nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/10/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:33 pm Nov 7, 1984 >A few things about this document are notable: first, the reliance on >a few ideas, which are taken to be absolutely and unconditionally true. >The main one is that the rights of the individual are the most important >consideration involved in political theory. This is really a matter of >faith, so I'm not going to argue against it, Promise? >but if you look at some >of the conclusions that follow from it, it is not at all obvious that the >best possible society results from this sort of application of individual >rights. Second, the utopian nature of the goals of Libertarianism. Perhaps you should read "Utopia is Not an Option", by David Bergland (I haven't (yet)). Various libertarians have at various times pointed out that the adoption of libertarians principles does NOT mean utopia. >I think >that it can be safely said that any system that promises wonderful things >if just a few simple principles are applied can't be trusted. You're right -- hey, harry! Junk Maxwell's equations, okay? Oh yeah, get rid of the bill of rights, while you're at it.... yeah, and Aristotelian logic and plane geometry's five postulates.... What? Yes, and "you cut and I'll choose"..... :-) I think you're reaching a little here -- it is not at all uncommon for a "few simple principles" to result in lots of good things. The law of supply and demand and the concept of "money" are both fairly simple ideas, and yet they result in the various complexities that attend a large marketplace. Remember, libertarians aren't saying that "if you follow these rules, the Millennium will ensue" -- they're merely arguing that maximal individual liberty will allow the greatest freedom of choice -- and that given freedom of choice, people will make the best decisions they can. Is it so unreasonable to think that people will (by and large -- we are NOT talking utopia, here) make choices that benefit them? >In this >respect Libertarianism resembles such social failures as religon and >communism. Hooo! You want to make LOTS of friends, do you? :-) This criticism reminds me of one that someone posted comparing laissez-faire to "neural nets". Neural nets were a failure, this person said, implying that laissez faire would work no better. He was, of course, slapped down from several directions. I think the comparison is germane -- libertarianism is a call for freedom, a cry, if you will, to "let us alone", or as one character put it "Get the HELL out of my way". It's no wonder it sounds simple, but of course a fully-realized libertarian society would doubtless be (and this is a frequent complaint AGAINST it) more complex than our own to live in. Why? More choices, more opportunities. >Maybe eventually I will write up a similar platform as a possible >alternative to both Libertarianism and what we have now, but for now >I will say that I believe that the guiding principle of politics should >be the good of society, and not the good of the individual. I suspect that the "good of society" will always be measured by those who control society. I don't mind the ideal, but the way it's likely to work in practice chills my blood. One mild example -- Ronald Reagan re-defining the cost-of-living index. One harsh example -- Hitler exterminating the German Jews. Please don't take offense -- I do not mean here to compare you with Hitler, or suggest you're in his "camp", but merely to point out that the "good of society" is likely to be measured by those who administer it, whereas the good of an individual is measured (really) by that individual. Ask a German Nazi if the "good of society" is served by the extermination of the Jews, and the answer would have been, (were he a good Nazi) yes, of course -- a great thing for the nation. Ask a German Jew of the same time, and his answer would be different. The people IN CHARGE of that society had been given the power to act for the good of society -- and they did, as they measured the good of society. To sum up, I don't argue that "the good of society" is a bad goal, merely that it has one horrible practical problem -- given such a goal, "society" will be controlled and its good measured by men and women with interests that may have little do do with the good of society in any "real" sense. Worse yet, they may sincerly believe that they are doing good -- but be incorrect. In a society where they've been given control, how do you stop them? It's not enough to say, that in MY version of society acting for the good of society, there would be controls -- Hitler, you may recall, was democratically elected. >> The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their >> own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any >> authoritarian power. > > The world we have now is pretty much like this, unless your dreams > involve lots of money. (And taxes aren't an insuperable obstacle > to becoming a millionare, if that's what you want.) I can do pretty > much what I want to do, in most cases, and that's what I would call > freedom... > Oh? Ever smoke dope in public? Ever try opening a business? Ever go nude on a beach? Ever try to play roulette for real money (outside of New Jersey & Las Vegas)? Ever do anything that might require an "environmental impact statement"? Has anyone you know and like ever had an abortion? Ever try NOT paying social security tax? Ever hire a prostitute? Ever fire someone for incompetence? Ever try opening your own mail service to compete with the post office? Ever try publishing an encipherment technique that the NSA couldn't crack? Ever try selling a new children's toy? Ever try NOT registering for the draft? Ever write "I take the fifth" on your form 1040? Or not sending it in? Ever live in the woods with lots of chickens and been friendly (in an absolutely harmless way) with neighboring children? All of these activities are illegal, heavily regulated, blocked or hindered