Government overreach - UK, Brazil, China, EU, California authoritarian leftists going full 1984

The saddest thing isn't the govt. Overreach, it's that the guy can't understand how to turn the bottle in order to have an easier time drinking from it.

 

Simple question: Are able to drink without the cap pressing your nose flat? If not, I am sure some 5 year old children could help you out.

 

Leftist famous last words: "we didn't know they built concentration camps behind our neighbirhood"

 

Not defending the regulation, just pointing out how idiotic the picture is.

I apologize if you were unable to realize the bottle turn.

I love it when when right wing authoritarians aren't able to poke fun at ridiculous tweets and memes.

 

much better eg include, but not limited to

• Louisiana makes it law that 10 commandments be displayed in public classrooms
  
• Public schools would have to display Ten Commandments under bill passed by Texas Senate
• Florida Gov, diet-Trump, restricting lessons on race
  

 

That does it!

I’m cancelling trip to Europe next month because of non removable bottle caps!

 

I have written about this previously in a different thread, there's a Facebook group and others who seem to be making some progress on the CDC dog importation regulations scheduled to go into effect Aug 1.

 

Something broke during the GFC.

It's not just the Eurozone.

 

Odd, I tried to respond to the original chart, but I don't see it...anyway...

Insert "Thanks Obama?" or Thanks Trump? or thanks FANG stocks?

GDP growth would be a better graph - I'm sure the story is still better here, but I doubt as drastic.

 

https://reason.com/2024/07/17/the-dojs-assault-on-apple-will-harm-consumers/

an hour ago
The DOJ's Assault on Apple Will Harm Consumers
Sen. Rand Paul writes that the lawsuit punishes Apple for a feature its customers like.

by Rand Paul
7.17.2024 6:30 AM

In America, we do not punish businesses for their success. We certainly do not punish businesses because their competitors are struggling to keep pace. Sadly, that is exactly what the Department of Justice (DOJ) is attempting to do in its recent lawsuit against Apple.

In March, the DOJ, joined by 15 states and the District of Columbia, filed a lawsuit aimed at penalizing Apple for successfully competing in the market for smartphones. However, like much of the Biden administration's approach to antitrust enforcement, the DOJ's lawsuit is focused on punishing Apple for its success rather than addressing any real harm to consumers. Instead of fostering innovation and competition, this approach threatens to stifle the very progress that benefits Americans.

In its lawsuit, the DOJ makes the unsubstantiated claim that Apple has "willfully monopolized" the smartphone market through "exclusionary" and "anticompetitive" conduct. In particular, it accuses Apple of exercising unwarranted control over the creation, distribution, and functioning of apps within the iPhone operating system.

What the complaint ignores, however, is that this control is not simply a lawful business practice by a privately held company; it is an indispensable part of Apple's business model. Far from being an "anticompetitive" practice that harms consumers, Apple's careful approach to app integration is a pro-competitive way in which it meets its users' demands.

Privacy, security, and seamless integration have been the core of Apple's operational strategy for years. Back in 2010, Steve Jobs explained that "when selling to people who want their devices to just work, we think integrated wins every time." That "open systems don't always work," and Apple was "committed to the integrated approach."

What makes Apple products so unique is their ease of use and consistency over time. While no product will ever be perfect, Apple's goal is to deliver a seamless, integrated experience that users can rely on time after time without giving it a second thought. How does Apple do this? By carefully exercising the very control that the DOJ is trying to punish. As economist Alex Tabarrok explains in Marginal Revolution: "Apple's promise to iPhone users is that it will be a gatekeeper. Gatekeeping is what allows Apple to promise greater security, privacy, usability and reliability. Gatekeeping is Apple's brand promise. Gatekeeping is what the consumer's are buying."

This control is not a sign of anticompetitive conduct, quite the opposite. It is Apple's unique approach to third-party integration that differentiates it from other smartphone providers. As the Northern District of California found in the Epic Games v. Apple case, Apple's approach "ultimately increases consumer choice by allowing users who value open distribution to purchase Android devices, while those who value security and the protection of a 'walled garden' to purchase iOS devices."

The DOJ's lawsuit is not actually about protecting consumers; iPhone users view Apple's careful integration as a feature of the platform, not a bug. Instead, it's a thinly veiled attempt to accomplish through litigation what Democrats could not get done through legislation.

