DRAFT version of Federal "Justice" Shutdown Project
Below is a DRAFT BUSINESS PLAN Federal “Justice” ShutdownProgram By Jim Bell Vancouver WA USA Rev 2.0 March 18, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - COMPANY DESCRIPTION - PRODUCTS AND SERVICES - MARKETING PLAN - OPERATIONAL PLAN - MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION - STARTUP EXPENSES AND CAPITALIZATION - FINANCIAL PLAN - APPENDICES - REFINING THE PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is not an ordinary Business Plan,because this will be far from an ordinary “business”. There areno ordinary “customers”, nor “suppliers”, nor a “market”. Nevertheless, there is a powerful motivation for the public to seethis plan attempted, and succeed. OVERVIEW: The purpose of this “business” ispolitical and ideological: It is intended to stop the FederalJustice System from prosecuting and convicting the current figure ofabout 77,000 defendants per year, 75% of whom are being charged with'victimless crimes', such as drugs, money laundering, illegal gunpossession, illegal re-entry to America, and drop this number toaround 5,000 per year. Those 77,000 defendants are convictedwith only about 2,500 trials: This can occur only because defendantsare forced to accept plea agreements, by threat of much longersentences should they not cooperate. Once the number of Defendantsthat the Federal Government can prosecute is dropped to about 5,000per year, it will be forced to negotiate the end of prosecution ofvictimless crimes. Libertarians believe that 'victimlesscrimes' should not be prosecuted. A 'victimless crime' is one inwhich there isn't an obvious and identifiable 'victim', a personharmed by the crime. About 75% of the defendants yearly prosecutedin the Federal Criminal Justice System are prosecuted for 'victimlesscrimes': Primarily illegal drugs (“controlled substances”),money-laundering, illegal gun possession, and illegal re-entry. (Immigration offenses.) While some people would say that 'drugcrimes' have victims, the drug users themselves, this is in a specialcategory as the 'victims' are almost always willing: Theyvoluntarily buy, sell, trade, and use the various drugs involved. Further, to a very large extent, harm caused by illegal drugs isactually caused by their illegality, not their inherent chemicalcharacteristics. If every currently-illegal drug was made, instead,by respected and competent commercial pharmaceutical companies, thosedrugs would be very pure and of well-defined dosage. “Overdoses”as are currently known would be difficult or impossible to have. But in addition to those 75% ofdefendants charged for 'victimless crimes', there are many otherpeople of the remaining 25% who probably wouldn't be charged with anycrime if, for example, currently-illegal drugs were no longerillegal: Theft, robbery, or assault to finance anotherwise-expensive drug habit. If, for instance, a person has a$500/day cocaine addiction, that is a major problem. If the cost ofthat cocaine was only $5, because it is legal and not illegal, hemight still have the medical problems, but he no longer needs tocommit the crimes necessary to raise that $500/day. So, potentiallymuch more than 75% of the crimes currently prosecuted would no longerexist, or be prosecuted. If that 75% of victimless crimes wereno longer prosecuted, 75% of about 77,000, or about 57,750, theFederal system would conceivably be able to shift its attention tocrimes that actually do have victims. PROBLEMS SOLVED: The number of people currently inFederal prison is about 184,000. If over time, this were reduced toabout 14,000, that would be a reduction in 170,000 prisoners. (Forreference, the number of Federal prisoners in 1980 was approximately10,000). For the taxed public, this shouldresult in a reduction in prison expenses of currently(184,000-14,000) = 170,000 prisoners multiplied by $40,000 in costsper prisoner per year, or a savings of about $6.8 billion per year,all because the Federal prison population will gradually drop. Thiswill also result in the extreme reduction of expenses ofinvestigation, prosecution, and conviction of about 72,000 personsper year, in an amount approximately $10 billion per year. Totalsavings, therefore, will be about $16.8 billion per year. For the defendants' themselves, theelimination of 95% of the Federal criminal prosecutions done yearlysolves their problems, obviously. GOAL FOR THE BUSINESS: We anticipate that well within one (1)year, the number of people prosecuted and convicted per year willdrop to approximately 5,000, from the current 77,000 per year. Therefore, the Federal Government will be hard-pressed to try andconvict 1/15th of the current number of defendants. Prisons will have to close, because while many prisoners will reachtheir “must release” dates, there will be very few new prisonersreplacing them. At some point, and probably no morethan one year after the first mailing campaign starts, the FederalGovernment will have no choice but to enter into negotiation with theCompany: The Company will demand: - That there will be no more charging and convictions based on 'victimless crimes'. So, 75% of the existing prosecutions will disappear. - All then-current prisoners will be pardoned of any 'victimless crime', and the full credit for their time-served will applied to any 'victim-type crimes' which sentence(s) they may currently be serving. This can be anticipated to almost instantly reduce the number of the Federal prison population to around 10,000-15,000, which will result in the immediate and permanent closure of 90%+ of all existing Federal prisons. - Henceforth, all defendants must be given enforcible plea agreements, but if they refuse to accept them, on conviction these defendants may not be given a sentence greater than 10% or 6 months greater than the terms of the agreement. This will stop the current practice of extorting “guilty” pleas, by the threat of far longer sentences. PROPOSED TARGET MARKET This Business Plan does not have aconventional “market”. It has a target of interested people, ofabout 77,000 newly-charged defendants per year, but they don'tdirectly purchase a “product” or a “service”. If anything,they are requested to provide a service to the Company: Suchdefendants are offered a deal. If they refuse to plead “guilty”,and demand a jury trial, and if they eventually receive that trial,after that trial they will be given a payment, regardless of theoutcome of the case. Initially, and currently, I anticipate thatthe amount of that payment will be set at $3,000, but that valuemight be increased (or decreased) in the future. This Business, by necessity, has aninterested group of donors, people who want to see the political andsocial change which will be engendered by the operation of thisbusiness. These Donors want to see the Federal Government no longerable to charge, indict, try, and convict around 77,000 defendants peryear, and ideally would like to see that number reduced to a farsmaller value, perhaps 5,000 per year. These Donors may have many reasons tosupport the Company's operations. These reasons don't have to beconsistent, or even compatible. COMPETITION: Dueto the odd nature of this 'business', it does not have any direct'competition.' Nobody, to our knowledge, is currently offering thiskind of “product” or “service”. Moreover, if a similar suchorganization were to be formed, doing essentially the same thing,such an organization would not be seen as being in 'competition': Rather, it would more likely be seen as an ally, rather than acompetitor: The other organization might offer the same, or adifferent payment, perhaps with somewhat different terms, butdefendants would be able to receive both such offers simultaneously. These defendants would not have to “choose” between these tworeward systems: They would expect to receive both such rewardssimultaneously, and there would be nothing wrong with them doing so. MANAGEMENT TEAM: I, Jim Bell (James Dalton Bell) have ahistory of managing a small business, from 1982 through 1992. (“SemiDisk Systems, Inc”). FINANCIAL OUTLOOK FOR THE BUSINESS Ironically, one goal of this Businesscan be seen as to put itself out of business. The ongoing costs willbe readily calculated: The cost for the rewards is based on thenumber of jury trials that the Federal Government can be expected tobe able to put on. Currently, that number is about 2,500 per year,and I anticipate that it would be difficult for them to increase thisvalue to beyond 4,000 per year. Putting on a “trial” requires acourtroom, of course, but it also needs prosecutors, investigators,and witnesses must be coralled. The cost to the Busines for eachdefendant is based on the amount of the reward, which we currentlyestimate will be $3,000 per defendant. So, we currently estimatethe cost of the rewards to be about 4,000 trials per year, multipliedby $3,000 per defendants, or around $12 million/year. We currently see the overhead of thebusiness to be based on a salary per worker of initially $50,000 peryear, for about 6 workers, or $300,000 per year rate. However, oncethe publicity begins, the added risk to the workers justifies anincrease in salary to $100,000/year, also for about 6 workers. After the publicity starts, weanticipate paying the workers on a sliding scale, based on howsuccessful they happen to be as a group. The measurement of theirsuccess is based on the rate of new indictments: If the number ofnew defendants remains at 77,000 per year, this could be labelled as“no success yet”, and the salaries will remain at $100,000/year. We define “Full success” as areduction in newly indicted defendants to a rate of 10,000 per year,or about 830 per month. When that occurs, the salary of theemployees will be $200,000, but linearly set. Between these twopoints should be drawn straight-line scale. “Half-success” couldbe defined as a number of new indicts of ((77,000 + 10,000)/2), or43,500 per year, and would merit a salary midway between $100K and$200K, or $150,000/year. Further linear increases in salary asthe number of new indicted defendants dips below 10,000 per year willbe possible. Other overhead and computer serviceswould likely cost $10,000 per month. So, the total expected overhead,including accounting, legal, office expenses, and salaries, shouldcome to about $200K x 6, plus $10,000, or about $1.32 million peryear. Thus, the total costs including therewards will be about 4,000 trials per year multipled by $3,000 perdefendant, or $12 million, plus an overhead of $1.32 million peryear, or a grand total of $13.32 million per year. COMPANY DESCRIPTION - Mission Statement The purpose of the Company is to raisemoney from Donors, and offer an amount to all newly-charged Federalcriminal defendants, initially set to be $3,000, if the defendantrefuses to plead guilty, in fact pleads not guilty, and demands ajury trial, and receives said jury trial. Currently 77,000 peopleare charged in the Federal criminal system, per year, and nearly thatnumber are convicted, despite only putting on about 2,500 jury trialsper year. If the defendants could be convinced to all demand a jurytrial, we anticipate that the vast majority of those 77,000 peoplecould not be tried nor convicted, and would have to be freed. Ultimately, the number of new defendants charged would have to dropcommensurate with the number of trials which can be put on, whichmight be as much as 5,000. It is anticipated that the cost ofthis function will be calculatable, as a product of the amount of thereward per defendant, initially about $3,000, multiplied by thenumber of jury trials that the Federal Government will be able to puton per year. Currently that number of trials is 2,500, but weanticipate that number could increase to 3,500-5,000 per year. It is conceivable that a larger rewardwill be necessary than $3,000. The Business should be aware of thepossibility that the reward might have to be raised to $5,000. This could be described as a form ofreal-world “Denial of Service Attack”. The goal is to encouragedefendants to demand their civil rights to a jury trial, and thusoverload the Federal Criminal “Justice” System, to make it farharder to convict people of violation of Federal Criminal law,especially victimless crimes. Eventually, the Federal criminalsystem will be forced by negotiations to eliminate all prosecutionsof victimless crimes, and will have to shift its attention to crimeswith real victims. 