by "national security" types, or the objects of attempts to make them illegal, or possibly just activities people have been thrown in jail or mental institutions for. It's not so much that you would want to do some or all of these things as that various people have tried them all, and have been sent to jail or otherwise persecuted -- for the good of society. >> We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent >> state and defend the rights of individuals. > > WHAT cult of omnipotent state? > You know -- the cult that holds that the state can decide better than individuals what the individuals should do or have (the "cult of the Omniscient state") and the one that holds that the state can do things like lower the poverty rate (Somebody (simard? milo?) was pointing out that half a trillion had been spent on poverty, with no measurable lowering of the poverty level in this country) Remember the "Great Society"? That was an example of the Cult of the Omnipotent state. >> Even within the United States, all political >> parties other that our own grant to government the right to regulate the >> lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their >> consent. > > Correction: with the consent of the majority. > An incorrect quibble -- "their" clearly refers to the individuals, so "their consent" refers to the consent of the individuals concerned. >> We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and >> hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any >> individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support >> prohibition of the initiation of physical force against other; > > How often does the government kill people? Certainly you don't > get killed if you don't pay taxes. You just get dragged to jail > and locked up, at worst. > I think you missed the point of this one -- they support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force. This includes having the tax collectors (armed with guns) coming knock-knock-knocking at your door with the intent to seize your property or person. >> People should not be forced >> to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should >> be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the >> resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of >> individual rights, is the free market. > > But does an absolutely free market work as well as one with some > government interference? (The answer is no...) They are not saying here that the free market DOES work better than one with some government interference. They are merely saying that the free market is the only type compatible with, well, freedom. As for your statement that it DOESN'T work as well, naturally I expect you to back it up. > As for being forced > to sacrifice their lives for others, if it is a situation like > war, drafting people into the army is justified. > That's nice -- you first. By a "situation like war" did you mean to include, (say) the Vietnam war? The Korean conflict? >> We applaud the >> trend toward private protection services and voluntary community crime >> control groups. > > You mean private armies-for-hire? > Oh, lighten up, will you? They mean what they say! >> e. the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide >> as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his >> or her own life. > > It is pretty silly to make it illegal, but I'll bet that almost > all people who try to commit suicide and are prevented from > doing it are glad that they were when they come back to their > senses. That's nice. I'll bet everyone who is BRAINWASHED is also grateful to the brainwasher, but I sort of doubt that justifies anything. > Preventing suicides is generally a socially useful > function of police forces, and doesn't cause much trouble for > people other than the suicide, so it should be continued. Why that's MIGHTY generous of you to be willing to spend my money in a way I find morally abhorrent. MIGHTY generous. > Besides, > if the person REALLY wants to commit suicide, he will sooner > or later. Now that IS a socially useful function for the police -- making it TOUGH to commit suicide. Yes sir! We wouldn't want it to be something that works quickly or easily. The good of society dictates that you should have to try REAL HARD, and maybe SEVERAL TIMES.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/10/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:34 pm Nov 7, 1984 >> We support full restitution for all loss suffered by persons arrested, >> indicted, tried, imprisoned, or otherwise injured in the course of >> criminal proceedings against them that do not result in their conviction. >> When they are responsible, government police employees or agents should >> be liable for this restitution. > > This would be ok, if it were restricted to cases where the charges > were shown to be frivolous or without any reasonable grounds. > Otherwise, it is pretty easy to see that a system like this > would tie the hands of the judicial system to such an extent that > many criminals would never be brought to trial, because the > police would fear that they would lose too much money if they > lost the cases.. Yes, indeed. On the other hand, our criminal courts NOW suffer from such a problem because, after all, one is innocent until proven guilty, confessions may not be extracted by torture, etc. >> We applaud the growth of private adjudication of disputes by mutually >> acceptable judges. > > So do I, because it saves the courts money. But this can never be > the only system available, because there will be cases where the > disputants can't agree on a judge, and where after the judgement > they refuse to abide by his decision. So some higher court must > exist, which alone can use force to enforce its decisions. On the other hand, just as credit agencies function now to deter deadbeats by sharing information, a reputation for ignoring arbiter's decisions would result in very few people willing to deal with you, except