rdz@ccieng5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (08/24/84)
>The question was asked what if you sue and they don't pay. >One way of dealing with this problem would be to post such >information. I suspect that few people would want to deal >in the future with someone who does not honor their contracts. Sorry to rattle your tower, but your suspicion just ain't so. I had four years of credit and collection experience, both commercial and personal, before entering the computer industry. The posting of judgements in newspapers is common practice all over the country. The same applies to bankruptcies. My experience has been that this does not have a great deal of effect on the person's ability to gain future credit from some source. The case becomes even worse with corporations. The cas here is usually "here today, gone tommorow, back under a new name next week." And the Liber's idea of property might make a reposession a tad difficult. But then, I deeply feel that any "political party" that would put the individuals needs above the common good isn't really worth taking seriously anyway. Don't you Liber's ever read the Constitution? Or do you, like most of *us*, interpret it to fit your way of thinking? (Yes, I'm guilty too!) This is a serious question, so don't flame, inform. "The right to keep and bear armadillos shall not be infringed" Boynton
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/06/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ccieng5!rdz / 12:07 pm Aug 25, 1984 > >>The question was asked what if you sue and they don't pay. >>One way of dealing with this problem would be to post such >>information. I suspect that few people would want to deal >>in the future with someone who does not honor their contracts. > >Sorry to rattle your tower, but your suspicion just ain't so. >I had four years of credit and collection experience, both >commercial and personal, before entering the computer industry. >The posting of judgements in newspapers is common practice >all over the country. The same applies to bankruptcies. My >experience has been that this does not have a great deal of >effect on the person's ability to gain future credit from some >source. Several things in a libertarian society would be likely to be different. For example, it's hard to imagine how limited-liability corporations would exist in a society where each INDIVIDUAL is responsible for that individual's actions. (there'd very likely be no agreement on how a limited-liability corporation could exist) Also, it's much easier to deal with things like computer databases if the state doesn't tell you what you may put in them. > >The case becomes even worse with corporations. The cas here is >usually "here today, gone tommorow, back under a new name next >week." And the Liber's idea of property might make a reposession >a tad difficult. Not at all! A clause to the effect of "I agree to allow armed repossesion agents on my property for the express and limited purpose of repossessing this property should I fail to make payment at the agreed-upon terms" would simply be part of credit contracts. After all, the credit agency, or whatever, still owns the car/washing machine/whatever. Of course, there'd probably be standard agreements. >But then, I deeply feel that any "political >party" that would put the individuals needs above the common >good isn't really worth taking seriously anyway. > Define your terms! A lot of us libertarians believe that the "common good" would be BETTER served by a society that respected individual rights above all. >Don't you Liber's ever read the Constitution? Or do you, like >most of *us*, interpret it to fit your way of thinking? (Yes, >I'm guilty too!) This is a serious question, so don't flame, >inform. Sure! Over and over again. Here's a couple of sections of it that I particularly like. SECTION 10: 1. No State shall .... make anything but gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debts.... AMENDMENT IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people AMENDMENT X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. You'll notice that these are pretty much forgotten now. Robert Heinlein said something to the effect that "Congress does not have the right to delegate law-making authority no matter WHAT the supreme court says", but the rules of the IRS seem to have the force of law. I'm a libertarian because I'm annoyed at all this. What should have been my birthright as a human being has been pissed away by legislation so laden with good intentions that it has been unstoppable. That such legislation does HARM even though it is well-intentioned is something the general public is only slowly accepting. Please ask yourself, the next time you hear of some well-intentioned program (the National Endowment for the Arts, the MX missle, CETA), "Was this worth pointing guns at people and threatening to throw them into jail if those people wouldn't pay to fund this program?" That's what happened, after all -- that's the threat under which tax money is collected. Perhaps we who are libertarians are just a little more concerned at how tacky it is to point guns at people and force them to go along with us (however well-intentioned the cause).
neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (09/07/84)
************************************************************************** > But then, I deeply feel that any "political >party" that would put the individuals needs above the common >good isn't really worth taking seriously anyway. And I feel equally deeply that anything else is tyrrany. >Don't you Liber's ever read the Constitution? Or do you, like >most of *us*, interpret it to fit your way of thinking? (Yes, >I'm guilty too!) This is a serious question, so don't flame, >inform. I think a quote from the Declaration of Independence is more to the point here: "...that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." >"The right to keep and bear armadillos shall not be infringed" > Boynton Don't bears eat armadillos? ( :-) Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "Nothin' ain't worth nothin' Denelcor, Inc. but it's free" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (09/14/84)
["Officials ought not to be corrupted." --The Slavertarian Manifesto] >> Several things in a libertarian society would be likely to be >> different. For example, it's hard to imagine how >> limited-liability corporations would exist in a society where >> each INDIVIDUAL is responsible for that individual's actions. No corporations limited! You'll have to abolish the middle class to put this one over. From 1789 to the present, federalism grew by demand of the merchants. No interstate tariffs! Uniform currency! Corporations limited! Transcontinental railways! Whether it increased personal liberty or diminished it, business demanded it and got it. By the way, I foresee a conflict between the libertarians and the gold-backers. If all debts must be paid - in gold - what happens if the price of gold drops? (REAL libertarians don't use money - they barter!) -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
mwm@ea.UUCP (09/20/84)
/***** ea:net.politics / gloria!colonel / 11:53 pm Sep 18, 1984 */ By the way, I foresee a conflict between the libertarians and the gold-backers. If all debts must be paid - in gold - what happens if the price of gold drops? (REAL libertarians don't use money - they barter!) -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel /* ---------- */ If you don't have money - or better yet, if the money is really backed by gold, how can the "price" of gold drop? BTW - REAL libertarians may not use money, but we will accept promisary notes from sufficiently trustworthy people. Now, if somebody is *so* trustworthy that everybody will accept their promisary notes in trade, could you explain how that is different from money? <mike
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (10/01/84)
> BTW - REAL libertarians may not use money, but we will accept promisary > notes from sufficiently trustworthy people. Now, if somebody is *so* > trustworthy that everybody will accept their promisary notes in trade, > could you explain how that is different from money? It depends on what the notes are promising. If this kind of society ever comes to pass, I would gladly accept notes promising to provide potatoes or flannel shirts. Why would I want a promise to provide gold? I never use the stuff. In the computer age, money is obsolete! The value of anything is just what you can bargain for it. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel