallocated. This is exactly why the arguments that the NFL should have stopped the contracts when made don't hold up. With no CBA, the NFL could not prevent teams from spending on 2010. But we've already seen that the Commissioner has exercised broad authority to strip draft picks and issue fines in the past. And the Commissioner arguably has authority to to reallocate cap space for violations of league directions. I think it sucks, but I'm not seeing how it's illegal or against the by-laws.
  5. Obviously most of the people here have no idea of the actual legal issues (I doubt it implicates antitrust or the CBA at all).We can't begin to fairly evaluate a possible claim from Jones and Snyder without knowing what policy was actually violated (with specifics) and looking to the NFL Bylaws. This is likely an action that Goodell is taking under the inherent powers of the Commissioner under the bylaws.As such, I imagine Snyder and Jones would have a very hard case to make. There is very little law restraining voluntary associations from taking actions that aren't specificaly precluded by contract or their bylaws.
  6. The actor who played Poot is selling his book on the street corner outside my office. I now have my officially autographed copy of Tray Chaney's The TRUTH YOU CAn'T beTRAY. Idiosyncratic capitalization is reported accurately. On the inside cover, he writes "To: [scoobygang]- B Inspired! Tray "Poot" Chaney." And then there is another signature I don't recognize.
  7. I don't think so. I'm trying to describe the divergence of GDP growth from median income growth. I don't think that increasing GDP and increasing the concentration of wealth necessarily causes a depletion of wealth somewhere else. Sometimes, making a bigger pie really results in a bigger piece for everybody. I do think that sometimes the GDP increases and those increases aren't really seen at all income levels. So that the growth only really surpasses the rate of inflation among a small concentrated class. What I'm disputing is the notion that a rising tide necessarily lifts all boats. Because we have data to suggest that in some instances, it doesn't. Such as the period from 1870-1920. Or from 1979 to the present.
  8. What part of this quote do you think we should be responding to?1. Spooner's rejection of social contract theory, and by extension the "dead hand control" of law (including the Constitution)?2. Paul's suggestion that he may have rejected the Constitution at the time (this is kind of hard to puzzle out because he seems to be using the term "Anti-Federalist" to mean an opponent of the Constitution, which isn't really accurate).3. Paul's suggestion that we don't obey "the good parts" of the Constitution. What parts are those?
  9. Both? Let me elaborate. I don't think the zero sum fallacy is all that common. But I also think that at certain points, income inequity can so distort economies that we start to approach a sort of zero sum result. Or at least that the benefits from what I will scientifically call "pie maximumization" will inhere to an ever smaller segment of the population.
  10. It is a fair criticism of Obama and Democrats. There are several liberals on this board who are not giving Obama a pass on this stuff. I am unlikely to vote in the next election, for instance.
  11. Pretty much describes my final score in every Amun Ra game I've played with you, Nails, and Fred.
  12. See, I'm not sure this is really a moral illusion. This is why I am asking whether property rights are the means or the ends. Because I think there are two possible justifications for what I will loosely call market-based libertarianism. One is this idea of property rights being grounded in objective morality in a way that economic fairness or economic security is not. I think that's bunk, frankly. The other is the idea that property rights reflect the most efficient means of increasing utility across the population. And I think that argument is right more often than it's wrong. Property rights make sense because in the absence of property rights we'd all be devoting a lot of energy to protecting stuff instead of creating stuff, and because the use of market mechanisms is more efficient than the use of a centralized economic planning authority. So I certainly don't think that wealth or utility is a zero-sum game. I do, however, believe that wealth and utility are different concepts. That wealth has declining marginal utility, and that concentrations in wealth and power have market distorting effects that can sometimes make wealth accumulation into something closer to a zero sum game than many of us would like. A very good libertarian response to that is that government is a particularly lousy tool for countering market distortions because it just creates its own distortions.