on a cash-up-front basis. It's EXPENSIVE to be an outcast. >> We oppose the current practice of forced jury duty and favor all-volunteer >> juries. > > Then all juries will be made up of extremists who have the time > and motivation to sit on many juries and impose their attitudes > on the judicial system. Thus, the volunteer armed forces are all extermists who have the time and motivation to go through boot camp and impose their attitudes on the military? Thus, the boy scouts are all extremists who impose their attitudes on the boy-scout system? I don't suppose the notion that the state must adapt to people rather than the other way around appeals to you? That quite plausibly under such a situation you would offer your services as a jurist for a certain amount of time and money, and then the court would put you where it wanted you, not necessarily (not even very probably) on a case you were interested in? My mother got interested in the trial of a mafia type in Cleveland, and went every day. I'll bet she would have volunteered for Jury duty (at an appropriate rate of pay, of course). >> We recognize that full freedom of expression is only >> possible as part of a system of full property rights. > > Huh? Freedom from taxation = freedom of speech? I don't get it. Mexico says they have freedom of the press -- it just happens, though that the government controls the supply of newsprint. 'Nuff said? >> We further condemn indirect censorship through >> government control of the postal system... > > Here's another one out of left field. The postal system censors > people? It does indeed. It is a federal crime to send unsolicited obscene material through the mail. Since it is NOT a crime to send unsolicited political material or unsolicited non-obscene advertisements through the mail, this is censorship. >> We support repeal of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which >> classifies information as secret that should be available to taxpayers, >> violates freedom of speech and press, and prohibits public discussion of >> covert government paramilitary activities and spying abroad. > > If they were public, they wouldn't work, would they? > The IIPA doesn't just mandate government secrecy -- it makes facts already available to the public illegal to publish. In particular, if a government keeps something secret, it doesn't need to use the IIPA, but if there's a leak to the press, it can use IIPA to protect agents in the field. It can also censor books about the CIA and such on those grounds. >> We deplore any efforts to impose thought control on the media... > > How about thought control BY the media? You don't like it? Switch it off. Change channels, buy another magazine or unsubscribe to net.politics. If you don't like what the government's doing for the "good of society", it is likely to roll right over you like a bulldozer. >> To complete the separation of media and State, we support legislation to >> repeal the Federal Communications Act and to provide for private >> homesteading and ownership of the airwave frequencies, thus giving the >> electronic media First Amendment parity with the other communication media. > > And permitting broadcasting companies to jam each other's > frequencies? Is this freedom of speech? Read what they say: private "homesteading and ownership". Get it? they don't get to jam what they don't own. >> Government harassment or obstruction of unconventional religious groups for >> the beliefs or nonviolent activities must end. > > I'd like to see some evidence that there is such harassment. > The seizure of an amishman's horse team in the late '70's or early 80's because he refused to pay income taxes on religious grounds is one example. The arrest of Sun Myung Moon (whom I detest) for Tax evasion is another. >> We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which >> actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals >> to rent their homes and places of business from the State. > > No, it forces them to pay taxes. There are lots of differences, and > this isn't a good analogy. You can sell your property and alter it, > and pay a very small fraction of its value in taxes, whereas this > isn't the case with rental. Nope, you can only alter it according to zoning laws, you can only sell it if it meets building standards, you can only rent it according to rent control rules (if theree are any), and you can only live in it subject to health regulations. Get the picture? >> We condemn recent attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize >> sports teams or totry to force them to stay in their present location. > > That's because you don't live in Oakland. :-) The Baltimore Colts managed to leave Baltimore by a combination of getting the movers to arrive at night, and secrecy. When the "plot" to leave was discoverd, the mayor began exploring with the City Council ways of keeping the Colts from moving to Indianapolis. I believe the colts made it (this happened mostly during a weekend when I was visiting Baltimore) but silly as it sounds, its now joke -- a privately-owned athletic team was sneaking out because they were afraid they'd be forced to stay. When discovered sneaking out, the fears of the team owner were no doubt confirmed by the action. The team owner (can't remember his name) was not very popular, but that hardly excuses this miserable attempt at interference with private business. > >> We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required >> for any purpose, such as for employment, voting, or border crossings. > > How do you check the identity of people who are voting or > cossing borders, then? (And don't say that you don't have > to.) > Gosh, Wayne, there IS no federal ID card (the closest thing is probably your passport), and yet these things are carried out. As for identity, I find most people take American Express or Visa. It is ILLEGAL for people to insist on getting your social security number for other than tax, draft, and social