After Mr. Chang's latest thoughtless comments, I think it is probably about time that we give up trying to encourage him to do some thinking. Mr. Chang's mind still just does not accept the accurate, deconstructed words I have written. Thus, my own thoughts remain completely beyond his current thinking. Unfortunately, in order for this evidently-patriotic American fellow to understand my position, he is going to have to abandon many of the self-deceptions which support his own view of himself.
Given the wider evidence, Mr. Chang's alleged factual statement that 'MLM is legal in the USA' remains simplistic drivel, and his contention that fraud (which is a form of theft) can be legal (i.e. permitted by law), remains an absurd oxymoron. Again, Mr. Chang has misrepresented Robert FitzPatrick (who, incidentally, does not hold the title of Dr.).
It would have been far more accurate for Mr. Chang to have said that what has been most-commonly referred to as 'Multi-Level Marketing,' has never been specifically prohibited by law in the USA. However, that doesn't make 'MLM' legal in the USA.
What I and others have said, is that US criminal law already prohibits fraud, but the bosses of 'MLM' gangs have escaped being held to account by hiding their criminal objectives behind mystifying labyrinths of corporate structures. These structures have, so far, done their job and prevented, and/or diverted, investigation, and isolated the bosses of the largest 'MLM' gangs from liability. This type of organized criminal activity is already defined in the USA by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970. Apart from a few private civil prosecutions under RICO (which have usually been halted, without admitting liability, by offering the plaintiffs cash), to date, 'MLM' racketeers have only risked low-level, civil investigation, and prosecution, in the USA by poorly-paid, legally-qualified, federal trade regulators who, unfortunately, then have often gone on to represent 'MLM' racketeers in return for multi-million dollar salaries. This fatally-flawed policy has been the equivalent of tasking a troop of greedy, lazy and morally-bankrupt boy/girl scouts to tackle the'Nazi' party.
With a level of (unconscious) irony bordering on the exquisite, Mr. Chang has now partly-reproduced an unoriginal philosophical text about the difference between morality and legality, whilst excluding from his patriotic thinking the painful reality that various thoroughly-immoral individuals within the US government and justice system have been bought by 'MLM' racketeers. This has made the US government and justice system a significant part of the 'MLM' problem and not the solution to it, as Mr. Chang has naively imagined.
Again, given the wider evidence, there is no need to write a new law in the USA specifically prohibiting 'MLM' fraud, because 'MLM' is only the latest title for an age-old criminogenic phenomenon. I would refer Mr. Chang to my article http://
quixtarisacultintervention. blogspot.com/2011/09/what- would-founding-fathers-of- american.html .
Perhaps one day, Mr. Chang will be able to face the challenging fact that the USA has become an effectively-ungovernable monster where fraud has long-since triumphed and where many US citizens prefer live like children in a mass-delusion of their nation's absolute moral and intellectual authority, rather than face up to the adult world of quantifiable reality.
David Brear (copyright 2011)