> In a message dated 7/28/2000 11:15:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> email@example.com writes:>
> > This is all really basic stuff that's covered well by Friedman and
> > others, so I won't elaborate more.
> Now I am even more confused. We arbitrarily enforce any laws we like, in any
> given comunity, as long as we can afford, by hiring people dressed like cops
> who carry guns. So -- in my suburb it's against the law to wear a beard. And
> it's against the law in yours to not wear one. But we hire the same guys to
> enforce both laws, with guns.
> Do I have this right so far?
No. Your PPA has its lawyers and goons, my PPA has its lawyers and goons. Lets
say you forcibly depilate someone visting your suburb, who lives in mine. Since
my PPA has an agreement with your PPA about how to handle adjudicating this, its
determined that Billy Bob did not put on the agreed upon chin-cap while visiting
your suburb, however your use of force was far in excess of what is reasonable
for a person to do (which would have been to remind Billy Bob to put his chin
cap on, and placing a call to your PPA if he didn't), that you have to pay for
Billy Bob to go on vacation to a fast-hair-grow spa until his beard has grown
back to the legal minimum, AND your head is shaved, while Billy Bob has to pay
the $15 fine for indecent exposure of facial follicular excrement that is
standard in your suburb.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:18 MDT