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

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

> 
> 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
> 
> 
>  
>