2. Company philosophy and vision The philosophy is to be essentiallylibertarian, based on the non-initiation of force and fraud (NIOFP;NAP (non-initiation of agression principle.)) espoused bylibertarians. The purpose of the company is to make it difficult orimpossible for the controlling government to charge and convictpeople for violation of non-victim crimes. Such a charge andconviction is itself a violation of the NIOFP. 3. Company goals: The approximate number of Federalcriminal defendants convicted is about 77,000 per year. One majorgoal is to reduce that number to well under 10,000 per year, andideally to 5,000 per year. Over the long term, this should result ina number of incarcerated Federal prisons being lowered from thecurrent 184,000 to perhaps 14,000. This reduction in prisonpopulation could occur slowly, as people left prison at a rate muchhigher than those coming in. Alternatively, the Government could berequired to immediately pardon all those previously convicted, of anyvictimless crime, and credit all prior time served to any victim-typecrimes that they might be convicted of. Even after the company's operationstarts, “plea bargaining” will probably still exist, but on farbetter terms (to the defendants) than is currently practiced. Onereason is that unlike today, when perhaps 99% of the people chargedget convicted, the new environment will allow far fewer chargeddefendants to be convicted. 4. Target Market: Due to the very unusual nature of thisbusiness organization, it is difficult to assign terms like “market”,“customers”, “suppliers”, etc. There are, however, perhaps77,000 people per year (new Federal criminal defendants) who will beoffered the service/product of approximately $3,000, if they refuseto plead guilty to criminal charges, and who demand and ultimatelyreceive a jury trial. There are, also, potentially thousandsor even millions of people who want to see the Federal Government nolonger being able to charge and convict people for victimless crimes. Millions of citizens do not want to be taxed to pay for theincarceration of people who are only 'guilty' of victimless crimes. This group could also be seen as a “market”: The people who wantto see the current practic of charging and convicting people forvictimless crimes cease. If the number of people incarceratedby the Federal system drops from 184,000 to about 14,000, this shouldresult in a prison savings of about $6.8 billion per year. Billionsmore will be saved in the form of salaries of “Department ofJustice”, “FBI”, and other organizations., perhaps $10 billionmore. 5. Industry: It is difficult to say what the“Industry” is. It might be labelled as “criminal justice”,or “legal services”, or “legal defense”. 6. Legal Structure. This will be structured as a 501(c)(3)non-profit corporation. Donors can and will be anonymous, if theychoose to be. PRODUCTS AND SERVICES This Company will offer,fundamentally, one “product” or “service”: A payment to allnew Federal criminal defendants who refuse to plead guilty to acrime, and who demand a jury trial, and who receive that trial. Although, it could also be described that offering this service willultimately engender a political change that libertarians desire. THAT might be described as an additional or alternative “product”or “service”. The Problem that this “Product” or“Service” solves: To a libertarian, this Problem isobvious. Large numbers of people become Federal criminal defendants,currently 77,000 per year, and they are convicted at a rate of about76,000 per year, yet while only about 2,500 actual jury trials areput on. About 75% of these defendants are charged with victimlesscrimes, which arguably aren't really “crimes” at all: See 'MalumProhibitum', as opposed to 'Malum in Se'. To a libertarian, theinherent unfairness of arresting, charging, trying, convicting, andincarcerating a person “guilty” only of a victimless-crime isobvious. Further, it is very likely that theFederal system could direct its attention to many other victim-typecrime, if it didn't currently charge and convict based on victimlesscrimes. The excess cost to house theseconvicted prisoners is probably about $6.8 billion greater than itshould be, which ought to be concerning to all American taxpayers,even if they do not call themselves “libertarians”. Inaddition, the budget for the Department of Justice includes about $14billion, of which perhaps $10 billion is probably directed at theenforcement of victimless-crime laws. Thus, there could be a savingsof perhaps $6.8+$10 billion, or nearly $17 billion per year. If the cost of this project is about$12 million per year, calculated by $3,000 payment multiplied byperhaps 3,500 trials, plus an overhead of $1.5 million, then thesavings per dollar expended is: $17 billion divided by $12 million,or 1,417 dollars of savings for each $1 expended. Seen this way,this is highly economical. How to Price the Product or Service? This, of course, is not a conventional“product” nor “service”. The closest thing would be todeclare the payment, initially set to $3,000, to be the “price”,and the “service” is by the defendant, who agrees to demand ajury trial and goes on to receive it. This payment to thedefendants, $3,000, has been estimated somewhat arbitrarily, but notunrealistically. However, this figure can be changed in the future,albeit with some degree of warning to the defendants themselves. Ifit is discovered that this offer is insufficient to get asufficiently large number of people to agree to plead not guilty anddemand a trial, this number can be increased. A wealthy defendant won't beattracted by what to him seems a small payment. This value must belarge enough to attract the attention of a large fraction of thedefendants, but at the same time it must be affordable to theCompany. The government will likely be able to put on 3,500-5,000jury trials, so a payment of $3,000 will cost it a range of about$10.5-15 million, plus about 10% overhead. A payment as high as$5,000 per defendant will probably be more than sufficient to getnearly all of them to demand a jury trial. This payment is not intended to'reward' the defendant for committing a crime. Rather, it is tocompensate him for accepting an extra risk, the risk that he mightget a slightly higher sentence if he refuses to plead not-guilty. However, the extra risk isn't much: Based on current statistics, acharged Federal defendant probably has a 99% chance of beingconvicted. Realistically, therefore, these defendants realisticallyexpect to be convicted. They will soon be made aware that for manyand in fact most of them, their greatest chance at freedom is torefuse to accept any plea deal, demand a jury trial, and hope thatthey will be among the 95% which the government cannot convict, ifall of them demand a jury trial. The average Federal sentence could becalculated by the current prison population, 184,000 prisoners,divided by about 76,000 new convicts each year, or about 2.42 years.While some well-publicized defendants are wealthy, probably the vastmajority are not. We can calculate that a payment of $3,000,divided by 2.42 year sentence, amounts to a payment of: $1,240 peryear, or a bit more than $102 per month. This is an amount ofmoney they can spend at the Commissary, the prison grocery store. It is for this reason that we thinkthat an initial payment setting of $3,000 would be sufficent toinduce a very large percentage of current federal defendants to pleadnot-guilty and demand a jury trial. But there is no reason to offersubstantially more than is eventually found to be necessary to forcethe number of convictions to be around 5,000 or so. How will we market thisproduct/service? There will be two forms of “marketing”necessary: It will be necessary to identify and locate the Federaldefendants, who must be informed that if they refuse to plead guilty,and demand a jury trial, and receive that jury trial, they will begiven a payment, initially set to $3,000, after sentencing. The data identifying the names andaddresses of such defendants can be found on two government websites,the first called PACER.GOV, and the second BOP.GOV. The first,PACER, can be “scraped” (using a computer program to access awebsite which is normally accessed by a human) to reveal all newcriminal defendants' full names. The second, BOP.GOV, can besimilarly accessed to find the mailing addresses of these defendants. We have already found an organizationwhich can perform the first automated access; and the second isapparently much simpler. We have received an estimate that to obtainthe addresses of the first 40,000 names (the previous 6 months ofdefendants) will cost about $5,000, and subsequent months of datawill cost about $500 per month. Accessing the addresses, viaBOP.GOV, will presumably be much simpler and cheaper. Once the names and a addresses areavailable, they will need to be printed out onto mailing envelopes,each of which will be stuffed with as many as five (5) copies of aGreeting Letter, which will inform the recipient defendant of theproject and what they need to do to obtain the $3000 award. Theseletters will be stamped (or pre-printed) and mailed by an attorney: A mailing from an attorney to a prisoner must be opened in therecipient prisoner's presence, so it cannot be easily waylaid. The purpose of the multiple copies ofthe Greeting Letter