security reasons (a few farsighted people were around when this idea of giving everyone a number got started) and yet, society manages -- you needn't show your passport when you vote. The libertarians are merely arguing that the FEDS shouldn't take it on themselves to issue national identity cards. As for crossing boarders: You don't have to check that stuff. :-) >> We call for the abolition of all federal secret police agencies. In >> particular, We seek the abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency and >> the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and we call for a return to the >> American tradition of local law enforcement. > > Try fighting the Mafia or international terrorism with > local law enforcement agencies. I'd rather fight the Mafia by starving it to death. Its main moneymakers have traditionally been liquor, gambling, drugs, and prostitution. If these activities were all legal and largely unregulated the mafia would be weaker (partly because it would be unable to compete, and partly because it would have less reason to exist). So far, the US has largely been spared terrorism. I suspect this situation would continue were the USA to become less involved in world political affairs, a situation libertarians work for. >> Maintaining our belief in the inviolability of the right to keep and bear >> arms, we oppose all laws at any level of government restricting the ownership, >> manufacture, transfer, or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws >> requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We also oppose any >> government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace", or >> other non-firearm protective devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban >> weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky and unsafe. > > So anybody is free to stockpile as many weapons as he can > buy, until he has enough to outfit a personal army and take > over a few large cities. And to think that people term libertarians unrealistic. C'mon, Wayne. Why worry about that when the forces of international terrorism need only build a briefcase nuke to accomplish the same end? Further, What will this madman do once he's got the city? Threaten to blow it up? Threaten to kill everyone in it? How will he and his army escape retribution? Why hasn't this already happened in states with no gun control? Sheesh!
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/10/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:34 pm Nov 7, 1984 >> We therefor call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the >> abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, >> and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country >> illegally. We oppose government welfare payments to non-citizens just as >> we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons. > > Then people from countries with miserable conditions due > to overcrowding will flood into the country until conditions > here are as bad as the other countries. Is this what you want? > No, Wayne, but it wouldn't work that way. People have ONE mouth, and TWO hands. For a little more backing, try and get hold of the last two issues of "REASON" magazine. > >> Children are human beings and, as such, have all the rights of human beings. >> >> We oppose all laws that empower government officials to seize children and >> make them "wards of the state" or, by means of child labor laws and compulsory >> education, to infringe on their freedom to work or learn as they choose. >> We oppose all legally created or sanctioned discrimination directed at any >> other artificially defined sub-category of human beings. Specifically we >> oppose ordinances that outlaw adults-only apartments. >> >> We also support the repeal of all laws establishing any category of crimes >> applicable to children for which adults would not be similarly answerable >> such as curfew, smoking, and alcoholic beverage laws, and other status >> offenses. Similarly, we favor the repeal of "stubborn child" laws and laws >> establishing the category of "persons in need of supervision". We call for >> an end to the practice in many states of jailing children not accused of any >> crime. We seek the repeal of all "children's codes" of statutes which >> abridge due process protections for young people. We further favor the >> abolition of the juvenile court system, so that juveniles will be held fully >> responsible for their crimes. > > This is absurd! How can you hold a ten-year-old responsible for > actions that he doesn't even understand? Children are entitled to > rights, as are adults, but there is a vast difference between an > adult and a young child, and to treat them the same in the legal > system is like extending laws against theft to animals, so if > a dog steals your food he can be tried and sent to jail. Children > aren't animals, but they are similar in that they can't be held > responsible for many of their actions. > The current situation means that an (under-18) child cannot be tried for murder even if he does it repeatedly. To consider your metaphor, a dog can be SHOT for stealing food, and nobody will talk of imprisoning you for doing so. The problem is not one of age but of responsibility. I've my own arguments with the Platform about children's rights, but the notion that one may be guilty of willful murder at age 17 is not a point of contention between us. >> Children should always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming >> the administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon >> their parents or other guardians and assuming all the responsibilities >> of adulthood. > > What if they really aren't mature enough for this? Just saying, > "Sure, I'm mature enough" doesn't make it true. > No, but finding your own job, supporting yourself, finding a place to live where you are not dependant on someone else seem to me to count. This is, of course, what they're saying.
