Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Orphaned Response - (nf) Message-ID: <1826@inmet.UUCP> Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 01:13:16 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1826 Posted: Fri Nov 23 01:13:16 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Nov-84 05:42:34 EST Lines: 202 #R:ucbcad:-277400:inmet:7800182:177600:10093 inmet!nrh Nov 21 05:37:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 4:59 am Nov 20, 1984 >> >> 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.) 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). >> >> 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... 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 :-) >> >> 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? 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. For example -- it costs as much to send a one-ounce letter to you if you live in some remote farm in another state as it would to send mail to you if you lived in the same city and picked up your mail at a central depot. Why? Because "Rural Free Delivery" has an impact on the Farm Vote. To talk about the ease of keeping the post office as opposed to throwing it away is a little like talking about the ease of keeping a hungry tiger in the room with you rather than letting it out (or leaving the room yourself). All the US need do is announce that the post office will cease operations on (say) 1/1/87, and that as of 1/1/85, ANYBODY can run their own post office for whatever rates they like. Yes, this will have an adverse effect on federal pension possibilities for people retiring before 1987, NO, those employees need not suffer (at least to the extent that they'd be the only experienced workers in a semi-new industry, as opposed to cradle-to-gravers). The post office item in the 1982 US budget was 707 million dollars. This was money collected as taxes. The taxes were used to support the government's notion of how a post office should be run. The taxes were extracted by threat of force, (read the Privacy Act notification that comes with form 1040). Is it really right to extract from citizens by force the money needed to run by forced monopoly what could be a profitable private field? The postal receipts for New York City alone in 1982 were $741 million. [budget figures from 1984 World Almanac] >> >> 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. 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. 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). >> >> 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. 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. That you're willing do do away with the non-tax regulations gratifies me, though. No doubt someone else will come forward to argue that they believe in (say) "health regulations". Remember -- these abominations were VOTED in. As soon as you concede that private property is NOT absolute, you've opened the door for its endless manipulation by politics. This was the point of this part of the libertarian platform -- to illustrate one way in which "partly private" property manifests itself and to criticize it. The mentality behind it -- that property derives its legitimacy from one's compact with the state -- was their target. >> >> 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. You said (read it aloud) "How do you check the identity of people who are voting....". 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.