in the envelope is to allow these Defendants, ifthey are housed together, to quickly and easily provide copies toother Defendants who we may not have identified and mailed to yet. How will we “market” the cost ofthis operation? It will be necessary to obtaindonations necessary to finance both the reward system, plus about a10% overhead. Initially, we propose contacting the local/stateLibertarian Party apparatus, perhaps in Oregon and Washington, andproposing this as an official or unofficial libertarian project. Ithas the prospect of being a highly pro-libertarian project, ideallyeliminating the arrest, charging, and conviction of people forvictimless crimes. Within the last few days, PresidentTrump actually speculated that the death penalty be given for drugcrimes, somewhat analogous to the treatment Philipine PresidentDuterte has been doing. This proposal should be consideredespecially outrageous. Even for people who might, nominally, have noproblem with the death penalty for certain crimes, the idea ofkilling people merely for selling drugs will likely enrage much ofthe population. Why should this be a Project of theLibertarian Party? Libertarian parties have been formedat least as early as 1972, and have promoted positions of individualfreedom. Such parties have run candidates in national, state, andlocal political races, but have only rarely have they been elected,at least not in “partisan” races. We feel that the blame can beattributed to something called “Duverger's Law”, see theWikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law Duverger's law explains that for“first past the post” plurality elections, third-parties tend tobe excluded. As stated in the Wikipedia article: “Withdiscovery attributed to Duverger, he observed the effect and recordedit in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the courseof further research, other political scientists began calling theeffect a "law" or principle. Duverger's law suggests anexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: aproportional representation (PR) system creates the electoralconditions necessary to foster party development while a pluralitysystem marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in whatis known as a two-party system. Inpolitical science, Duverger's law is a principle which asserts thatplurality rule elections structured within single-member districtstends to favor a two-party system. This is one of two hypothesesproposed by Duverger, the second stating that "the double ballotmajority system and proportional representation tend to multipartism” As applied to America, which has beenruled by the Democrat and Republican parties since 1860, thirdparties simply aren't welcome. Indeed, Duverger's Law is so powerfulthat it took the advent of the issue of slavery and the Civil War todestroy the previous “Whig” party and replace it with theRepublican party. It is unlikely that America's FoundingFathers were aware of the principle of Duverger's Law. Indeed, itis unlikely that they intended the involvement of “politicalparties”. But the way they designed the Federal structurevirtually mandated the formation and operation of those politicalparties. Applying Duverger's law, it can beargued that a challenger third-party can't really accomplish anythinguseful until it obtains support at least equal to that of thesecond-most-powerful political party. Put simply, it is unrealisticto believe that the Libertarian party can force any substantialconventional change until it has come close to defeating at least oneof the pre-existing political parties, either the Republican or theDemocrat. This Federal Justice Shutdown Projecthas been designed by a founder (Jim Bell), a lifetime libertarian whofirst realized he was a libertarian in about 1975. Bell recognizesthat in order for the Libertarian party, and libertarians themselves,to actually accomplish something, it will have to first do it byengaging in an activity that it need not receive “permission” todo, from as much as a 51% of the population to at least a plurality. It should be apparent that to “defeat”the Federal Government using this technique, it will only benecessary to raise a relatively minimal amount, perhaps between$12-16 million dollars per year. Is this a lot? Well, if we assumethat only 1% of the adult population claims to be libertarian, thisis about 2.5 million people. If the cost was spread over thispopulation, it would cost between $4.5-6.5 per libertarian/year toraise $12-16 million dollars. Other Donors? A list of high-worthindividuals. Charlie Shrem, Bitcoin billionaire? Victimized by the Federal Government in 2014. Kim Dotcom. (Yes, that's his name!) Current worth possibly $300 million, under threat of extradition fromNew Zealand, due to his Megaupload website. With only 4% of hisassets, he could fund this project for a year. Fans of Julian Assange and EdwardSnowden. These people are under the threat of prosecution. A donorwould help reduce the probability of such a prosecution by swampingthe system with Defendants who insist on jury trials. Users, operators, and owners of thecurrent version of Silk Road, the “dark markets” most famous forselling illegal drugs and other shady services. If they reserve 1%of $1 billion/year in gross revenue, or $10 million/year, this wouldfund the Federal Justice Shutdown Project for about 1 year. Atypical vendor or user of these kinds of services wants to ensurethat he cannot eventually be prosecuted. A very effective way to dothis is to overload the Federal prosecution system to make it verydifficult to prosecute these victimless crimes. Various billionaires: Bill Gates,Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk,the Winklevoss twins. George Soros. Charles Koch, David Koch. Carlos Slim Helu. Larry Ellison, Barnard Arnault, Amancio Ortega,Michael Bloomberg, Sergey Brin, Jim Walton, S. Robson Walton, AliceWalton All of these donations could be madeanonymous and untraceable, eliminating the possibility of politicalor social “feedback” against the donors. Keep in mind that these people,although they are probably of very different political philosophies,in no way have to agree with “us”, or each other, to donate tothis project. The only thing they will be interested in is if theywant to shut down the Federal Criminal “Justice” System. It isquite possible that many, and perhaps most of these potential donorsreally hate the current practices, but up until now they have notbeen aware of anything they could economically do to help shut itdown, or feared some sort of payback if they interfered “too much”. Promotional Budget The initial cost of making a US Mailmailing to about 40,000 defendants will be about $50,000. (estimatedas the number of defendants indicted over the previous 6 months.) Subsequent months' mailings will probably start out at the usual rateof 77,000/12 months, or about 5,500 per month, but as this operationtakes effect and the Feds get swamped, their ability to prosecutewill dramatically reduce, and they will probably reduce theirindictments to about 1,000 per month. This will cost about$1000/month, or less. This project will also create and makea mailing, probably by email, of Press Releases, to websites,magazines, newspapers, and other organizations that will publicizethis project. We anticipate that the one-time cost of this will be$5,000. Proposed Location of Business: This business is not expected to havea walk-in location, because it does not need this. We anticipatethat there will be about 6 employees, all of whom can work out oftheir own residences. [end of current draft of Business Plan]
On 03/20/2018 12:23 AM, jim bell wrote:
'victimless crimes', such as ... illegal re-entry to America
I agree with the other examples you cited, but I would not call illegal (re-)immigration a victimless crime in all circumstances. I agree our immigration laws are broken as currently written and enforced; however, dealing with illegal aliens takes resources away from the rest of us, especially given that they often do not pay the appropriate amount of taxes back into the system compared to someone here legally. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
-------- Original message --------From: "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> Date: 3/19/18 10:51 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: DRAFT version of Federal "Justice" Shutdown Project On 03/20/2018 12:23 AM, jim bell wrote:
'victimless crimes', such as ... illegal re-entry to America
I agree with the other examples you cited, but I would not call illegal (re-)immigration a victimless crime in all circumstances. I agree our immigration laws are broken as currently written and enforced; however, dealing with illegal aliens takes resources away from the rest of us, especially given that they often do not pay the appropriate amount of taxes back into the system compared to someone here legally. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com I'm not going to bother producing the reams of documentation that proves thst last contention wrong. I WILL say that when I drove taxi in a California ag town they spent A LOT of money on cabs, that got taxed, and spent in US society. The companies they work for pay taxes on their product output etc... If you're waiting for WHITE PEOPLE to pick your crops for you there will either have to be impressed labor. Involuntary labor by people who will shit on your crops for you, because there wont be any toilets in your non-union libertarian crop fields, or you simply starve, become a scavenger, and get your head blown off by a farmer or store owner protecting his fields or stock from all the desperate paper shufflers and app developers stealing food. Further, there IS NO "flood of illegal immigrants' into the US. They've been leaving in droves for years thanks. They figured out this country is a shithole, and left. Enjoy your new alnusra neighbor the pentagon 'rescued'. The Iraqi who interpreted the tortured screams of his fellow citizens for the CIA. THAT'S the kind of immigrants Merica wants! FuckYeah! Rr
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:51:15 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2018 12:23 AM, jim bell wrote:
'victimless crimes', such as ... illegal re-entry to America
I agree with the other examples you cited, but I would not call illegal (re-)immigration a victimless crime in all circumstances. I agree our immigration laws are broken as currently written and enforced; however, dealing with illegal aliens takes resources away from the rest of us,
assuming that was true, who is taking those resources? Oh wait, it's your fucking nazi government by means of taxation, also known as theft. So the criminal is your nazi government(as always) and the victims are the taxpayers. There, you got a free crash course on basic political philosophy for free! You're welcome.
