From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Fri May 28 1999 - 18:58:53 MDT
Date sent: Thu, 27 May 1999 22:59:23 -0400
From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mike@lorrey.com>
Organization: http://lorrey.com http://artlocate.com
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> "Joe E. Dees" wrote:
>
> > There has to be a central recordkeeping resource to ascertain
> > whether or not a prospective gun purchaser is underage, mentally
> > deficient and/or deranged, a spouse and/or child abuser, or a
> > violent criminal, as well as penalties for breaking such laws, and
> > enforcement of the penalties; otherwise they would be useless
> > scraps of paper.
>
> The Insta-check system is such a system. However, the FBI and ATF is using this
> system to keep records like a registration system, which is against both law and
> the constitution. I don't mind insta-check that much, so long as my record of
> purchase gets deleted. NOTE: The feds have not prosecuted one person since the
> Insta-check system was instituted for illegal attempted purchase of a firearm. Its
> been working for a year now. Paper tigers, anyone?
>
I think that this is a disgrace and that such prosecutions should be
swift and sure.
>
> > As far as anarchy goes, postulated that you have
> > a society of people with private property in close proximity with
> > limited resources, and your goal is to maximize the freedoms of all,
> > then your standard is that all people who are capable of assuming
> > responsibility for the free exercise of their choices should have all
> > freedoms that all others do, and in the cases of inevitable conflict,
> > these should be resolved by equal and proportional compromise.
> > Right away, you need an executive or enforcement branch to keep
> > bullies from illicitly imposing their wills on others, a judicial branch
> > to decide what is equal and proportional in each specific case, and
> > a legislative to both set general standards for the judiciary to
> > interpret in specific cases, and to enact refinements and additions
> > so that the laws may evolve with changing circumstances. You will
> > nweed a core document, or constitution, which clearly enumerates
> > the inalienable rights to which all citizens are to be entitled,
> > including minorities, and you need to allow the people at large to
> > monitor the fairness and competency of those holding the positions
> > whose responsibility it is to legislate, enforce and judge, and to
> > expel and replace them at will; a popular vote.
>
> Not at all. There is absolutely no reason all of these functions cannot be
> satisfied under the insurance/PPA/PPL model for a libertarian/free market anarchy
> society. Those that wish to live in no-right-to-carry communities can do so, and
> their PPA will enforce that wish under their standard contracts. I suggest you
> research this area before you baldly state that only a government can do this.
>
The PPa idea has pretty thoroughly been discredited, on the
grounds that ANY organization which assumes the functions of a
government has a tendency to become a de facto, if not de jure,
government and any safeguards which are built in to prevent this
may be co-opted by the PPA and used against those whom they
were created to protect. To try to have a government without
having a government is a futile exercise in self-contradiction. Just
admit that we need governance, and ceaselessly go about evolving
the best feasible entity for the purpose. I do not think we can do
without executive, legislative, judiciary, constitution and popular
vote, for the phenomenological reasons stated above.
>
> Mike Lorrey
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:52 MST