[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CIA & FBI, a marriage made in ___?
> 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
> 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.