especially given that they often do not pay the appropriate amount of taxes back into the system compared to someone here legally.
didn't your mommy teach you not to lie?
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 00:51:15 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2018 12:23 AM, jim bell wrote:
'victimless crimes', such as ... illegal re-entry to America
I agree with the other examples you cited, but I would not call illegal (re-)immigration a victimless crime in all circumstances. I agree our immigration laws are broken as currently written and enforced; however, dealing with illegal aliens takes resources away from the rest of us, especially given that they often do not pay the appropriate amount of taxes back into the system compared to someone here legally.
also, assuming for argument's sake that your nazi-commie system based on taxation and providing compulsory 'free' 'services' had any legitimacy at all (which of course it doesn't) then you great Master of Philosophy Quinn, would have to ansswer this question : what happens to 'legal' americunts who get more from the state than they pay in taxes? You know, from goldman sachs scum to all government employees, or anybody who gets 'food stamps'? OOPS - turns out that you'd need to deport something like half the US population, including all its ruling class? here's some advice for you quinn : think before typing and hitting "send".
On Monday, March 19, 2018, 10:51:37 PM PDT, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote: On 03/20/2018 12:23 AM, jim bell wrote:
'victimless crimes', such as ... illegal re-entry to America
I agree with the other examples you cited, but I would not call illegal (re-)immigration a victimless crime in all circumstances. I agree our immigration laws are broken as currently written and enforced; however, dealing with illegal aliens takes resources away from the rest of us, especially given that they often do not pay the appropriate amount of taxes back into the system compared to someone here legally.
I agree that there are not always sharp demarcation lines between victimless-crimes and crimes with a victim. Further, there are crimes with a few clear victims (murder, assault, robbery) and crimes where the victimization is diffuse (counterfeiting, which arguably victimizes anybody using a currency). When I suggest that illegal re-entry is a 'victimless crime', that does not mean that there are not other crimes which illegal re-entry employs (such as people-smuggling) and further, crimes that it enables: Any crime subsequently committed by a person who is illegally present in America. Kate Steinle's case in San Francisco is an excellent example of this. These crimes are ENABLED because the illegal alien is in America. If he is out of America, he might still commit crimes, but they would be crimes that some other government would have to deal with. Also, keep in mind that the U.S. government doesn't need to actually convict these people of some crime, in order to expel them. Put simply, if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals in America, rather that what I suspect to be, 20 million. (the figures bandied commonly about, 11-12 million are nonsense.) So, if ICE actually did its job, much of the crime associated with illegal aliens simply wouldn't occur. In that case, it wouldn't matter whether we call illegal re-entry "victimless" or "with a victim". Generally, it wouldn't occur, or at least not nearly as much as today. According to this statistic, 31% of all people currently in Federal prison are known or suspected illegal aliens. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/58-766-in-federal-jails-are-known-or-susp... Is this merely an accident? This chart shows the number of Federal prisoners since 1980: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/population_statistics.jsp#old_pops When I was released, in 2012, the number of prisoners in Federal prison had, I believe, hit a high-water mark of about 219,000 or so. Keeping 31% of illegal aliens means that the BOP can employ that many more prison staff, etc. Jim Bell ×
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:41:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018, 10:51:37 PM PDT, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2018 12:23 AM, jim bell wrote:
'victimless crimes', such as ... illegal re-entry to America
I agree with the other examples you cited, but I would not call illegal (re-)immigration a victimless crime in all circumstances. I agree our immigration laws are broken as currently written and enforced; however, dealing with illegal aliens takes resources away from the rest of us, especially given that they often do not pay the appropriate amount of taxes back into the system compared to someone here legally.
I agree that there are not always sharp demarcation lines between victimless-crimes and crimes with a victim. Further, there are crimes with a few clear victims (murder, assault, robbery) and crimes where the victimization is diffuse (counterfeiting, which arguably victimizes anybody using a currency).
the distinction is pretty sharp. Either there's a victim or not. In the case of theft, murder and counterfeiting all have victims. Counterfeiting is just a more sophisticated version of theft. crossing the imaginy boudaries of the americunt nazi state or any other state is not a crime by any sane, let alone by any libertarian standard.
When I suggest that illegal re-entry is a 'victimless crime', that does not mean that there are not other crimes which illegal re-entry employs (such as people-smuggling) and further, crimes that it enables: Any crime subsequently committed by a person who is illegally present in America.
there is no such thing as being 'illegaly present in america'. this is the A of the ABC of libertarian philosophy.
Kate Steinle's case in San Francisco is an excellent example of this. These crimes are ENABLED because the illegal alien is in America.
no such thing as an 'illegal' alien
If he is out of America, he might still commit crimes, but they would be crimes that some other government would have to deal with.
Also, keep in mind that the U.S. government doesn't need to actually convict these people of some crime, in order to expel them.
the the fucking, nazi, americunt government has no right to 'expel' anyone. I think you know that?
Put simply, if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals
what are you talking about? Didn't you say you are a 'libertarian' and an 'anarchist'? Has Jim Bell's mail account been hacked?
in America, rather that what I suspect to be, 20 million. (the figures bandied commonly about, 11-12 million are nonsense.)
So, if ICE actually did its job,
.... Jum Bell might want to create a new email account because this one can't belong to him.
much of the crime associated with illegal aliens simply wouldn't occur.
What. Crime. No point in dealing with the rest of your fascist, 1000% anti libertarian vomit.
In that case, it wouldn't matter whether we call illegal re-entry "victimless" or "with a victim". Generally, it wouldn't occur, or at least not nearly as much as today.
According to this statistic, 31% of all people currently in Federal prison are known or suspected illegal aliens.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/58-766-in-federal-jails-are-known-or-susp...
Is this merely an accident? This chart shows the number of Federal prisoners since 1980:
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/population_statistics.jsp#old_pops
When I was released, in 2012, the number of prisoners in Federal prison had, I believe, hit a high-water mark of about 219,000 or so. Keeping 31% of illegal aliens means that the BOP can employ that many more prison staff, etc. Jim Bell
×
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 06:08:48PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:41:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018, 10:51:37 PM PDT, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2018 12:23 AM, jim bell wrote:
'victimless crimes', such as ... illegal re-entry to America
I agree with the other examples you cited, but I would not call illegal (re-)immigration a victimless crime in all circumstances. I agree our immigration laws are broken as currently written and enforced; however, dealing with illegal aliens takes resources away from the rest of us, especially given that they often do not pay the appropriate amount of taxes back into the system compared to someone here legally.
