Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy

[Tim May]

On Monday, May 12, 2003, at 03:08  PM, John Kelsey wrote:

> At 10:03 AM 5/10/03 -0700, Tim May wrote:
> [Talking about government-assisted projects and businesses going broke]
>> Which is all evolution in action, except that government should not 
>> be in the construction and business development business. (I would go 
>> further and say that nothing in the U.S. Constitution, which states 
>> and localities are bound by, justifies taking money from citizens to 
>> give to businesses. No matter "how smart an investment" it looks to 
>> be. Ditto for governments running gambling operations, but I >> digress.)
>
> It's very clear that this is bad policy, though I'm not too sure it's 
> actually unconstitutional.  Didn't the states finance and run some of 
> the early canals?

The states also established state religions and banned books, in the 
century or so for it to shake out in the Supreme Court that when the 
states agreed to support the Constitution as a condition for joining 
the Union it meant that they really did have to support the 
Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is quite clear that powers not specifically granted 
to government by the Constitution don't exist.

While building canals is arguably related to national defense and the 
common good (though I think private actors are better suited to build 
canals, and railroads, etc.), running gambling operations while 
declaring gambling immoral and illegal is clearly nonsensical and (I 
think) unconstitutional. Regrettably, the political stooges who sit on 
the Supreme Court have put considering this business of government 
running gambling dens about #131 on the list of probably 
unconstitutional things to look at.

(I think the courts should hold personally liable those who pass 
unconstitutional measures. Imprisoning those who commit acts later 
declared to be unconstitutional might disincentivize them to blithely 
pass unconstitutional bills.)

To repeat, government cannot declare gambling a social evil which must 
be banned and then turn around and set up its own gambling operations.

Everyone involved in the many state gambling operations should receive 
sentences no less harsh than those imprisoned on gambling charges. This 
would mean most would die in prison. Except for those who ought to be 
killed for their other substantial crimes, this would be a good thing.

"I was just following orders" is, of course, not a defense. The 
lowliest lottery clerk should receive the same multi-year prison 
sentence that a Mob numbers runner would receive.

The kingpins in the Republicrat parties will, of course, receive 
effective death sentences, gang-raped by the lifers they sent to prison 
for competing with the JFL/LBJ/Nixon/Ollie North/Bill Clinton/Mena, 
Arkansas drug pipeline set up decades ago by corrupt-on-earth 
Washington politicians like John F. Kennedy. At least he got whacked.


--Tim May, Occupied America
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary 
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.