From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 17:36:39 +0800
To: jimbell@pacifier.com
Subject: Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
Message-ID: <01I3GRYEA2HC8Y510B@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"jimbell@pacifier.com"  "jim bell"  7-APR-1996 03:10:38.36

>Over time, technology is dramatically increasing our protections:  From 
>locks to alarms to monitoring systems to remote cameras, with bank accounts 
>that are secure from ordinary criminals, we are becoming less and less 
>dependant on government for our security.  Since the ostensible purpose of 
>courts is nominally to protect us, if those protections begin to be replaced 
>by technology the logical conclusion is that courts will become less 
>numerous and less powerful.  The problem is, that isn't happening, and the 
>reason is that organizations tend to act in ways to protect their own power 
>and influence.  In fact, the average citizen is subject to far more theft of 
>his assets BY THE GOVERNMENT than by common criminals, so at some point we 
>have to realize that the government is now a net problem, rather than being 
>a net solution.

	Quite. I can see clear justifications for, say, allowing whatever money
is spent on private security as a tax deduction. Unfortunately, the PC
egalitarian types who don't seem to realize that inequality is a fact of life
will claim that this will give the poor worse security than the rich. Yes...
and the rich are the ones who need the most security. One, they're the banks:
they're where the money is. Two, the rich tend to be the smarter ones, and thus
the most valuable.

>I think that most crimes that subpoenas  would normally be used for are 
>probably not crimes at all, and are probably "malum prohibitum," not "malum 
>in se" crimes. And in the future, they would likely be used to harass 
>political enemies, as harassment was done in the 1950's and 60's.   This 
>means, for anybody of a libertarian bent, that it would actually be better 
>if the government could be rendered incapable of enforcing them.  Naturally, 
>governments and courts will resist, but that will be irrelevant.

	I would guess that most instances of violations of banking secrecy,
wiretaps, et al fall into this category also.
	-Allen