Re: DRAFT version of Federal "Justice" Shutdown Project

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:57:33PM -0400, Marina Brown wrote:

On 03/22/2018 01:43 PM, jim bell wrote:

...

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 10:36:10 PM PDT, Marina Brown wrote:

...

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.

Most libertarians are opposed to collectivism. The idea that a neihborhood or country is privately owned by the members who then can keep anyone out or kick people out can become rather nightmarish form of collectivism.

Thank you for stating this. Humans have historically shown that they are generally unable to act individually, in support of their collective interest. The complexity of even comprehending an actual with no direct individual benefit, yet ultimately an individual benefit due to collective action/ group effects, seems beyond many - I'd say even beyond the majority. So for example the "deal" whereby our Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) "Citylink" road was already built and "paid for" by our current collective system of Australian government, was usurped by some money loving scoundrels in government and sold on the sly to Macquarie Bank, a shareholder/ investor collectivist group acting against the interests of the general community, who have been taxing use of this 'public road' ever since. “In 1996, Transurban was awarded the contract to augment two existing freeways” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CityLink The human citizens could simply not use that road, and bypass it, take public transport, and suffer longer trip times, to kick that banking conglomerate demon to the kerbside - a united front would fix the problem in about a month. -Especially- when Citylink first appeared, but still the case now - stop the money going to the parasite, reclaim our commons. But humans just accepted this disgraceful usurpation of the public commons, and paid, and keep paying, and do not act in their own collective interest. In our digital age we perhaps have a greater (in general) awareness of "the commons" and its value to us collectively, and that it is in our individual interests to foster this commons - both digitally and physically. (As most of us know, Disney has used government for its intended purpose and created statutes to extend their Mickey Mouse monopoly against the interests of the broader community, despite billion$ in profits for decades which profit was enabled due to statute copyright laws.) Anarchy/ libertarianism does not preclude a functioning and abundant commons, but it does not require it either - it may be that education, and will to act in support of concepts which are "ultimately in the interests of the individual, just not providing immediate gratification" is critical to a utopian anarchy, rather than a dystopian anarchy - unfortunately we don't have many anarchies or "libertarian states" to compare.

I tend to support voluntary associations except when they become repressive and totalitarian. Heck, even homeowner associations sometimes become repressive. ...which is why i live out in the sticks where you don't even need a permit to build things.