I agree that there are not always sharp demarcation lines between victimless-crimes and crimes with a victim. Further, there are crimes with a few clear victims (murder, assault, robbery) and crimes where the victimization is diffuse (counterfeiting, which arguably victimizes anybody using a currency).
the distinction is pretty sharp. Either there's a victim or not.
Thank you.
In the case of theft, murder and counterfeiting all have victims. Counterfeiting is just a more sophisticated version of theft.
conterfeiting, aka fiat banking
crossing the imaginy boudaries of the americunt nazi state or any other state is not a crime by any sane, let alone by any libertarian standard.
The context of this that "right wingers" tend to miss is the other pieces of the anarchist puzzle - actual libertarian rights to self defence, association and contract, and the presumed outcomes these fundaments of anarchism would generate. In a world of chaotic descent, is "more government" the solution? Well for many it's the only solution they know, and there's few examples of "true" libertarian/ anarchist societies we can point at.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:41:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, March 19, 2018, 10:51:37 PM PDT, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 03/20/2018 12:23 AM, jim bell wrote:
'victimless crimes', such as ... illegal re-entry to America
I agree with the other examples you cited, but I would not call illegal (re-)immigration a victimless crime in all circumstances. I agree our immigration laws are broken as currently written and enforced; however, dealing with illegal aliens takes resources away from the rest of us, especially given that they often do not pay the appropriate amount of taxes back into the system compared to someone here legally.
I agree that there are not always sharp demarcation lines between victimless-crimes and crimes with a victim. Further, there are crimes with a few clear victims (murder, assault, robbery) and crimes where the victimization is diffuse (counterfeiting, which arguably victimizes anybody using a currency).
the distinction is pretty sharp. Either there's a victim or not. In the case of theft, murder and counterfeiting all have victims. Counterfeiting is just a more sophisticated version of theft. crossing the imaginy boudaries of the americunt nazi state or any other state is not a crime by any sane, let alone by any libertarian standard.
When I suggest that illegal re-entry is a 'victimless crime', that does not mean that there are not other crimes which illegal re-entry employs (such as people-smuggling) and further, crimes that it enables: Any crime subsequently committed by a person who is illegally present in America.
there is no such thing as being 'illegaly present in america'. this is the A of the ABC of libertarian philosophy.
Kate Steinle's case in San Francisco is an excellent example of this. These crimes are ENABLED because the illegal alien is in America.
no such thing as an 'illegal' alien
If he is out of America, he might still commit crimes, but they would be crimes that some other government would have to deal with.
Also, keep in mind that the U.S. government doesn't need to actually convict these people of some crime, in order to expel them.
the the fucking, nazi, americunt government has no right to 'expel' anyone. I think you know that?
Put simply, if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals
what are you talking about? Didn't you say you are a 'libertarian' and an 'anarchist'? Has Jim Bell's mail account been hacked?
in America, rather that what I suspect to be, 20 million. (the figures bandied commonly about, 11-12 million are nonsense.)
So, if ICE actually did its job,
.... Jim Bell might want to create a new email account because this one can't belong to him.
much of the crime associated with illegal aliens simply wouldn't occur.
What. Crime. No point in dealing with the rest of your fascist, 1000% anti libertarian vomit.
In that case, it wouldn't matter whether we call illegal re-entry "victimless" or "with a victim". Generally, it wouldn't occur, or at least not nearly as much as today.
According to this statistic, 31% of all people currently in Federal prison are known or suspected illegal aliens.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/58-766-in-federal-jails-are-known-or-susp...
Is this merely an accident? This chart shows the number of Federal prisoners since 1980:
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/population_statistics.jsp#old_pops
When I was released, in 2012, the number of prisoners in Federal prison had, I believe, hit a high-water mark of about 219,000 or so. Keeping 31% of illegal aliens means that the BOP can employ that many more prison staff, etc. Jim Bell
×
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 2:11:22 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:41:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
When I suggest that illegal re-entry is a 'victimless crime', that does not mean that there are not other crimes which illegal re-entry employs (such as people-smuggling) and further, crimes that it enables: Any crime subsequently committed by a person who is illegally present in America.
there is no such thing as being 'illegaly present in america'.
See this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 I don't have to agree with a law to recognize that others believe it exists.
this is the A of the ABC of libertarian philosophy.
Upon elimination of government, there should be no governmental boundaries. But that doesn't mean the elimination of PRIVATE boundaries, property lines. Sadly, some (recent) libertarians don't realize this.
Put simply, if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals
what are you talking about? Didn't you say you are a > 'libertarian' and an 'anarchist'? Has Jim Bell's mail account been hacked?
I don't have to agree with this, in order to recognize reality. It's quite true: IF the United States government had, in fact, been enforcing the law that it claims exists, no large quantity of people not legally authorized to be in America would exist.
in America, rather that what I suspect to be, 20 million. (the figures bandied commonly about, 11-12 million are nonsense.)
So, if ICE actually did its job,
> .... Jim Bell might want to create a new email account because > this one can't belong to him. I'm referring to the job ICE claims to have: To enforce immigration law. I did not express approval of that law, merely its existence.
much of the crime associated with illegal aliens simply wouldn't occur.
> What. Crime. Are you arguing that crime doesn't exist?Are you arguing that laws shouldn't exist?Are you arguing that people who are said to be illegally in America don't commit crimes? What?
No point in dealing with the rest of your fascist, 1000% anti > libertarian vomit.
Your reputation precedes you. I'm trying to actually solve the problem. You are just complaining.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:30:32 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 2:11:22 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:41:20 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
When I suggest that illegal re-entry is a 'victimless crime', that does not mean that there are not other crimes which illegal re-entry employs (such as people-smuggling) and further, crimes that it enables: Any crime subsequently committed by a person who is illegally present in America.
there is no such thing as being 'illegaly present in america'.
you think I am not aware of the criminal nonsense that the criminals known as 'government' say? the non-crime of crossing a state border is a crime only according to the utmost criminal scum known as 'government' and 'the state'. I know that. And you should know that. So what's the point of bringing it up? According to the govt 'illegal' drugs are 'illegal'. So they are 'illegal' then, according to the government. Is that news? a=a ? Is that anything else apoart from circular lawyer nonsense?
I don't have to agree with a law to recognize that others believe it exists.
this is the A of the ABC of libertarian philosophy.
Upon elimination of government, there should be no governmental boundaries. But that doesn't mean the elimination of PRIVATE boundaries, property lines.
That has nothing to do with anything you said in your previous message. And I've already dealt with the private 'anarchist' state nonsense in the past anyway. Hopefully you remember how I countered all that right wing nonsense in a few messages TO YOU.
Sadly, some (recent) libertarians don't realize this.
.....
Put simply, if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals
what are you talking about? Didn't you say you are a > 'libertarian' and an 'anarchist'? Has Jim Bell's mail account been hacked?
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. But that's not what you did : what you did is 1) invoke americunt law in a 'neutral' (haha) way. 2) handwave some nonsense about 'private' statism and 'private' boundaries. 3) mention that 'illegal aliens' commit other crimes. Really? AND SO DO G'D APPROVED AND CERTIFIED LEGAL SERFS, I mean subjects, I mean 'legal citizens'. So what's your point? OH YES, SMEARING 'ILLEGAL ALIENS'. And pandering to fucking right wingers. To be fair, I first thought you correctly categorized any 'immigration crime' as a non-crime. Too bad you 'clarified' your position....
It's quite true: IF the United States government had, in fact, been enforcing the law that it claims exists, no large quantity of people not legally authorized to be in America would exist.
If the US government executed all user of 'illegal' drugs there would be no users of 'illegal' drugs left. What's next? I can come up with a few more valid analogies to your anti-libertarin immigration nonsense. Hopefully you get the point.
in America, rather that what I suspect to be, 20 million. (the figures bandied commonly about, 11-12 million are nonsense.)
So, if ICE actually did its job,
> .... Jim Bell might want to create a new email account because > this one can't belong to him.
I'm referring to the job ICE claims to have: To enforce immigration law. I did not express approval of that law, merely its existence.
Really. And what is your point by 'expressing the existence' of one of the many vastly criminal activities of the US government? You think people in an allegedly ANARCHIST mailing list are not aware of them?
much of the crime associated with illegal aliens simply wouldn't occur.
> What. Crime.
Are you arguing that crime doesn't exist
Don't take me for an idiot Jim.
?Are you arguing that laws shouldn't exist?Are you arguing that people who are said to be illegally in America don't commit crimes? What?
