[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

DRAFT version of Federal "Justice" Shutdown Project


    On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 10:36:10 PM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina at gmail.com> wrote:  
Hash: SHA256

On 03/22/2018 01:06 AM, jim bell wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 3:37:48 PM PDT, juan
> <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:30:32 +0000 (UTC) jim bell
> <jdb10987 at yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987 at yahoo.com>> wrote:> 
>>> I don't have to agree with this, in order to recognize reality.
>> Come on.
>> If you actually didn't agree with this you'd denounce it as a 
>> wholly criminal, anti-libertarian activity carried by the US 
>> government.
> So now, you are actually criticizing me for FAILING to engage in
> 'virtue signalling'!!!
> Virtue signalling

>I am not in support of borders and i support people's right to travel
without "Papers".

I notice that you don't distinguish between public (government) borders and private (private property) borders.  Why is that?I oppose government borders.  But I believe in the concept of private property, which amounts to the right to exclude others from that property.  We live on the surface (2 dimensional, more or less) of a sphere (Earth) and we desire to travel and have goods (and information) brought to us.  That will require that roads and other utilities be constructed and maintained, and that costs money.  The people who finance such construction will therefore have rights.
Think of your neighborhood:  In the post-governmental (as we know it) future, people will voluntarily enter into contracts to build and maintain roads and other connections (power, water, sewer).  This may limit those who don't enter into those contracts from using those roads.  Who knows what the owners/maintainers of those roads may agree to?  
Not wanting to think about such eventualities doesn't mean that they won't eventually occur.  

>I grieved when Gilmore's right to travel case was decided against him.

For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires people to show some sort of identification in order to travel.  But I believe I cannot prohibit it if a private (non-governmental) company such as an airline decides, for itself, that it will insist on identification in order to allow passengers to travel.  The risk to fellow passengers has become too great (hijacking, bombing, etc) to avoid this, sadly.   I COULD choose to take airlines that DIDN'T require people to identify themselves.  Presumably, such airlines will exist when that is allowed.

>I guess travelling through E Germany in 1973 made a pretty heavy
impression on me as a child.

>If you say i am "Virtue Signaling" that would be hillarious.

You will notice that I didn't say that.  
              Jim Bell

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 5320 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20180322/1e46602b/attachment.txt>