  13. Thanks for indulging me anyway. I'm interested in exploring this intuitive knowledge. Let's stick with berries. Now, I certainly don't think it's controversial that when you gather berries, you will then feel morally wronged when someone else takes those berries. And in answer to that, you might fight to keep your berries. And if you're in a tribe or group or pack, the rest of the pack might even intuitively support your right to keep your berries. But what if you have ALL the berries (you have, after all picked them). You might still not feel any moral obligation to share them with the rest of the tribe, but would the rest of the tribe feel the same intuitive moral obligation to support you keeping all the berries? Would in fact, that tribe or pack or whatever use its coercive power to protect your possession of the berries even in the face of the rest of the tribe's need for them? I'm not a primatologist. I don't know. But my own moral intuition suggests not and I've seen some studies that seem to support my intuition. That we intuitively find greed distasteful. And I think the presence of the coercive power of the tribe is a key distinction that we have to recognize. Because that's what we're talking about when we talk about property rights. Not some loose Hobbesian idea that you fight for what's yours and I'll fight for what's mine. But the idea that you have the right to call upon the government to enforce the idea that what's yours is yours. Because if someone believes in a moral basis for their right to invoke the coercive power of government, I don't understand it when those people refer to taxes enacted by a representative government as "theft". I think far more people than Peter Singer believe that property rights, as a moral matter, are only justified to the extent that they allow you to keep as many berries as you want so long as there are also provisions for all to have the berries they need. Another way of saying that is that we don't believe that the right to property is a "moral right" at all. We believe that property rights are justified to the extent that they serve human needs. I agree with that, but I'm a utilitarian, so that shouldn't be surprising.
  14. Not to be effective it won't. Let's take one example. Most states recognize a state of property ownership called "tenancy in the entireties." It is only available to married couples. And that realationship has specific benefits. It means that if I die, my wife automatically has the right of surivorship, i.e., she takes my share of that property. It also holds, however, that I can't give away my share to that land without her consent. It can't be attached from me by a creditor, and I can't sell my share on my own.So let's imagine two scenarios. In the first scenario, my wife and I are married. I want to sell my share in our vacation place. She doesn't want me to do that. As a married spouse, I can't do that without her consent. If we were just joint tenants, I could sell my share and my wife would no co-own the property with Writeous Ray. And maybe she doesn't want that. But I sell anyway. In that case, the State (in the guise of a court) gets involved and says, "Sorry, Scooby. You can't sell. Tenancy by the entirety, d-bag."Let's imagine the Libertarian scenario. We contract for a legal arrangement that is exactly the same as a tenancy by the entirety. Once again, I want to sell my share. My wife doesn't want me to do it. I sell anyway. Who enforces the terms of that contract. A court. This time it says, "Sorry, Scooby. You can't sell. Look at your contract, d-bag."Now let's imagine I just want to terminate the arrangement. The procedure under scenario one is simple. We get a divorce and the court steps in and looks to divide our property equitably.How do we do it under scenario 2? A court steps in and tries to interpret our contract. But we didn't even know what property we'd have in 15 years when we drew up that contract. So the court has to try to determine how to honor our intentions from 15 years ago as applied to property we acquired later. In any case, the state is still intimately involved. And in either case, once the court has made an order (Scooby gets this property, Mrs. Scooby gets this property), someone has to enforce that order. What if I refuse to move off the property the court gave Mrs. Scooby? Who comes and evicts me?
  15. I would suggest that you read several of the authors that others have pointed out in this thread. Hayek. Milton Friedman. Maybe Robert Nozick. Possibly David Friedman (Milton's grandson, I believe, and a super trippy libertarian, Maurile has posted tasty excerpts from a book he wrote called The Machinery of Freedom). And then I'd recommend that you treat issues in more depth, not only by more fully articulating your objection to the current system, but also by fully articulating your proposed alternative.Let's take one example. You have posted that "All taxation is theft." That sounds like a bumper sticker, but I imagine it isn't persuasive to many people who honestly believe that taxation is necessary to pay for any number of necessary public goods. Such as national defense. So perhaps it is better to have a post that explains your perspective. Is taxation ALWAYS theft? Even when approved by the democratic process? Or is it only theft when used in support of illegitimate government objectives. What are those objections? How do you determine which are legitimate? If you consider yourself a "Constitutionalist", how do you reconcile your position with the Constitution's spending clause and the apportionment clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3). Isn't it true that the Founders, who may have envisioned some limitations on the mechanisms that the govenment may use to tax citizens, nevertheless clearly envisioned a taxation power (which was expanded by the 16th Amendment).