Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <2799@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 03:04:15 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2799
Posted: Mon Nov 19 03:04:15 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Nov-84 07:08:30 EST
References: <1823@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 103

> >> 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.

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.) 

> >> 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?

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...

> >> 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.

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?

> >> 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.

If people's religous beliefs conflict with the law, they will have to change
them. The laws aren't made specifically to harass people's religous beliefs.

> >> 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?  

All of these things I will agree with you are unnecessary and should be
done away with. This isn't what the issue was, it was "taxation of
privately owned real property". This, I hold, is legitimate, whereas
the forms of regulation you mention are not.

> >> 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.

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.

	Wayne