From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Wed Aug 06 2003 - 21:12:13 MDT
Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@yahoo.com> writes:
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > You misunderstood: I, myself, am not convinced that
> > this needs to be sponsored by the government (as I
> > said: let the market itself provide a market, as it is
> > already doing in other areas), so I will "take this
> > lying down". That's just my opinion and my intended
> > (in)action, of course.
>
> Ah, then a typical list response. Sorry if I mistook you
> for a doer.
[Mike}
> ...my point isn't a matter of lobbying for government
> financing. My point is that we need to represent a
> rational argument for PAM in the public discourse,
> something that the liberal anti-market types are
> dominating so far with their demonization of PAM
> and Robin.
With respect Mike the best person to put any rational
argument for PAM in the public discourse is Robin.
If Robin wants assistance he is likely to want particular
types of assistance because media/political campaigns
need to be *organised*. A public list, in full view of
your 'opposition' is hardly the best place to discuss
strategy.
> Failure to do so may do more than end government
> support of PAM, they might make it illegal to do in
> the private sphere as well.
Now this *is* an interesting point. Financial markets
are amongst the most globalised phenomena that
there are. I am not certain that the US government
could make PAMs effectively illegal. I am not sure
they have legal jurisdiction.
Even assuming they did have legal jurisdiction over
the actions of US nationals, and internet sites etc
in the US, there is a little document called the
Constitution which I reckon still has something
useful and authoritative to say about free speech
and free association. I don't have time to get
forensic on this. But perhaps there is a US
lawyer or some others reading that might care to
comment.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 21:19:50 MDT