From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 09:32:10 MST
Samantha writes
> > Any huge system, like a government, will always do what is
> > advantageous for it to do. Right now, for example, in almost
> > any Western country to arrest people for speaking their views
> > is practically unthinkable (not only because of the political
> > consequences, but, like other entitles, governments are
> > creatures of habit too).
>
> Until now if our particular government wanted to do such things
> it at least did not have the law its side. Today the gloves are
> off. Bill of Rights? Constitution? Forget them.
I think that you are exaggerating. In "war time", the
usual freedoms are curtailed to some extent---if you
don't believe me, then read about World War I, the Civil
War, and World War II. You may also ponder how well one
would have faired demonstrating against the Churchill
government in London in 1941.
(I don't know why this impulse to overstate your position;
you have plenty of real ammunition in the apparent fact
that any liberties are being curtailed at all!)
> Laws are on the books to prosecute any of us at any time
> with or without such formalities as an actual arrest, due
> process and all of that. All your assets can be seized
> and you can be disappeared without any formal proceedings
> indefinitely.
The asset forfeiture laws are indeed scary, and there
have been numerous victims. But this cannot be tied
to any particular administration (not that I'm saying
you were implying this). Do you have a concrete case
in mind? I would really appreciate it.
My own example goes something like this: in Santa
Clara County where I live, I think that it would
only take three men to lock me up for years and
years. The sheriff and two underlings could find
a way to with impunity search my house for drugs
or child pornography and "find" loads of evidence
that really isn't here. My best protection from
this (shudder) is that if they did it to more than
a few people a year, they could be jeopardizing
their careers. So statistically, I'm pretty safe
even if such a trio is so malevolent.
> Any of us can have all aspects of our lives tracked
> and monitored, all of our communication and relationships
> fully scrutinized and without so much as a court order.
I don't care. I hope they do. It should be edifying for
them. To few appreciate how proper extropians live.
> It is not a matter of what party will use this. It is a
> matter of We the People now officially having the status of
> utterly disenfranchised serfs.
Yeah, I can just see you getting teleported to the 9th
century into a hut on a field under the thumb of a real
overlord. And I can just see you saying, "well, the
standard of living is lower, but I have just as many
rights." (Sarcasm)
> Actually, worse than serfs. [Oh come now.] Serfs weren't
> taxed for more than 10% of their income.
In some places they were. But the key feature is that they
couldn't spout off about it, nor get to vote on it. While
I'm as annoyed as you are that the government takes more
than half the wealth I produce each year (and mostly uses
it to weaken the economy), I have to admit that it is all
the fault of us citizens who vote for politicians and who
approve of their programs.
> > [Scenarios:]
> >
> > (1) The country becomes palpably involved in a life-or-
> > death struggle. E.g., Japanese troops in 1942 finally
> > conquer Denver, with Dallas-Fort Worth soon to fall.
> > Or an evil third-world terrorist group succeeds in
> > smuggling in so many atomic bombs that they begin
> > going off one every two days.
> >
> > In either of these scenarios, most Western governments,
> > at least those with any backbone such as the U.S., would
> > crack down on any---repeat, any---effort that appeared
> > in the slightest way to hinder the war effort.
>
> You claim this is good or what this country purports to be
> about? This country has zero right to do any such cracking down
> on those who oppose any or all of its policies and actions.
I do. Democracies (or republics, as you like to remind us)
need to do what they need to do to defend themselves. Later
total civil liberties can be restored. Again, I commend to
your attention the prior wars of the U.S.
> > At present, I see almost zero chance of scenarios like these
> > developing.
>
> So you feel all safe and secure? [Yes.] Poor innocent lamb!
Hey, hey, hey! I sense a possibility for mutual profit!
Since you see a much higher probability than I do for
such a development, let's find a way to bet on it. That
way, you can take out insurance against people like us
getting slaughtered (what happens to lambs), and I can
invest in the country remaining respectful of almost
everyone's rights. We could perhaps bet on whether at
least one member of the ExI board goes to jail during
the next two years. If you don't like that, can you
think of some other way for us to profitably exploit
this disagreement?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 09:32:59 MST