Are you going to deport all the scum from wall street? Do you understand that the biggest criminals ON THE PLANET are wall street CEOs? Just look at how much they STEAL. Are you going to apply your 'principles' in a consistent way? Deport people who allegedly commit crimes? No? You are not asking to deport the owners of goldman sachs and raytheon?
No point in dealing with the rest of your fascist, 1000% anti > libertarian vomit.
Your reputation precedes you.
What do you think happens to your 'reputation' as 'anarchist' when people read your nonsense about state borders? Granted, vast majority of people are either outright fascists or fake libertarians. But if real libertarians read your 'newutral description' of 'ICE's job' rest assured your reputation would take the hit it deserves.
I'm trying to actually solve the problem. You are just complaining.
meh, so presenting the libertarian position on borders amounts to 'complaining' - OK.
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 3:37:48 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:30:32 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
Put simply, if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals
what are you talking about? Didn't you say you are a > 'libertarian' and an 'anarchist'? Has Jim Bell's mail account been hacked?
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'!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:30:32 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com>> wrote:
Put simply, if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals
what are you talking about? Didn't you say you are a 'libertarian' and an 'anarchist'? Has Jim Bell's mail account been hacked?
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'!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
Jim Bell
I am not in support of borders and i support people's right to travel without "Papers". I grieved when Gilmore's right to travel case was decided against him. 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. To leave you with a fav quote: The Operative: Do you know what your sin is, Mal? Mal: Oh hell, I’m a fan of all seven. But right now, I’m gonna have to go with wrath. Serenity -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBCAAGBQJas0B0AAoJEPn/Y5FXPbRCWqkL/RMdr54fTG20Fm4tv61ELX+A TaJ/6UVNMgOlg8x6/550p6pMV4vDx7rKyrqyXRfpUjK5fxg/8Rv2K3HiV9l06/+N W3ZPw8JiOYCFFfGeuBpMDyG1ciJj7JBhMzRo8+i5ZDeuOL3vJixgV+WXOihjExEf ARlkPpPged/hE7r2QWDuX8JHnOee8ts3KOqxgeh7kRGfNsvBHughONMANwnTJI18 6QimuGvWHvisACpdZai9VqUXC9EKUkLI/w7RePBMv5YAaIpT3fvOLrVK03fT+Fog 5cqcUMT7LCI6OGvUEjm0b+S2UJXifcr2DOUBEKe5wSoxqFtRMaZwM33VYl/5zWW7 UbHJE+BHQCOOTr4+Z64AIKprv86HDausTXI7OrteyrUr5bGiTpC/LosN2GmVyj+o M4fO3kvm900Gpp58MUwZX5fWlSWNKYoAvkceNtQrZVNky2IPLqqlv6KLEtO9/WTE r0UOJo/FNmU4LBTsEfXsu+pZowaXL0dcMYphBKFiZg== =wmP8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 10:36:10 PM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:30:32 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987@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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 03/22/2018 01:43 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 10:36:10 PM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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@gmail.com <mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:30:32 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com> <mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987@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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
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. 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. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBCAAGBQJas+6NAAoJEPn/Y5FXPbRCpZcL/i/WLHtcnpjKSogvjfc1KFij dRpUwHYhB2yidnIKYmtZhU3PzpSH1A+T7RLpcjJV+QfRcEazAjFJ6yC4MsZHiybM dwsO9DMsWsR0Ny3SfSJ6sGKcNzJKUkXdY40HFg4ibiWmsG1LaY+lV6WF0G90g1gD aSFShG36SGok1v9FERupR4yYby6DXxHKvPc/BUltuniHCZog4oQCv3kb3XHSyAdr cSfbjOqEMilQmHOIM2qTI4emyNe+p2wPsYKNO5zSRRP9VuPxsN5ZUPM8xz9mTJhN 57/VwRyRM3uuv9ltnMdAOVHkrJmixMfNRtGNRF4UcBpbZq9WDng7yDERDEkealKy /1Wtp/ltD0aFekAnFxxK6jYnUYmi2sg66eo77HWSXe+8J7MRbvcxC0JgImO5lPZC FIf5g9FfFh6nnBCLxKUmcwCF+6gcgfT8gYrt6rKwwUkRVnqjXUcgeojmde5BNHl2 aAbKPp0wAVGwuSjRYo3b2/clpuMMKzy+MXnD8lyyOg== =53Ny -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 10:57:35 AM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
[stuff deleted]
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
[stuff deleted] form of collectivism. Maybe you need to think things through. We are, indeed, stuck on a 2-dimensional surface. Currently, it is as if all roads are owned by some kind of government, a major example of collectivism. Generally, libertarians tend to support organization (where it exists) at the lowest practical level, as opposed to higher levels. Is there some reason that you think it's better that a city government over, say, 250,000 people to have control, rather than a neighborhood agreement by the owners of, say, 250 houses? Or of 25 houses?
I tend to support voluntary associations except when they become repressive and totalitarian.
A person's control over his own property and assets might be (humorously) described as "repressive and totalitarian". Remember the comic movie, "History of the World Part 1" by Mel Brooks: "It's good to be the King!".As I see it, the alternative to private property is collective ownership, which quickly turns into Socialist and Communist control and oppression. (And I consider Naziism to merely be another version of Socialism, see the Wikipedia article on Benito Mussolini. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini ×
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.
Perfectly good reason. But maybe a better solution would be to ensure that "homowner associations" have no more power than they need, to do whatever they were originally intended to accomplish. . Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 03/22/2018 03:52 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 10:57:35 AM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
[stuff deleted]
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.
[stuff deleted]
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.
Maybe you need to think things through. We are, indeed, stuck on a 2-dimensional surface. Currently, it is as if all roads are owned by some kind of government, a major example of collectivism. Generally, libertarians tend to support organization (where it exists) at the lowest practical level, as opposed to higher levels. Is there some reason that you think it's better that a city government over, say, 250,000 people to have control, rather than a neighborhood agreement by the owners of, say, 250 houses? Or of 25 houses?
I tend to support voluntary associations except when they become repressive and totalitarian.
A person's control over his own property and assets might be (humorously) described as "repressive and totalitarian". Remember the comic movie, "History of the World Part 1" by Mel Brooks: "It's good to be the King!". As I see it, the alternative to private property is collective ownership, which quickly turns into Socialist and Communist control and oppression. (And I consider Naziism to merely be another version of Socialism, see the Wikipedia article on Benito Mussolini. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini × //
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.
Perfectly good reason. But maybe a better solution would be to ensure that "homowner associations" have no more power than they need, to do whatever they were originally intended to accomplish. .
That's kind of the key that both left libertarians and regular libertarians are looking to do. There are not set solutions. When a solution leads to a totalitarian situation that is a sign that it is wrong.
Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBCAAGBQJatDK3AAoJEPn/Y5FXPbRC9yAL/3cps7QqaNR1UIQOjPILT2cU GPwmS7P5ZvMVVuIxDo3x5Wgga19/GEJMXx3zkUT941w7bdM0gvjKwQqn5j31Vg0F ZCN1kjXwlhmI9OqgXih74s7Uk3Xoh2TvXCqxlK7CHZkO3m13guP7P+rk9EHY++19 PydqS31KB2FKz3RBsFoytkJ2SnVtuJKBNjtZmZ6pCX2K+xfapY8PVKsqRfPees8C tMpdp+6ebk3yB1Bd9AhUhm3Eo73/A7UhtCj5Chh1Vz4x8JlShnugsQtg/iJbjZxL gf/79bhXJs7ZyTEJrP62GTTWJCuM4/sepL5bHbqRnFOyscjvqXwv1n8k0VNIRJCq +GjS1ivJbiu7Gy2hEIMVePNv35zDr7HG8BSsWOCj0l8YAMXALP1sDCL19eAy1uL4 kBtyJ5AMmf9HVVnvuVCu6NqTtYE3UMvFetGZ2tKSIrEPoz/IYH0gX0pyTNH3UQcf EK/csugelH70DTnBcAPZz5XaMsKdfVaCfudJRRiyCg== =0qVE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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 <catskillmarina@gmail.com> 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.
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:43:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
Come on Jim. I already refuted your right wing, fake libertarian garbage. And it's quite funny how an engineer isn't aware of the fact that there is AIR TRAVEL and SEA TRAVEL and that right-wing fake 'anarchists' haven't claimed to own the SEA and the SkY, at least YET. So, please stop defending STATE BORDERS like you did and stop wholly misrepresenting libertarian philosphy.
