Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf) Message-ID: <1823@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 01:35:47 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1823 Posted: Sun Nov 18 01:35:47 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Nov-84 02:40:19 EST Lines: 213 #R:ucbcad:-277400:inmet:7800181:177600:10341 inmet!nrh Nov 16 14:10:00 1984 I'm told that an article of mine may be garbled. In line with the USENET idea of "too much is not enough", I herewith re-submit it. (with the usual apologies to those who've seen it before). >***** 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!