Re: CIA & FBI, a marriage made in ___?

[Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>]

From: Black Unicorn

Uni: "I tend to find these sorts of incentives acceptable provided the grant
of funds is not craftily calculated to make functioning competitively
impossible, which today they often are.  Clipper is a prime example.
It's not intended merely to incentivize makers to accept Clipper, but to
drive other systems out of the market.  To me this is offensive
regulation."

To me this offensive interferance intended to prevent other makers from 
creating the means which would prevent them from continuing to 
interfere.  Regulation sets as a constant the terms, the conditions, 
the degrees of what an entity within its jurisdiction  may do.  
Interferance describes an action which the government takes against a 
business which is not theirs to become involved with.  Neither of them 
is very sporting.

But anyway, providing incentives is also not a defensible business of 
government.  It is still an attempt to determine in substitution of the 
individual, what that individual shall find it agreeable to do.  See 
_Blanc Weber vs Black Unicorn_Constitution & Contract (4/30/94)

Uni:  "In the words of Judge Stone, "...threat of loss and not hope of gain is
the essence of economic coercion."  _United States v. Butler_, 297 U.S.
1 (1936).  Unfortunately this is often taken to mean that as long as you
frame the regulation as a conditional grant, it is constitutional. "

Do you mean that this means, "as long as you're looking for a hand-out 
it's okay"?
This would depend upon just how dependent the citizens are who would be 
involved or affected by the "threat" of that loss.

To the government threat of a withdrawal of its largess.......my 
attitude would say, go ahead  -   make my day!

As to what coercion is:   it is not what someone tries to influence you 
to do after you are already in the klinker, but that which persuaded 
you to allow them to put you into it in the first place.

Blanc