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

[Petro <petro@playboy.com>]

At 12:50 PM -0500 11/11/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>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.

	So leaders should be able to do whatever they want within their own
borders w/out the possibility of being held responsible for what they do to
citizens of other countries who just happen to be visiting?

	What about rule by law?

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

	We've also eliminated the government that allowed pinochet to be
the kind of person he was.

>> 	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.

	That was not the point, the point was about black market goods.

>
>> 	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

	Sorry, was thinking prohibition and typing abolition.

>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.

	So then you admit you were lying about the deaths and blindness
being the cause of regulation, since you claimed it happend in the late
1800's & early  1900's, but the regualtion and taxing went all the way back
to the middle ages?

>> 	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

	It prevents businesses from using the Press to manipulate the
government into doing something about a problem that doesn't exist.

>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).

	That is already/still the case. You piss off the wrong people, you
die.

>> 	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.

	It INHERENTLY recognizes it, and inherently limits it.

	No one has the power.

	THAT'S THE POINT.

>> 	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.

	Some agendas can't be pushed thru business, or at least not the
same way.

>> 	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

	Damn you're fucking DENSE. I wasn't arguing that, I KNOW that, I
ACCEPT THAT, THAT WAS NEVER THE FUCKING ISSUE.

>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.

	If I got them legally, they were a legal commodity, if I dispose of
them legally, they move from the "white" market, to the "black" market.

	That was my entire fucking point.

>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 arguing these side points like you don't understand what I
am saying.

	The fact that not everything on the black market was stolen ISN'T
the point, the point is that there can be things on the black market that
aren't stolen, and aren't inherently illegal (tomatoes, vicadan, alcohol)
but are still part of the black market because of the nature of the market
and the legal system.

>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

	FUCKING BULLSHIT. YOu JUST brought introduced your thesis that even
if most stuff isn't actually stolen, then it is bought with money gained by
theft in your last post on this issue. Before that you were maintaining
that everything on the black market had to be stolen, and in fact this
whole side argument occured because you disagreed with me on the fact that
a black market is more defined in terms of the exchange being illegal
rather than the product.

	Tell us Jim, is it a black market if I but a new car, from a
registered dealer, with stolen money? Assuming neither he, nor anyone he
knows, nor anyone I know, excecpt for me, knows the money is stolen?

>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.

	And apparently live it every day.


>> 	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.

	They better be worried about a lot bigger things than that.

>> 	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.

	My contention all along has been that it isn't about the product,
it's about the trade, the market.

>> 	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

	No it doesn't. It is my contention that in the drug trade, most of
the people buying come by their money thru mechanisms other than theft.
This could be from holding down a Job (as many drug users do),  begging,
prostitution, or other sources than stealing. (there is some SSI diability
fraud there, and I am not denying that theft IS used, just that it's not
the primary method).

>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.

	Of the Auto Theft Market. Now find a way to prove what percentage
of that money goes to support the drug trade.

>> 	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,

	No, I know a LOT of people who have bought drugs. Not most of the
people who have bought drugs, but a LOT of people.

>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.

	Or at worst, but your point is valid.

	Then again, it applies equally to yourself, that there really is no
way of knowing.


>> 	Your question is ignorant and irrelevant, but to answer it: Brokers.
>Oh, you mean fences...

	No Jim, fences purchase a product for <x> (I am given to understand
that %5 <x < %20 of resale value) and resell it. Brokers arrange for
sale/purchacse.

	Think of a Real Estate Broker. They sell your house, but you keep
possesion of it until sold, and have final say on the purchase.

>> 	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.

	Yeah, the more I think thru this, joe would either be considered a
"seller", or a "trusted third party.

>> 	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?

	Produce the text where I said that it is always Ok to shoot someone
with whom you have a diagreement.

	Pull it out.

>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.

	Yeah, and the system protects assholes like OK and the entire Male
side of the kennedy clan (well, John got what was coming to him...)

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

	What is interesting about that? Just shows that your system doesn't
do shit to stop killings.

>> 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.

	If somebody shows that they have a lack of respect for other
peoples saftey, what do you suggest we do with them?

	Cars are implicated in more deaths every year than occured occured
during any 2 years of the Vietnam war, driving in disregard for the law and
for saftey is like waundering drunk around waving a loaded .357

	What would you suggest be done to someone waundering around drunk
off his ass and pointing a .357 at people?
--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather na�ve, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com