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."
> 

[Mr. Weber draws the distinction between regulation and interference.]

> 
> 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)

I agree with your assessment of the basic effect of incentives and 
regulation.  I would still hold by the position that such regulation and 
incentives are at times required.  Even the basic individual right to 
private property is really no more than an entitlement to the use of 
civil and criminal processes.  Where the line of "sporting" (a 
descriptive I particularly enjoy) lies beyond this point could, and has, 
filled volumes.

In my view, government responsibility is to provide criminal and civil
process to protect the freedom to contract and the freedom from tortious
or criminal conduct, and to correct (occasional) market failures by the
lease intrusive method available.  See Stewart & Krier.  In addition
there are basic infrastructure and defensive needs which government
should provide.  Some government is necessary, too much is lethal to the 
free will and functionality of the marketplace.
 
This is largely, however, off the topic.  What is important, and a point
on which I think we agree, is that the regulation of strong crypto, or in
your definition, the interference in the marketplace, is unacceptable,
unneeded and nothing more than a calculated attempt to maintain the
status quo of usurpation of individual rights in favor of federal power
and influence.  Even the national security externality falls when one
considers the uselessness of export regulation in the age of digital 
communication.

> 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.

Yes, key is the baseline at which you start.  What are citizens entitled
to without interference or regulation?

Your hand-out analogy is accurate provided it takes into account the size 
and scope of largess.  See below.

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

Consider, however, the size and scope of government largess today.

The New York City Taxi Medallion is worth several tens of thousands of
times its weight in gold.  Driver's licenses are revocable for reasons 
not remotely connected with driving or owning a car.  Professional 
licenses.  Your passport.

The spending power remains the most influential tool in the federal 
toolbox.

In the battle of wills between the state and the individual when
government largess are the stakes, the individual almost always loses.


> 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.

The prison setting is academic to the basic point, coercion is tricky to 
put a finger on.

> Blanc