wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (09/25/85)
<stupid postings on Usenet> C'mon line eater! Note: This is STella Calvert, a guest on decvax!frog!wjr Don Black speaks: > Freedom of speech and expression is something that we usually take for >granted in the US. We as Americans have to accept these concepts as >Universal and Irrevocable. If we cannot do so, if we would repress free >speech and expression, then perhaps we cannot call ourselves true Americans. Don, what is/is not a "true American"? I was born in this country, I was indoctrinated in this country's schools, but I must have been home reading when they explained what a "true American" is. Anyone on the net, anyone who sees these words, has a right to disagree with me about what I say, but the fact that I was born in a geographic location claimed by the government of the United States is a matter of public record. What more can I say? I have always felt that phrases like "true American" or "real xian" reduce to "people who agree with my opinions". BTW, I am more in favor of free speech than the bureaucretin who wrote the immigration laws to bar anarchists from the country. If it's a bad idea, it will fall on its demerits. If it's a good idea, why not discuss it? (An anarchist is not a bomb-chucker, not a terrorist, not an assassin. An anarchist is someone who questions the value of government as a productive human endeavor.) But I sure don't take free speech for granted. No anarchist, drug user, child molester, or anyone who holds an unpopular opinion, can. Ask yourself, can you? I suspect you are only free to speak if Slimy Fred the Baby Buggerer is free to speak. (Note please that I do not approve of coercive sex, and use baby-boffing as an extreme case.) > It is unfortunate that various appointed bureaucrats consider themselves >to be above the law. But it is the fault of the American People for allowing >them to do so. For over three decades, we have tolerated bureaucracies that >derive their power from an obscure federal "law" that authorizes various >agencies to rule by fiat, simply by promulgating regulations and then publishing >such regulations in the Federal Register. For over two hundred years, we have tolerated bureaucracies that derive their power from the idea that a collective will can override an individual will. That is the nose of the camel! The rest of the camel follows by force. It is the fault of the individual, whatever the brand of government claiming control of that individual, that they have fallen for the idea that government is desirable. I'm willing to debate the necessity of government, but I'm not sure we need to debate its desirability. Do we, Don? > The whole key to solving the problem is to remove the authorization for >these agencies to make regulations without legislative review. If this puts >an undue burden on our poor overworked, underpaid Congress, the answer is >simple. We remove the authority for controlling bureaucratic functions from >the Federal Government, and place it on the States, where most of it belongs >anyway. Why? The law of gravity is self-enforcing. In my vicinity the law against rape is self-enforcing (attempt to rape me or anyone near me, and I will cheerfully act as judge, jury, and [if necessary to end the rape attempt] executioner, or [not quite as cheerfully] die in the attempt). If a principle of human interaction is good, it will be self-enforcing. If not, no number of bureaucretins, however large, is sufficient. Last I heard, it was still easy to score junk (the prohibition attempt only forces occasional temporary abstinence and higher prices -- i.e., two TVs), still customary to take 128 at 70mph, etc. Evolution in action, sir! I suggest that the reason the government is unpopular is that it is perceived as remote, as force inflicted from above. And I see no way of balancing the human tendency to exert whatever control is possible against the human desire not to be interfered with, other than decentralizing the control function. And I can't see any reason to stop at the state level. If I stink up the neighborhood with my papermill, prosecute me on the net. If I don't respond to this pressure, stop selling me trees, stop buying books printed on my paper, stop accepting my debit card for MY meals (feed my kids -- they might not like me either!). One of the things I see as most potentially hopeful is the chance of using computer-supported telecommunications to bring back real representative democracy. There's nothing wrong with democracy, exactly. It's every implementation of it that reeks. But within twenty years the network will be there, people will be comfortable with computers, and (please gods!) security software sufficient to control disinformation will be not only developed but also recognized as necessary. If we want the government off our backs, perhaps we can do it. (The No-Such-Agency probably decided to watch me three paragraphs ago. But to nail me on anything much worse than speeding, they'll have to cheat. Which is far from impossible.) > Only certain functions, such as the overseeing of interstate >commerce, the issuance of currency, certain foreign affairs, and a central >military cadre, would be retained at the federal level. Most others, such >as taxation, intrastate commerce, local environmental protection, labor >laws, educational responsibilities, and a self-armed ready militia, would >be controlled at the local level. > Why are restraint of trade, issuance of currency, foreign affairs, and defense government monopolies? The Hunts could issue a currency backed in silver. Oregon could issue hempscript. If you don't approve of hempscript, demand payment in gold or tobaccoscript. If a citizen doesn't like a foreign power, he can refuse to do business with it. In the absence of a government that can be blackmailed into surrender as France once was, the nuclear