In 2022, the DOJ sent several sitting senators a letter in support of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. This legislation was aimed at prohibiting many of the very consumer welfare–enhancing practices that the DOJ is now suing Apple over. The problem: it never passed. Why? Because it is extremely unpopular among American voters.

A 2022 poll conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that "70% of voters oppose Congressional proposals to add new antitrust regulations." Even more, when reading descriptions of the policies included in the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, 79 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, and 59 percent of Democrats said they would oppose the bill.

In its lawsuit against Apple, the DOJ is trying to rehash these very same unpopular arguments that have already been rejected by the American people. Not only is this an egregious attempt to bypass the legislative process, it threatens to penalize innovation and reduce choice, ultimately harming the very people it claims to protect.

Digital markets do not need more government regulation; they need more companies willing to innovate and compete. The DOJ should not waste taxpayer-provided resources targeting a company that has earned its success through excellence in the marketplace. An Apple a day may keep the doctor away, but it seems that all of the pro-competitive justifications in the world cannot keep a politically motivated antitrust enforcer at bay.



​

 

Hooray for monopolies!

 

https://reason.com/2024/07/17/a-rul...illers-affirms-limits-on-congressional-power/

Ruling in Favor of DIY Distillers Affirms Limits on Congressional Power
by Jacob Sullum
7.17.2024 12:01 AM

If you search for "home still" on Amazon, you will see a bunch of products that are explicitly advertised as tools for producing liquor. But while it is legal to make beer, cider, or wine at home for your own consumption or to share with friends, unlicensed production of distilled spirits remains a federal felony punishable by up to five years in prison, a $10,000 fine, or both.

That law is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Texas ruled last week. In addition to potentially protecting at least some DIY distillers from a daunting threat, the decision offers hope of constraining a federal government that has expanded far beyond the limited and enumerated powers granted by the Constitution.

"This decision is a victory for personal freedoms and for federalism," said Dan Greenberg, general counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which represented the hobbyists who challenged the ban on home distilling. The ruling, he noted, "reminds us that, as Americans, we live under a government of limited powers."

That is easy to forget, given the chilling arrogance exemplified by the unsolicited letter that one of the plaintiffs in this case, Scott McNutt, received from the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). The TTB said it had learned that McNutt "may have purchased a still capable of producing alcohol," warned that "unlawful production of distilled spirits is a criminal offense," and noted the potential penalties.

To avoid those penalties, the TTB explained, anyone who wants to concentrate the alcohol in a fermented beverage must first obtain the requisite federal permits. But those permits are not available to home distillers.

That policy, the government argued, is justified by the need to safeguard federal revenue by preventing evasion of liquor taxes. But U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman concluded that the challenged provisions, which apply to noncommercial producers who owe no such taxes, do not count as revenue collection or as a "necessary and proper" means of achieving that goal.

One of those laws makes "distilling on prohibited premises" a crime, while the other prohibits stills in "any dwelling house." Those provisions, Pittman notes, make "no reference to any mechanism or process that operates to protect revenue." And while "prohibiting the possession of an at-home still" meant to produce alcoholic beverages "might be convenient to protect tax revenue," he says, "it is not a sufficiently clear corollary to the positive power of laying and collecting taxes."

Pittman also rejected the government's claim that the ban was authorized by the power to regulate interstate commerce, which Congress routinely invokes to justify legislation. He notes that "neither of these provisions connect the prohibited behavior to interstate commerce."

Home distilling, the government argued, "substantially affects interstate commerce in the aggregate." But to justify regulation of noncommercial activity under that "substantial effects" test, Pittman says, requires showing that it is necessary to execute "a comprehensive statute that regulates commerce on its face," which is not true in this case.

In that respect, Pittman thinks, the ban on home distilling differs from the medical mar1juana ban that the Supreme Court upheld in 2005, which supposedly was justified as part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme established by the Controlled Substances Act. Dissenting from that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas warned that its logic would allow Congress to "regulate virtually anything."

As Pittman sees it, however, the Commerce Clause is still not quite the blank check that Congress would like it to be. He issued a permanent injunction that bars the government from enforcing the home-distilling ban against McNutt or other members of the Texas-based Hobby Distillers Association.

"While the federal government has become more enthusiastic about inflating the scope of its powers over the last century, this case shows that there are limits to the government's authority," said CEI attorney Devin Watkins. "If the government appeals this decision to a higher court, we look forward to illuminating those limits."



​

 

$243. For one dog.