mwm@ea.UUCP (11/21/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / hocsj!ecl / 11:37 pm Nov 18, 1984 */ Unravelling the negatives here, the platform is in favor of allowing adults-only apartments. But that is sanctioned discrimination against children! Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl /* ---------- */ So? If you look hard enough, you will find that the Libertarians don't have any arguments about people doing what they wish with their property, which includes renting it, or not renting it, to whome they please. So, as a landlord, I can discriminte against children, blacks, whites, blue-eyed blonds, ex girlfriends, or people who own three-piece suites. If it's my property, what's the beef? But since I'm only renting it from the government, they can make such activities illegal. <mike
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/24/84)
> >I think another part of the platform stated that any sort of federally > >issued ID was not acceptable, so how do you know that the guy who moves > >in next door and starts burning tires in his yard is an outcast? (And > >even if you are an outcast you can still make yourself a terrible nuisance > >to people even if they know all about you.) > > Let's not quibble -- any system that can *prevent* people from being > troublesome involves prior restraint, and is most unlikely to be > libertarian. The question is whether having > government action as a final backup to arbitration is a NECESSARY > way to deal with troublemakers. My point was merely that government > doesn't seem to be REQUIRED -- that there are non-governmental ways of > doing it. Certainly there are non-governmental methods of > self-identification (as I pointed out, most people take American > Express). I never said that prior restraint is necessary. What I am saying is that the idea that "You can just keep track of who does bad things and make him a social outcast" doesn't work. You haven't explained what prevents people from getting false ID's, either. The point is that some point in the judicial process force IS required, and I'm not going to trust any private companies to excercise it. > >The key word is (as usual) "full". If the government takes 10 % of my > >paycheck, that doesn't prevent me from saying anything I please any time > >I want... > > On the other hand, if the IRS may call you and say: "We've frozen you're > bank account, pending a hearing", or, "Mr. Moon? Please make an > appointment to see Mr. So-and-so", and get off unsinged, even if they've > made a mistake, I think you DON'T have freedom of expression, if the > government can do this to you, particularly if you're not politically > powerful or sophisticated. (I agree, even the government wouldn't do it > arbitrarily to Mike Wallace :-) If you break tax laws then you get your bank account frozen. If a person says things the government doesn't like, but desn't break any laws, there is nothing the government can do. (Legally, that is.) > >> It is a federal crime to send unsolicited obscene > >> material through the mail. Since it is NOT a crime to send > >> unsolicited political material or unsolicited non-obscene advertisements > >> through the mail, this is censorship. > > > >It is not an inherent part of the nature of the postal system that this > >is illegal. Wouldn't it be easier to make it legal than throw out the > >entire postal system? > > Your question seemed to be directed at the notion of the post office > censoring people. Since you ask, though -- the postal system is a > tremendously costly boondoggle, filled with peculiar regulations, > similar in spirit to the censorship regulation, which are determined by > popularity as opposed to rationality. As long as it need not fear > competition, as long as its budget is determined by political and not > market forces, this will be so. So you're saying that it's just inefficient, not that it censors people very much. I agree with you, and I would like to see the post office de-nationalized. > All the US need do is announce that the post office will cease operations > on (say) 1/1/87, and that as of 1/1/85, ANYBODY can run their own > post office for whatever rates they like. Yes, this will have > an adverse effect on federal pension possibilities for people retiring > before 1987, NO, those employees need not suffer (at least to the > extent that they'd be the only experienced workers in a semi-new > industry, as opposed to cradle-to-gravers). Better yet, the govt should start selling stock in the post office (and announce that people could run their own). > Sun Myung Moon's religious beliefs and practices do not "conflict with the > law", at least, that is not what is being claimed. He is being harassed > because he (like everybody else with an even moderately complex > financial structure) is vulnerable, and because he is unpopular. I don't know the details of the