nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/28/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 9:30 pm Nov 24, 1984 >> >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. Your point was that even a known outcast can make terrible trouble; mine (sorry if it wasn't obvious) was that ANYBODY can make terrible trouble -- PREVENTING trouble is not the object -- dealing with it appropriately (and we've the grounds for a whole different discussion here) IS. >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. That's nice, but why not? A person known to have polluted before and lied about it may stand less obviously innocent of a new charge than someone else brought before a (private) arbitration agency. A man who refuses to deal with the arbiter to the extent of identifying himself is taking the risk that the arbiter will assume he's got something to hide. Some arbitration agencies may not care -- others will. >You haven't explained what prevents >people from getting false ID's, either. I didn't know you needed an explanation, but since you ask.... What prevents people from getting false ID's? All right, how does the GOVERNMENT prevent it? How does American Express prevent it? Give up? They don't issue such ID's to people whose identity they cannot verify to their satisfaction. Are ANY of these methods foolproof? No. Including the government method? Yes. Is there any reason why a private agency should be less able to verify a person's identity (given their (written) consent) than a public one? No. >The point is that some point >in the judicial process force IS required, Oh yes indeedy! We libertarians are not (as a rule) utopians. Force is certainly required (assuming someone is found guilty, or acts to avoid justice). I'm certainly not arguing that we should eschew force -- merely that we eschew the initiation of force. A police force hired by the victim is not "initiating" force when they arrest someone (if the someone turns out to be guilty). If the arrested person is NOT guilty, the arrested has a (potentially quite profitable) a claim against the (private) police force. (One difference between the libertarian society and ours -- you can't sue the DEA for breaking into the wrong house). >and I'm not going to trust >any private companies to excercise it. Well, naturally I'm delighted. I don't trust GOVERNMENTS to exercise it, myself. I'm doing what I can to dismantle the government -- I assume you'll do what you can to dismantle private protection services. Governments have (as I see it) a much worse record as regards arbitrary compulsion than do private interests (which tend to restrict themselves to profitable, rather than ideological, actions). >> >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. Not quite, Wayne -- if the IRS wants to, it can freeze your bank account if you are SUSPECTED of breaking a tax law. The ONUS OF PROOF IS ON THE DEFENDANT in US tax law -- you must prove that you are innocent. Quite a task, given the size of the IRS code, and the variety of actions considered illegal. >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.) That's interesting, but not relevant -- the law is only a very poor way of keeping the law's administrators from biting you. o The government can enforce unreasonable requirements on you (building codes often have no stated tolerances, so any building with a measurable flaw in it may be closed down). o A couple of doctors may declare you "disturbed" and put you away in an asylum, using the fact that an acceptable return to a writ of Habeas Corpus is that some doctors have decided that you should be locked up for your own good. o The government may seize your property via Eminent Domain (and then may never build on it, but hey! Those are the breaks!) >> >> 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. Look, it censors people. It's in the NATURE of government to try and censor people. It's a governmental agency, and it will reflect governmental nature. That it is inefficient is just another aspect of the fact that it has no competition (and cannot have), as well as a reflection of the fact that it is run for votes, not for profit. >Better yet, the govt should start selling stock in the post office (and >announce that people could run their own). Maybe. I sort of doubt that anyone would want to buy stock in such a company (getting control would be so tough!) but perhaps the workers themselves would be interested. >> 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? I'm not saying that he deserves special treatment as the leader of a religion -- I'm saying that he's GETTING it. The treatment is unpleasant because he is unpopular. One oft-overlooked aspect of laws that can only be enforced on a few (e.g. tax laws) is that SOMEBODY has to choose who's to be investigated. Who to check? Is it to be the local Bishop? Or the guy with the funny eyes who convinced your cousin to give up his inheritance for Korea? I'm not saying that the Feds don't have a case against Moon -- merely that they had to choose among the cases they COULD have gone after, and an unpopular religious leader made the list. >> 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... There are, you'll admit, worse ways of trying to get laws changed than to point out why the laws don't work, and what their sordid implications are, and