For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires people to show some sort of identification in order to travel.
Do you really? But that's what happens when ICE DOES ITS JOB eh?
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.
lawl - didn't your mommny teach you not to lie? You actually don't object to the police state as long as you can pretend it's 'private'.
The risk to fellow passengers has become too great (hijacking, bombing, etc)
ha ha ha - you are worse than pathetic. Jim Bell, posting pentagon propaganda about 'terrists' in the cpunks mailing list. Congrats!
On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 12:30:10 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:43:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
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
Come on Jim. I already refuted your right wing, fake libertarian garbage.
Utter and complete nonsense.
And it's quite funny how an engineer isn't aware of the fact that there is AIR TRAVEL and SEA TRAVEL and that right-wing fake 'anarchists' haven't claimed to own the SEA and the SkY, at least YET.
I was not including air travel and sea travel because I didn't consider it relevant to the current discussion. > So, please stop defending STATE BORDERS like you did and stop wholly misrepresenting libertarian philosphy. I think I already said that I opposed government borders.
For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires people to show some sort of identification in order to travel.
Do you really? But that's what happens when ICE DOES ITS JOB eh?
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.
> lawl - didn't your mommny teach you not to lie? You actually > don't object to the police state as long as you can pretend > it's 'private'. If you don't believe in the concept of "private property" say so. But don't pretend that everybody has the same opinion as you. I am aware, of course, that SOME anarchists oppose the idea of private property. See http://www.infoshop.org/an-anarchist-faq-b-3-why-are-anarchists-against-priv... I consider that essay foolish, because it pretends that there is a valid distinction between two forms of property: "B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and possession? Anarchists define “private property” (or just “property,” for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. “Possession,” on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used."====================You will also notice that in that essay, the author grandly used terms like "anarchists believe" and "anarchists define". One of the most foolish forms of debate is that in which a party effectively tries to define his position to be true, or his opponent's position to be false, or make grandly sweeping statements that over-state or mis-state reality. Pretending that no possible anarchist can believe in private property (including by conveniently defining it away) is nonsense. I consider there to be a major problem with that stance: What is the alternative? If there is essentially no private property, then the most obvious alternative is collective ownership. But that implies the need for a big, controlling, and ultimately abusive government. But really, that's not surprising: The label "anarchist" is more than occasionally used by people, describing themselves, who really want to set up a big, abusive, controlling government. They just find the term "anarchist" and "anarchism" to be stylish. Jim Bell
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 20:41:57 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So, please stop defending STATE BORDERS like you did and stop wholly misrepresenting libertarian philosphy.
I think I already said that I opposed government borders.
That statement is at odds with previous comments you made (ICE, smearing of immigrants) so I have the 'right' to remain unconvinced.
And it's quite funny how an engineer isn't aware of the fact that there is AIR TRAVEL and SEA TRAVEL and that right-wing fake 'anarchists' haven't claimed to own the SEA and the SkY, at least YET.
I was not including air travel and sea travel because I didn't consider it relevant to the current discussion.
It just so happens that the topic of the discussion is FREEDOM. Freedom of movement to be more precise. So air and sea travel (and river-travel! and lake-travel!) are completely relevant. And they are counter examples to your fallacious position. And that's why you ignored them. .
If you don't believe in the concept of "private property" say so. But don't pretend that everybody has the same opinion as you.
I am a natural rights anarchist. That means I fully understand the logical consequneces of a political system based on rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and property. See? Libertarianism is based on a hierarchy of 3 fundamental rights. Property comes at the end.
I am aware, of course, that SOME anarchists oppose the idea of private property.
That is not my case. See above.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 03/22/2018 04:41 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 12:30:10 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:43:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com>> wrote:
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
Come on Jim. I already refuted your right wing, fake libertarian garbage.
Utter and complete nonsense.
And it's quite funny how an engineer isn't aware of the fact that there is AIR TRAVEL and SEA TRAVEL and that right-wing fake 'anarchists' haven't claimed to own the SEA and the SkY, at least YET.
I was not including air travel and sea travel because I didn't consider it relevant to the current discussion.
So, please stop defending STATE BORDERS like you did and stop wholly misrepresenting libertarian philosphy.
I think I already said that I opposed government borders.
For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires people to show some sort of identification in order to travel.
Do you really? But that's what happens when ICE DOES ITS JOB eh?
For someone who supports freedom of travel and who opposes the requirement of papers - what legitimate "job" does ICE do ? Honestly, TSA and ICE just look like jobs programs to me. Jobs programs to satisfy authoritarians. - --- Marina
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.
lawl - didn't your mommny teach you not to lie? You actually don't object to the police state as long as you can pretend it's 'private'.
If you don't believe in the concept of "private property" say so. But don't pretend that everybody has the same opinion as you.
I am aware, of course, that SOME anarchists oppose the idea of private property. See http://www.infoshop.org/an-anarchist-faq-b-3-why-are-anarchists-agains
t-private-property/
I consider that essay foolish, because it pretends that there is a valid distinction between two forms of property:
"B.3.1 What is the difference between private property and possession?
Anarchists define /“private property”/ (or just /“property,”/ for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and exploit others. /“Possession,”/ on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used." ==================== You will also notice that in that essay, the author grandly used terms like "anarchists believe" and "anarchists define". One of the most foolish forms of debate is that in which a party effectively tries to define his position to be true, or his opponent's position to be false, or make grandly sweeping statements that over-state or mis-state reality. Pretending that no possible anarchist can believe in private property (including by conveniently defining it away) is nonsense. I consider there to be a major problem with that stance: What is the alternative? If there is essentially no private property, then the most obvious alternative is collective ownership. But that implies the need for a big, controlling, and ultimately abusive government. But really, that's not surprising: The label "anarchist" is more than occasionally used by people, describing themselves, who really want to set up a big, abusive, controlling government. They just find the term "anarchist" and "anarchism" to be stylish.
Jim Bell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBCAAGBQJatDN1AAoJEPn/Y5FXPbRCzTsMAI8rVe/HkMcaqUK4cuSNUGn8 CZ0ErN1R9lJSWsfZ26Ah5hheMQ34xDQZiOgBvnuvd5kl9w02yZ/SVfF132pQxInO aGMiwQK1hxAnYgdw6kGFAEWCTzmxv8HPuu5W1KE3KI7gnitKZvRwlWhZnxRgnRdF m6iswwkxk1CIP9MOfm3cIreV7I75fqhI5mubsVvPRmHfHomND2a8jSm72xu+UwrC GzdI7GSALZnIGLO0cxuo7h+pB3iqNTPhg7NqW2DeTZNznOEPOLuHYTQySalk7FSv 0jdfeqNLxaZQEBKQfnB4hL8dDPWoJjlwhwLKMZgJaCXQTJKMAARbVQ2LNwYe6PLw 4OzO+WyPG6vRgyLMnPUdILEGRFbmhb/TMeu91mSH5N7ms3RcoFLkdj7/+suSWyS/ kPXenLhehYFST5XXND3gc+5txKctYc2BZj8JUi9a+Ddi5iY35bjCOiR9QEeYV/Qy 2Wxy8Ws+34e2zcAKeu0yRy8LBfcILFAoOKzzLrJs+w== =CjVf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 3:52:55 PM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 03/22/2018 04:41 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 12:30:10 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:43:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com>> wrote:
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
Come on Jim. I already refuted your right wing, fake libertarian garbage.
Utter and complete nonsense.
And it's quite funny how an engineer isn't aware of the fact that there is AIR TRAVEL and SEA TRAVEL and that right-wing fake 'anarchists' haven't claimed to own the SEA and the SkY, at least YET.
I was not including air travel and sea travel because I didn't consider it relevant to the current discussion.
So, please stop defending STATE BORDERS like you did and stop wholly misrepresenting libertarian philosphy.
I think I already said that I opposed government borders.
For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires people to show some sort of identification in order to travel.
Do you really? But that's what happens when ICE DOES ITS JOB eh?
For someone who supports freedom of travel and who opposes the requirement of papers - what legitimate "job" does ICE do ? BTW, your quotation makes it appear that _I_ said, "But that's what happens when ICE DOES ITS JOB". Please go back and show that 1. You are addressing my comment. OR2. You are addressing somebody else's comment.