case, but if he has been breaking tax laws, then he deserves no special treatment because he is the leader of a religon. Maybe you can provide some more information about the case? > You asked for evidence of the use of tax laws for harassment, and now > you have (pointers to) it. Whether the laws were particularly made for > harassment purposes, or just handy for harassment doesn't really matter, > does it? Those who feel that it is moral to enforce tax payments must > accept the morality that is implied by the means of enforcement they > select. In this case, one's individual freedom is the plaything of > the state (unless you can PROVE you didn't violate ANY of the IRS code). You are falling back upon the standard "sanctity of individual freedom" arguments again... If your religous beliefs are that taxation is theft, then you'll have to change them or ignore them, because they are in direct conflict with the law. Or, you could try to change the law... > I think it's been made painfully clear that the state regards > "private property" as "on loan from the state". I suspect > that the reason there would seem to be few laws against > destruction of one's own property is that this is not likely > to catch on in a big way. On the other hand, the zoning laws > remain, et cetera. I don't think it's been made clear. The only reason that there are property taxes is that the government needs to get money and this is a convenient way. The reason that there are such regulations is that the government also thinks that it should protect people from their and other's stupidity. There are certainly many cases where this is taken too far, like building regulations. > The mentality behind > it -- that property derives its legitimacy from one's compact with the > state -- was their target. From where does it derive its legitimacy then? Remember, there are NO rights in a state of nature, as you can see by looking at animal conceptions of rights. > >I never said they should! I only said that they should issue passports. > >I seriously doubt that any other countries would even admit American > >citizens if we didn't issue them. > > You said (read it aloud) "How do you check the identity of people who > are voting....". I was under the impression that they did in fact try to do this, but I was mistaken... If it's not needed, so much the better. > How does a libertarian society deal with passports? The obvious answer > is not to. Soon, banana republics would spring up and stand in > line to sell "citizenships of convenience" (for a fee, of course), > just as one now finds ships registered under "flags of convenience" > by multinational corporations. How many nations do you think would admit people who have these "citizenships of convenience"? You have no way of knowing where the people really come from, who they are, etc. Also, I would much rather be able to go to the American embassy if I need some help than the Paraguayan embassy... This is one of the more far-fetched Libertarian ideas, mainly because it deals with foreign policy, the one thing that you can definitely not do without government. Wayne
mcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/12/84)
> > How often does the government kill people? Certainly you don't > > get killed if you don't pay taxes. You just get dragged to jail > > and locked up, at worst. > > Normally this is true, but only because they don't need to flaunt power > that everyone knows is there. Whether you're killed or not depends on > how far you want to take things. Consider what would happen if the IRS > decided that you owed an extra $1,000 in taxes; you disagree and decide > to stand up for your principles: > > GOV: You owe us $1,000. > YOU: No I don't, and I'm not going to pay it. > GOV: Since you didn't pay your taxes, we'll give you a last chance to > pay the $1,000 plus penalty and interest. > YOU: I didn't owe you the money in the first place. > GOV: Very well, you're going to jail. Report first thing in the > morning. > YOU: I will do no such thing. > GOV: OK, we'll send some men to take you to jail. > YOU: I will resist them, since I never owed any money. > GOV: BANG! > YOU: > > The record will show that you were killed for resisting arrest. This, > however, is only the last in a chain of increasing punishments. So the > question is, at what point do you give up? Most people give up before > being killed, because they know that the consequences only get worse as > you go along. You left out the part where the police officer is arrested and charged with murder. It may come as a shock to you, but the police (or anyone else, for that matter) can't legally execute someone for resisting arrest. I hope I didn't ruin your day by introducing a little reality into your paranoid fantasies. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan Just because something is obvious doesn't mean that it's true.