threat would be meaningless. I would appreciate your telling me why interstate commerce and such need to be regulated by an agency. Give us five years of building information utilities that can tell me (say) whether more than 5% of Foo Inc.'s employees are claiming unsafe working conditions, so that I can invest or no according to my ethical standards. Education? Hoo-boy! After several years of very expensive government supervision, Boston has finally reached a point where the feds agree that the school system is as equal as possible. But a lot of kids have left the public school system for good. I think multicultural experience is good for kids (or even at my age), so I would send my kids to as diverse a school as possible. Charlie 23 X thinks his kids should go to a black school -- fine. And maybe George thinks his kids should be taught by someone who believes in responsible sex and drug use, so he hires a few teachers and opens the Timothy Leary and Xaviera Hollander Middle School. It may be the office next door to the St. Aleister Crowley Theological Seminary. It may be that some of the most effective schools wouldn't even have physical plants. (The Theodor H. Nelson Netschool of the Arts and Sciences?) > I personally do not consider the national sovereignty of the United >States as something petty. It's strange how an awful lot of people agree >with me about it. Here, I am afraid you will disagree with me. I consider the national sovereignty of the United Statists something illegitimate. I will fight to protect my neighborhood and my property from illegitimate claims of all sorts. But being forcibly deprived of my property to provide me with "benefits" I can NOT see as benefits is an intolerable intrusion. I comfort myself with the knowledge that a few cents of my taxes go to NASA and the Smithsonian. I attempt to reclaim every cent I can from the hands of the robber. And if the day ever comes that there is a consensus for the abolition of the US government, I will freely and joyously support it. Note that I am NOT advocating a different government (better the evil we know -- look what happened when they tried to rewrite the Articles of Confederation!). But I've been thinking for close to fifteen years about these questions, and I'm sure you can help me think on them: Do we have the freedom Thomas Jefferson or Tom Paine envisioned? If not: How can we get there from here? > > I don't advocate anything other than a return to the Constitutional > Republic that our Founding Fathers gave us. We need one or two more > safeguards that we've learned about through experience, such as the > explicit prohibition against any branch of government delegating its > duties to bureaucrats. And we need some more explicit words about > maintaining the sovereignty of the Nation in the face of foreign > treaties. But other than that, why mess with a good thing? > > Our Founding Fathers gave us that path, in the Declaration of Independence, >the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the U.S. Codes, the Federalist The Constitution was voted in by a majority (not a unanimity) of the states. It was then forced on states that did NOT support it. How many of the signers of the Declaration signed the Constitution? I believe that is where we "strayed off the path". Note that when the _Confederacy_ attempted to secede, the United Statists in their coercive majesty dragged those states back (and forgot about black rights as soon as politically expedient). > And we as a People must renounce Internationalism. >Once this is done, the threat of Communism will dry up. Could you send me some thoughts on internationalism -- I have the feeling you're worried about a superstate (UN with cojones), but I hope that if the cybernetic democracy ever comes to pass that we will be able to fight clear of outside interference. I have not yet found any attempt at an anarchy that was not gang-stomped by adjacent states. And that is the chief problem with anarchy. _Not_ that it doesn't work, but that people of diverse interests and good will have never yet been able to attempt it free of interference from collections of bureaucretins who would rather tax than work. > Lest we forget---The organization known as the "Government of the United >States" is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy. It is generally assumed >to be comprised of three branches,ie., the Legislative, the Executive, and the >Judiciary. These three are overseen by the fourth and supreme branch, the >PEOPLE. > > If the People fail to ride herd on the Constitutional Government, the >People very quickly lose the very freedom that we cherish. We are given the >responsibility by our Creator to be vigilant, as outlined in the very first >Federal Law, the Declaration of Independence. The authority to exercise >our power is in the Ninth, Tenth, and Second Amendment to the Constitution >of 1787. Effectively, if "The Government" becomes abusive of the rights of >the citizens, we the people have the right to remove "The Government" by >whatever means necessary. I've hesitated to write to you, because there are areas I'm sure we loudly disagree on. And the net.game "let's mug don black" bores me at best. I don't want to play. But if your rhetoric expresses your beliefs, we have a common interest in fulfilling the almost-vanished promise of the first American revolution. And surely that outweighs our differences. Famous Amos doesn't have to agree with me, just make cookies I'm willing to buy. And there is no way we can get power to control our lives out of the hands of the government and into our voluntarily joint and unalienably separate hands except by a good-faith search for our common interests. > --Don Black Will you come and reason with me? Or against me, where justified? STella Calvert (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) Every man and every woman is a star.