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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!ucbvax!ucbesvax!ucbcad!faustus
From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Comments on the Libertarian plat
Message-ID: <2829@ucbcad.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 15:17:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbcad.2829
Posted: Thu Nov 29 15:17:29 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Dec-84 05:09:33 EST
References: <1836@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 73

> >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. 
> 
> That's nice, but why not?  A person known to have polluted before and lied
> about it may stand less obviously innocent of a new charge than someone
> else brought before a (private) arbitration agency.  A man who refuses to
> deal with the arbiter to the extent of identifying himself is taking
> the risk that the arbiter will assume he's got something to hide.
> Some arbitration agencies may not care -- others will.

How do you know that he has polluted before? He can just change his
name and be back in business, and you'd be none the wiser. 

> >The point is that some point
> >in the judicial process force IS required, 
> 
> Oh yes indeedy!  We libertarians are not (as a rule) utopians.  Force is
> certainly required (assuming someone is found guilty, or acts to avoid
> justice).  I'm certainly not arguing that we should eschew force --
> merely that we eschew the initiation of force.  A police force hired by
> the victim is not "initiating" force when they arrest someone (if the
> someone turns out to be guilty).  If the arrested person is NOT guilty,
> the arrested has a (potentially quite profitable) a claim against the
> (private) police force.  (One difference between the libertarian society
> and ours -- you can't sue the DEA for breaking into the wrong house).

And if the person isn't guilty but the private judicial company puts
him in jail anyway because they don't want to get sued, then what?

> >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.)
> 
> That's interesting, but not relevant -- the law is only a very poor way
> of keeping the law's administrators from biting you.  
> 
> 	o The government can enforce unreasonable requirements on you
> 	(building codes often have no stated tolerances, so any building
> 	with a measurable flaw in it may be closed down).
> 
> 	o A couple of doctors may declare you "disturbed" and put you
> 	away in an asylum, using the fact that an acceptable return
> 	to a writ of Habeas Corpus is that some doctors have decided
> 	that you should be locked up for your own good.
> 
> 	o The government may seize your property via Eminent Domain
> 	(and then may never build on it, but hey!  Those are the breaks!)

This sort of thing does happen, I will admit, but pretty infrequently. 
If you see it happenning, you should try to change the government (by
introducing more checks and balances, for instance) so that it won't
happen as much.

> >> 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.
> 
> Look, it censors people.  It's in the NATURE of government to try and
> censor people.  

Oh. Yeah, I guess you must be right because you are using capital letters
to make your point...

	Wayne