If we dig even deeper, we find that underlying the entire event was the theme that Stewart’s station in life somehow was illegitimate, or at least she had no right to the alleged position of privilege that her money brings her. Should Juror Number Eight’s words, as well as those of the editorial board of the New York Times mean anything, Martha Stewart ultimately was convicted of being “wealthy beyond a reasonable doubt.” [MORE]
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/1671/wealth-as-a-crime/
Wealth as a Crime
Previous post: Bastiat’s House for Sale
Next post: Why They Hate the Market
{ 4 comments }
“Even in our age of ever expanding federal power, the reach of this statute and the discretion it lodges in prosecutors is awesome. Congress has regulated so many areas of our lives and federalized so many crimes that the reach of Section 1001 is virtually limitless.”http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/collar/collar_8.html
After years of government indoctrination in our public schools, facing a jury of our “peers” is as frightening a prospect than ever before.
Quoting the article:
Chappell Hartridge (Juror Number Eight), say it all: “Maybe this is a victory for the little guys who lose money thanks to these kinds of transactions.”
I’ve heard this sentiment parroted by much of the media. But did anyone happen to notice how much Martha Stewart Omnimedia declined in the last few days? The loss to stockholders is in the hundreds of millions. Even if one accepted the proposition that insider trading hurts “the little guys”, which is dubious at best, it seems inarguable that the prosecution of Martha Stewart hurts “the little guys” more.
And if she ends up in jail, she will undoubtedly get far worse treatment than the other inmates, both from the other inmates, and from the guards, all of whom will be driven by envy to make her time in prison as miserable as possible.
Comments on this entry are closed.