Honestly, TSA and ICE just look like jobs programs to me. Jobs programs to satisfy authoritarians.
I don't believe I ever disagreed with this concept.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 03/22/2018 07:09 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 3:52:55 PM PDT, Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
On 03/22/2018 04:41 PM, jim bell wrote:
On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 12:30:10 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com <mailto:juan.g71@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:43:27 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com>
<mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com>>> wrote:
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
Come on Jim. I already refuted your right wing, fake libertarian garbage.
Utter and complete nonsense.
And it's quite funny how an engineer isn't aware of the fact that there is AIR TRAVEL and SEA TRAVEL and that right-wing fake 'anarchists' haven't claimed to own the SEA and the SkY, at least YET.
I was not including air travel and sea travel because I didn't consider it relevant to the current discussion.
So, please stop defending STATE BORDERS like you did and stop wholly misrepresenting libertarian philosphy.
I think I already said that I opposed government borders.
For what it's worth, I also oppose it when government requires people to show some sort of identification in order to travel.
Do you really? But that's what happens when ICE DOES ITS JOB eh?
For someone who supports freedom of travel and who opposes the requirement of papers - what legitimate "job" does ICE do ?
BTW, your quotation makes it appear that _I_ said, "But that's what happens when ICE DOES ITS JOB".
Please go back and show that 1. You are addressing my comment. OR 2. You are addressing somebody else's comment.
Sorry - i thought that was you were saying.
/dev/null
Honestly, TSA and ICE just look like jobs programs to me. Jobs programs to satisfy authoritarians.
I don't believe I ever disagreed with this concept.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBCAAGBQJatD8vAAoJEPn/Y5FXPbRC9xgMAJh/Gp7dK18TUIlWq8hboHBQ aIcWRTizTKB+ZEQa81OlqXaVSWSluz4loA7TXPyRvvfkKjU50OlKZudWJ0Ng9wO0 SOMjiChnojv1rFKQ0zve1u2yW3UR0v2gh7Jmy6RFw7dHMmfSjH2z0+MgN+cE5v3/ vMXGZxX8uiCvZgJdON4u8wMM0G28bhEb3S5eKPdrTqsJdk5zAldwGTLd1Q25zPuW JrBG+Dfy8IFQMPWl58ShMW6RhiO/VDF4FkglgZ97RSD+JbRT4l8ovv7LLqSvZhOX 6pm6WYiwiHKxRuippQbrBgrOL6XOJ0XXCTQ5dTd5wRNXFWic0dRU3PbVNUhUfuzl Ir9TvALc9jiIR4yDRiTtOmWTfymkFQB2h4fzC5kyIqp1b3QLVrihgi7yIb1vnSSf TFas9P+lP3nGrebuA/hlwiSd8qY/9IpvHSlXmgBl2lf5NKekQT1I5DisXw5b4iwu qSQWd7I64UTi8uVHPWQUTolxK9BW2L7Na0Zxi6pwPQ== =Bu2l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 19:41:41 -0400 Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry - i thought that was you were saying.
It is quite clear what Jim was saying. It's kinda dumb to quote him again, but here it goes. Of course one can look at the 1 day old whole message which is a typical anti-immigration right-wing rant. "When I suggest that illegal re-entry is a 'victimless crime', that does not mean that there are not other crimes which illegal re-entry employs (such as people-smuggling) and further, crimes that it enables: Any crime subsequently committed by a person who is illegally present in America. Kate Steinle's case in San Francisco is an excellent example of this. These crimes are ENABLED because the illegal alien is in America. If he is out of America, he might still commit crimes, but they would be crimes that some other government would have to deal with. Also, keep in mind that the U.S. government doesn't need to actually convict these people of some crime, in order to expel them. Put simply, if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals in America, rather that what I suspect to be, 20 million. (the figures bandied commonly about, 11-12 million are nonsense.) So, if ICE actually did its job, much of the crime associated with illegal aliens simply wouldn't occur. " * 'illegal' re-entry 'enables' crimes. * person who is 'illegally' present in America * crimes are ENABLED because the 'illegal' alien is in America * government doesn't need to convict...people...in order to expel them. "if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals in America, rather that what I suspect to be, 20 million" that ^^^^^ sounds like a clear 'complaint' doesnt it. Notice also the unfounded assertion, typical of propaganda, about the numbers, inflated to 20 millions. And the punch line, if "ICE actually did its job" those dirty foreign 'criminals' wouldn't commit the 'crimes' they allegedly commit in AMERIKKKA. meh.
/dev/null
Honestly, TSA and ICE just look like jobs programs to me. Jobs programs to satisfy authoritarians.
I don't believe I ever disagreed with this concept.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
iQGcBAEBCAAGBQJatD8vAAoJEPn/Y5FXPbRC9xgMAJh/Gp7dK18TUIlWq8hboHBQ aIcWRTizTKB+ZEQa81OlqXaVSWSluz4loA7TXPyRvvfkKjU50OlKZudWJ0Ng9wO0 SOMjiChnojv1rFKQ0zve1u2yW3UR0v2gh7Jmy6RFw7dHMmfSjH2z0+MgN+cE5v3/ vMXGZxX8uiCvZgJdON4u8wMM0G28bhEb3S5eKPdrTqsJdk5zAldwGTLd1Q25zPuW JrBG+Dfy8IFQMPWl58ShMW6RhiO/VDF4FkglgZ97RSD+JbRT4l8ovv7LLqSvZhOX 6pm6WYiwiHKxRuippQbrBgrOL6XOJ0XXCTQ5dTd5wRNXFWic0dRU3PbVNUhUfuzl Ir9TvALc9jiIR4yDRiTtOmWTfymkFQB2h4fzC5kyIqp1b3QLVrihgi7yIb1vnSSf TFas9P+lP3nGrebuA/hlwiSd8qY/9IpvHSlXmgBl2lf5NKekQT1I5DisXw5b4iwu qSQWd7I64UTi8uVHPWQUTolxK9BW2L7Na0Zxi6pwPQ== =Bu2l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 5:40:34 PM PDT, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 19:41:41 -0400 Marina Brown <catskillmarina@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry - i thought that was you were saying. It is quite clear what Jim was saying. It's kinda dumb to quote him again, but here it goes. Of course one can look at the 1 day old whole message which is a typical anti-immigration right-wing rant.
"When I suggest that illegal re-entry is a 'victimless crime', that does not mean that there are not other crimes which illegal re-entry employs (such as people-smuggling) and further, crimes that it enables: Any crime subsequently committed by a person who is illegally present in America. Kate Steinle's case in San Francisco is an excellent example of this. These crimes are ENABLED because the illegal alien is in America. If he is out of America, he might still commit crimes, but they would be crimes that some other government would have to deal with. Also, keep in mind that the U.S. government doesn't need to actually convict these people of some crime, in order to expel them. Put simply, if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals in America, rather that what I suspect to be, 20 million. (the figures bandied commonly about, 11-12 million are nonsense.) So, if ICE actually did its job, much of the crime associated with illegal aliens simply wouldn't occur. " * 'illegal' re-entry 'enables' crimes. * person who is 'illegally' present in America * crimes are ENABLED because the 'illegal' alien is in America * government doesn't need to convict...people...in order to expel them. "if the government had actually been enforcing immigration law for the last 30+ years, there might easily be a half-million illegals in America, rather that what I suspect to be, 20 million" that ^^^^^ sounds like a clear 'complaint' doesnt it. Notice also the unfounded assertion, typical of propaganda, about the numbers, inflated to 20 millions. And the punch line, if "ICE actually did its job" those dirty foreign 'criminals' wouldn't commit the 'crimes' they allegedly commit in AMERIKKKA. [end of quote] I suppose I should have been anal, and said, "if ICE actually did the job it claims to be its own..." Jim Bell
This is an amount of money they can spend at the Commissary
Or allocate to their defense attorney they'll probably need to file their NG plea and navigate any dismissal due to this court flooding, potentially along with any other dismissal / lessening grounds. Project website may wish to list attorney / pro se resources. Targeting particular court districts might lower initial project costs and provide focused test, would require researching actual case loads per justice staff / budgets / etc for best effect, not just current volumes. Whereas entire nation at once offers suprise attack. Also, magistrates / prosecutors are generally appointable / deputizable from the bars at will, along with other needed resources, this effect should be considered.
participants (7)
-
g2s -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
juan -
Marina Brown -
Shawn K. Quinn -
Zenaan Harkness