faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/06/84)
> 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.. > 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. > 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. > We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to a mental institution. > To incarcerate an individual not convicted of any crime, but merely asserted > to be incompetent, is a violation of the individual's rights. More importantly, it's a waste of time and money, unless he actually is a danger to others (and proves it by committing crimes). > e. an end to criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" > which absolve the guilty of their responsibility. And don't do a thing for protecting society. > 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. > 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? > 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? > We deplore any efforts to impose thought control on the media... How about thought control BY the media? > 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? > The implied threat of loss of license renewal broadcasters face, if they > refuse to show National Ad Council ads for free, can only be ended by > abolishing the FCC. Maybe the rules can be changed? > 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. > We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, > use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, > until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights > of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, > liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national > security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the > use of property in the name of aesthetic values, riskiness, moral standards, > cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. I hold that owners of property have these rights in almost all cases, but not all. > 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. > We condemn recent attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize > sports teams or to try to force them to stay in their present location. That's because you don't live in Oakland. :-) > 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.) > 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. > 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.