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 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
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
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
participants (2)
-
Black Unicorn -
Blanc Weber