demanding that those who continue to support certain laws live with the blame that attaches to those implications. >> 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. Oh, if only the government would enact laws protecting us from the GOVERNMENT'S stupidity. No? I thought not. >> 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. That's right, Wayne -- there's also no concept of "mathematics" in the animal world, and yet there IS in the human world. All this without government enforcement of certain mathematical doctrines. Mathematics does not derive its legitimacy from government, and yet it is legitimate. Mathematics does not exist amongst the animals, and yet could exist among free humans. So with property -- it need not be enforced by government to be legitimate. It WILL have to be protected, by those private means you so distrust, but then Governments are great respecters of property, right? Just ask any American Indian.... >> >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. Thank you. >> 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"? How many admit ships under "flags of convenience" to their harbors? How many benefit from the US tourist trade? How many CARE whether you're "really" a Mexican or just responsible enough that the Mexican Gov't will issue you a passport? How about Panamanian? How are they to KNOW? >You have no way of knowing where the people really come >from, who they are, etc. In that case, I suspect the governments involved (under the vigorous proddings of their merchant classes) to figure out some other solution, such as selling identity cards on the US market that entitle buyers to travel to their country (the buyers must of course satisfy the sellers as to questions of identity). >Also, I would much rather be able to go to the >American embassy if I need some help than the Paraguayan embassy... Indeed? Perhaps that is because the Paraguayan embassy need not (and cannot) compete with other small nations for customers from the US. Things are a little different if you've got competition. I would think that one selling point of certain "passports of convenience" would be the facilities of the corresponding embassies. >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. That's not so! You can definitely not have long-lived rapacious monopolies without government, either. I am STILL waiting for a list of monopolies that were NOT supported by government, regulated by government, and were stable. To hear you speak in economic terms, there should be plenty in relatively lightly-regulated areas such as the motel or personal service industries.
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/29/84)
> >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. > > That's nice, but why not? A person known to have polluted before and lied > about it may stand less obviously innocent of a new charge than someone > else brought before a (private) arbitration agency. A man who refuses to > deal with the arbiter to the extent of identifying himself is taking > the risk that the arbiter will assume he's got something to hide. > Some arbitration agencies may not care -- others will. How do you know that he has polluted before? He can just change his name and be back in business, and you'd be none the wiser. > >The point is that some point > >in the judicial process force IS required, > > Oh yes indeedy! We libertarians are not (as a rule) utopians. Force is > certainly required (assuming someone is found guilty, or acts to avoid > justice). I'm certainly not arguing that we should eschew force -- > merely that we eschew the initiation of force. A police force hired by > the victim is not "initiating" force when they arrest someone (if the > someone turns out to be guilty). If the arrested person is NOT guilty, > the arrested has a (potentially quite profitable) a claim against the > (private) police force. (One difference between the libertarian society > and ours -- you can't sue the DEA for breaking into the wrong house). And if the person isn't guilty but the private judicial company puts him in jail anyway because they don't want to get sued, then what? > >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.) > > That's interesting, but not relevant -- the law is only a very poor way > of keeping the law's administrators from biting you. > > o The government can enforce unreasonable requirements on you > (building codes often have no stated tolerances, so any building > with a measurable flaw in it may be closed down). > > o A couple of doctors may declare you "disturbed" and put you > away in an asylum, using the fact that an acceptable return > to a writ of Habeas Corpus is that some doctors have decided > that you should be locked up for your own good. > > o The government may seize your property via Eminent Domain > (and then may never build on it, but hey! Those are the breaks!) This sort of thing does happen, I will admit, but pretty infrequently. If you see it happenning, you should try to change the government (by introducing more checks and balances, for instance) so that it won't happen as much. > >> 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. > > Look, it censors people. It's in the NATURE of government to try and > censor people. Oh. Yeah, I guess you must be right because you are using capital letters to make your point... Wayne