Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy

[Tyler Durden]

"running gambling operations while declaring gambling immoral and illegal is 
clearly nonsensical and (I think) unconstitutional"

Not to mention the CIA running crack into inner-city neighborhoods and 
tipping off the local dealers prior to a big DEA bust, all the while 
declaring all things non-Alchohol to be "drugs", and illegal/immoral.

-TD


>From: Tim May <timcmay at got.net>
>To: cypherpunks at lne.com
>Subject: Re: Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy
>Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 22:00:25 -0700
>
>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.

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail