Martha Stewart -- today's anticivilization criminal -- but what has she done wrong, really?

Sure, CNN and the media have a semi-clear position (yet, even they struggle with the definition -- but only on the degree of culpability). See Crossfire - Martha in the Hot Seat, read this and their related stories and you will know the pulse of America on the evils and risks of Insider Trading.

Yet, oh heaven forbid, could the entire phenomena of Insider Trading be a Bogus Hoax? Blasphemy you say!

Check out: www.neo-tech.com/protection2/p256-263.html , now there is a truly novel and gutsy view on Insider Trading and other Fake Crimes. Audacious indeed.

Try this one from the same site:www.neo-tech.com/protection2/p256-263.html , partial excerpts are provided below:

"The next Guns-and-Fists Newsletter was a result of the highly publicized insider trading case involving Drexel Burnham Lambert and the prosecuting attorney, Rudolph Guiliani. Since the early 1980s, Drexel Burnham Lambert was one of a few financial institutions involved in financing huge corporate takeovers. Those takeovers were supported by the infamous "junk" bond market, created almost exclusively by Drexel's financial wizard, Michael Milken. 

"Drexel Burnham Lambert was, in essence, financing the collapse of the white-collar hoax. As with Neo-Tech and I & O, they too quickly became a threat to the traditional power structure. But unlike Neo-Tech, Drexel Burnham lacked the philosophical grounding to protect itself and repel vicious attacks by the value destroyers. Suddenly, the most productive, competent, and knowledgeable businessmen in the country were being indicted for bogus insider trading violations and facing long jail terms. Their crime? ...Simply gaining advantages over their competition by operating their businesses at peak efficiency." 

Are those Neo-Tech people lone, renegade wolves? Maybe not. Consider what other free-market people/sites say. ...Or, has "free-market" joined the nasty, vile group of words like "insider trading"? Check out the Ludwig von Mises Institute, they're pretty much on top of free-market stuff wouldn't ya say? See Making Economic Sense: Panic on Wall Street.

Below is a portion of their referenced article by Murray N. Rothbard (albeit written a few years ago, around the time of that nasty Michael Milken character, however brilliant he may have been), I guess this applies to Martha too: 
 

"There is a veritable Reign of Terror rampant in the United States now-and everyone's cheering. "They should lock those guys up and throw away the key. Nothing is bad enough for them," says the man-in-the-street. Distinguished men are literally being dragged from their plush offices in manacles. Indictments are being handed down en masse, and punishments, including jail terms, are severe. The most notorious of these men was (a) forced to wire up and inform on his cohorts; (b) fined $100 million; (c) barred from his occupation for life; and (d) possibly faces five years in prison. The press, almost to a man, deplored the excessive lightness of this treatment.

"Who are these victims/criminals? Mass murderers? Rapists? Soviet spies? Terrorists bombing restaurants [World Trade Towers, MR] or kidnapping innocent people? No, far worse than these, apparently. These dangerous, sinister men have committed the high crime of "insider trading." As one knowledgeable lawyer explained to the New York Times: "Put yourself in the role of a young investment banker who sees one of your mentors led away by federal marshals. It will have a very powerful effect on you and perhaps make you realize that insider trading is just as serious as armed robbery as far as the government is concerned." 

The article goes on to say?

"And yet there are no victims of inside trading as there are in robbery or murder. Suppose that A holds 1000 shares of XYZ Co. stock, and wants to sell those shares. B has "inside knowledge" that XYZ will soon merge with Arbus Corp., and buys the 1000 shares for $50 apiece; B, let us say, is right, the merger is soon announced, and the XYZ shares rise to $75 apiece. B sells and makes $25 per share, or $25,000 profit. B has profited from his inside knowledge. But has A been victimized? Certainly not, because if there had been no inside knowledge at all, A would still have sold his shares for $50. The only difference is that someone else, say C, would have bought the shares and made the $25,000 profit. The difference, of course, is that B would have made the profits as a knowledgeable investor, whereas C would have been simply lucky. But isn't it better for the economy to have capital resources owned by the knowledgeable and farsighted rather than merely by the lucky? And, further, the point is that A hasn't been deprived of a dime by B's inside knowledge. ...

"But, you say, it is "unfair" for some men to know more than others, and actually to profit by that knowledge. But what kind of a world view dubs it "unfair" for some men to know more than others? It is the world view of the egalitarian, who believes that any kind of superiority of one person over another-in ability, talent, and wealth-is somehow "unfair." But men are not ants or bees or robots; each individual is unique and different from others, and ability, talent, and wealth will therefore differ. That is the glory of the human race, to be admired and protected rather than destroyed, for in such destruction will perish human freedom and civilization.

"There is another critical aspect to the current Reign of Terror over Wall Street. Freedom of speech and the right of privacy, particularly cherished possessions of man, have disappeared. Wall Streeters are literally afraid to talk to one another, because muttering over the martini that "Hey, Jim, it looks like XYZ will merge," or even, "Arbus is coming out soon with a hot new product," might well mean indictment, heavy fines, and jail terms. And where are the intrepid guardians of the First Amendment in all this?" 

And, what about the perennial whipping boys of government and Keynesian economics -- the Libertarians, what do they say about Insider Trading? See "In Praise of Insider Trading" by Mathew O'Keefe. Here is a portion of that article:

"What, then, is "wrong" with insider trading? What is wrong with "the use of confidential information to make a profit on the stock market" (my dictionary definition of insider trading)? Is it the idea of confidentiality that is frowned upon, or perhaps the idea of profits? Both, I would hazard. The very mention of the words "insider trading" or "insider dealers" conjures up images of super-rich speculators and tycoons huddled in cliques, trading dark secrets and reaping immense fortunes. Of course there must be some truth in this. Unfortunately, however, hostility towards insider dealing merges in practice with hatred of capitalism itself in the belief that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Of course, this is not how free enterprise works. Nor, I think, is it how insider trading works. If a stockbroker learns of an imminent takeover bid and uses this confidential information to make a profit on the stock market, clearly he has become the richer for it. But even if the insider dealer acts purely for personal gain, it is hard to see who, if anyone, has become the poorer. On the contrary, if he is a good stockbroker, it is quite easy to see others who have benefited, such as the stockbroker's clients. Consider if I were to become a brilliantly successful insider trading stockbroker tomorrow - wouldn't you want to put your money with me? How long would it be before I started to attract the customers of my "law abiding" but less successful contemporaries and win a bigger and bigger share of the market? And wouldn't all my clients, rich and poor, knowledgeable or otherwise, receive the benefit of my access to inside information?"

So, Martha my friend, be strong, know there are others who support and understand your plight. Do not let pip-squeak anti-capitalist, egalitarian thugs beat you down. And if they do, then come back stronger and more determined.

Yours truly, in a free country where friends can still talk to friends; or can they?

Mike Randall