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: Comments on the Libertarian platform
Message-ID: <2811@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Nov-84 12:51:10 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2811
Posted: Sat Nov 24 12:51:10 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Nov-84 02:44:23 EST
References: <1826@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 140

> >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).

I never said that prior restraint is necessary. What I am saying is that
the idea that "You can just keep track of who does bad things and make
him a social outcast" doesn't work. You haven't explained what prevents
people from getting false ID's, either. The point is that some point
in the judicial process force IS required, and I'm not going to trust
any private companies to excercise it.

> >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 :-)

If you break tax laws then you get your bank account frozen. If a person
says things the government doesn't like, but desn't break any laws, there
is nothing the government can do. (Legally, that is.)

> >> 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.

So you're saying that it's just inefficient, not that it censors people
very much. I agree with you, and I would like to see the post office
de-nationalized.

> 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).

Better yet, the govt should start selling stock in the post office (and
announce that people could run their own).

> 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.

I don't know the details of the case, but if he has been breaking tax laws,
then he deserves no special treatment because he is the leader of a
religon. Maybe you can provide some more information about the case?

> 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).

You are falling back upon the standard "sanctity of individual freedom"
arguments again... If your religous beliefs are that taxation is theft,
then you'll have to change them or ignore them, because they are
in direct conflict with the law. Or, you could try to change the law...

> 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.

I don't think it's been made clear. The only reason that there are property
taxes is that the government needs to get money and this is a convenient
way. The reason that there are such regulations is that the government
also thinks that it should protect people from their and other's stupidity.
There are certainly many cases where this is taken too far, like building
regulations.

> The mentality behind
> it -- that property derives its legitimacy from one's compact with the
> state -- was their target.

From where does it derive its legitimacy then? Remember, there are NO rights
in a state of nature, as you can see by looking at animal conceptions of
rights. 

> >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....". 

I was under the impression that they did in fact try to do this, but
I was mistaken... If it's not needed, so much the better.

> 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.  

How many nations do you think would admit people who have these "citizenships
of convenience"? You have no way of knowing where the people really come
from, who they are, etc. Also, I would much rather be able to go to the
American embassy if I need some help than the Paraguayan embassy... This
is one of the more far-fetched Libertarian ideas, mainly because it
deals with foreign policy, the one thing that you can definitely not
do without government.

	Wayne