RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)

[Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>]

Forwarded message:

> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 10:49:23 -0500
> From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
> Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone
>  (fwd)

> 	And the system protects them. Pinochet wasn't handed over to spain
> now was he.
> 
> 	It's the system.

No, it's the British system. And to be honest it should be the American
system also. A country should have jurisdiction only within its own borders.
Other countries should have agreements about how persons accussed of crimes
should be extradited.

In the anarcho-whatever system this is all eliminated because we've
eliminated crime in the first place by legitimizing any and all strategies.

> 	In N.C, Tennesee (IIRC), Illinois, and North Carolina (especially
> N.C.) it's the state.

Then have the law changed in those states or you could move to Texas.

> 	Crap. Pure B.S. What lead to it's regulation was a bunch of broads
> who didn't want ANYONE drinking, so they pushed for abolition, which was a
> total disaster, and lead to repeal.

No, that was prohibition. The taxation of alcohol goes back equaly far in
the history of this country. To before the articles of confederation even
since Britian required taxes on rum and related items - espcialy if they
were from non-British ports -  if you would stop knee-jerking responces and
think back the Tax Acts were one of the reasons we had a revolution in the
first place. Tea, rum, and whiskey were one of the primary motivations.

> 	Ever heard of "Muckraking"? Yellow Journalism? Could it have been
> that that lead to some of this B.S. regulation? Nah, the press never would
> have done something like that.

Actualy, the fact that you admit that the press can be in colussion with the
government and the businesses goes a long way toward demonstrating that
anarcho-anything won't work because it will be even harder for
whistle-blowers and 'social do-gooders' to get their message out (unless
they're well heeled and don't mind loosing it all in the process).

> 	Remember the movie "Reefer Madness", and the Jim Crow drug laws of
> the early 1900's? Couldn't be that people in positions of power at the time
> had certain agendas and used lies to further them could it.

People always have agenda's (this is segues nicely into what Blanc was
saying about attitudes), that's my point and one of the reasons that
anarcho-whatever won't work is because it doesn't recognize this nor does it
put any sort of limit on its expression.

> 	Nah, people in government NEVER behave like that.

People always behave that way, it's the way people are. Being in government
is only another mechanism it gets expressed through. Business is another.

> 	No I didn't, EVEN IF I GET THEM LEGALLY, if I turn around and sell
> them, it's black market, that was muy fucking point, I'm sorry if you can't
> comprehend that sort of thing.

If the doctor gives them to you without a valid medical reason then you
didn't get them legaly. Techicaly the doctor is in violation for trafficking
and you would be in violation for possession and use of a controlled
substance. If you knew full well that you weren't going to use them and took
them anyway then you in effect stole them because you misled the doctor into
giving them to you. Now if you simply sold them because you didn't like their
side effects then only you are legaly culpible.

Now, your point that not everything on the black market is stolen is well
take as I've said before (you just didn't read it, it at least explains why
you keep going over the same issue until you think I'll be badgered into
agreeing with you). The exception I take, and am still waiting for refuation
of, is that the *majority* of goods on the black market including drugs are
related to the theft of material or services from legitimate parties. That
you don't seem to grasp (and I'm not so obsessed with making you see it that
I'm going to discuss the issue farther).

As a history teacher once said:

The nice thing about America is anybody can believe anything, whether they
know what they are talking about or not.

I respect that sentiment.

> 	I hated the shit, and didn't take it after the 2nd day, leaving me
> clear headed, but in pain. No big deal, I've been in pain before. I traded
> the rest of those drugs for an old computer.

I certainly hope that no DEA agents are watching *and* you're not in the
US. Admitting to a crime in a public venue, whether in a public park or a
mailing list isn't the brightest strategy. If you're not in the US you
should probably hope that the NSA (or whomever) is too busy to pass along
this to the requisite authorities. I would suggest strongly that for future
such public admission you should use a pseudonym or an anonymous remailer.

> 	Either way, my point is still that the black market is about more
> than just if the _product_ is illegal, it also relates to the trade.

It has to do with something being illegal or not acceptable otherwise you
could just open up a store and start trading the items directly. In the vast
majority of cases it involves the theft of services or property from the
valid rights holder.

> 	Yeah, like anyone really knows for sure.

Well that pretty much shoots a hole in your point as well if that is your
position. However, since the manufature of vehicles is accounted far to
at least the 10's place by auto manufacturers and the sale of legitimate cars
is traceable through tax and title I'd say that it is possible to make
educated guesses about the scale of the market.

> 	Because I know a lot of people who've bought drugs, and for the
> most part it was with money they earned or receieved thru legal means.

No, you know some people who have bought drugs, just as I do. However,
claiming that the small set you know of personaly qualifies as a lot is an
invalid hyperbole. There are millions of drug users in this country, and
in your entire life you've only met a few thousand at best.

> 	Your question is ignorant and irrelevant, but to answer it: Brokers.

Oh, you mean fences...

> 	I have something to sell, but I don't want to hassle with finding a
> buyer. Joe has a lot of connections, but no goods to sell, and you are a
> buyer. I let joe know I have product, he makes the deal, and I hire Omar to
> deliver it to you. Joe never even sees the merchandise, but is effectively
> the seller.

You have to have possession in order to pass possesion to Joe so that he can
sell it and pass you possession of the receipted funds (minus Joe's cut).
Whether that possession is measured in immediate physical control (ie in
your pants pocket) or more general (eg stored in a rent-room under an
assumed name) is irrelevant.

There is also the fact that if you don't produce the item(s) at some point
Joe is likely to take his frustration out on you because you tried to
take him and his money. The fact that you can produce them is clear evidence
that at some point they were in your possession.

How many middle-men is between there is irrelevant, since you are driving it
and paying the costs you are in possession.

> 	No, and for you to even say it in that manner is complete
> disingenious.

Your the one who said shoot them, what's the matter find your baby to ugly
to look at?

 You and I are having and "inter-personal dispute", and would
> never suggest that you be shot for disagreeing with me. Nor would I if,

Yeah, well unless you can convince everyone that anarcho-whatever will
also convince the Kennedy boys, OJ, et ali. then it's pretty irrelevant
since it will occur whether you or I are involved and the issue is that
it occurs, not that you or I are involved.

I suspect that the emotionaly challenged will continue to shoot each other
irrespective of the political system implimented. If you take guns away
they'll knife each other and if you take knives away they'll beat each other
to death.

Which raises an interesting point, more people are killed by physical
assault according to the FBI crime stats than guns each year.

> say, we had a car accident and were resolving that (unless you had done
> something like driving drunk and blatantly violating common sense rules of
> the road like running a stop sign or a red light, in which case you are a
> threat to me and others).

Ah, I see. So your position is that if somebody runs a stop light then that
is grounds to shoot them.



    ____________________________________________________________________
 
            Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
            the right answers.

                                        Scully (X-Files)

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------