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/12/84)
>> GOV: You owe us $1,000. >> YOU: No I don't, and I'm not going to pay it. >> GOV: Since you didn't pay your taxes, we'll give you a last chance to >> pay the $1,000 plus penalty and interest. >> YOU: I didn't owe you the money in the first place. >> GOV: Very well, you're going to jail. Report first thing in the >> morning. >> YOU: I will do no such thing. >> GOV: OK, we'll send some men to take you to jail. >> YOU: I will resist them, since I never owed any money. >> GOV: BANG! >> YOU: >> >> The record will show that you were killed for resisting arrest. This, >> however, is only the last in a chain of increasing punishments. So the >> question is, at what point do you give up? Most people give up before >> being killed, because they know that the consequences only get worse as >> you go along. > > You left out the part where the police officer is arrested and charged > with murder. It may come as a shock to you, but the police (or anyone > else, for that matter) can't legally execute someone for resisting arrest. > > I hope I didn't ruin your day by introducing a little reality into your > paranoid fantasies. -- Scott McEwan (mcewan@uiucdcs) I hate to ruin your note by introducing a little reality, but there is virtually no chance that the police officer will be arrested and charged with anything. You don't have to take my word for it. Pick any big city, say Los Angeles or Chicago. Find out how many people were killed by police, then see how many of these cases resulted in criminal charges against the police officers. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/14/84)
> >> GOV: You owe us $1,000. > >> YOU: No I don't, and I'm not going to pay it. > >> GOV: Since you didn't pay your taxes, we'll give you a last chance to > >> pay the $1,000 plus penalty and interest. > >> YOU: I didn't owe you the money in the first place. > >> GOV: Very well, you're going to jail. Report first thing in the > >> morning. > >> YOU: I will do no such thing. > >> GOV: OK, we'll send some men to take you to jail. > >> YOU: I will resist them, since I never owed any money. > >> GOV: BANG! > >> YOU: > >> > >> The record will show that you were killed for resisting arrest. This, > >> however, is only the last in a chain of increasing punishments. So the > >> question is, at what point do you give up? Most people give up before > >> being killed, because they know that the consequences only get worse as > >> you go along. > > > > You left out the part where the police officer is arrested and charged > > with murder. It may come as a shock to you, but the police (or anyone > > else, for that matter) can't legally execute someone for resisting arrest. > > > > I hope I didn't ruin your day by introducing a little reality into your > > paranoid fantasies. -- Scott McEwan (mcewan@uiucdcs) > > I hate to ruin your note by introducing a little reality, but there is > virtually no chance that the police officer will be arrested and charged > with anything. You don't have to take my word for it. Pick any big city, > say Los Angeles or Chicago. Find out how many people were killed by police, > then see how many of these cases resulted in criminal charges against the > police officers. Of course, another conclusion might be that police don't shoot people for reasons like this... Police brutality does take place, but I'm sure that they would just get some big people to drag you to jail instead of shooting you. Wayne
mcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/16/84)
I never said that the police never kill anyone in the line of duty. The
example given was a clear-cut case of murder, and would certainly
result in prosecution if the officer didn't cover it up. Sure, the cop
could probably get away with it pretty easily by planting a gun and
claiming self-defense, but that doesn't make it legal (this all assumes
that the cop would want to kill someone for almost no reason).
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
Just because something is obvious doesn't mean that it's true.renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/16/84)
The whole point of this exercise was to demonstrate that the government's
power is ultimately based on its willingness to kill you if you defy it.
More than one person interpreted the word "resist" in #8 to mean unarmed
resistance, which does spoil the scenario. So I have taken the liberty of
revising it to make it quite clear what kind of resistance is involved.
1. GOV: You owe us $1,000.
2. YOU: No I don't, and I'm not going to pay it.
3. GOV: Since you didn't pay your taxes, we'll give you a last chance to
pay the $1,000 plus penalty and interest.
4. YOU: I didn't owe you the money in the first place.
5. GOV: Very well, you're going to jail. Report first thing in the
morning.
6. YOU: I will do no such thing.
7. GOV: OK, we'll send some men to take you to jail.
8. YOU: I will resist them, since I never owed any money.
9. GOV: We'll send two or three of them, bigger than you, and they will
carry you away whether you like it or not.
10. YOU: I am entitled to defend myself against your thugs, and I will
prevent them from attacking me by threatening them with this
shotgun.
11. GOV: BANG!
12. YOU:
Scott Renner
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner