From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 16:00:36 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Fraud and free speech
In-Reply-To: <199706090223.WAA29211@dhp.com>
Message-ID: <19970609002216.62726@bywater.songbird.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Sun, Jun 08, 1997 at 10:23:43PM -0400, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> Tim May wrote:
> > 
> > At 5:51 AM -0700 6/8/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> > >Well I think that there are some that would confuse the issue between 1st
> > >Amendment free speech and the issues surrounding fraud. Especially those
> > >in government who write the laws that regulate commercial speech.
> > 
> > The mistake has been to extend "fraud" laws to non-contract situations,
> > e.g., ordinary speech (as distinguished from contracts).
> 
>   Any time that you see a thread in which Kent Crispin accuses someone
> of trying to "muddy the waters" you can pretty much guarantee he is
> trying to throw a logical curveball of his own.

The ones you really have to watch out for are my logical spitballs.  
But I am deeply flattered that you take me so seriously.

>   Kent added some tripe to the thread supporting his favorite theme,
> which is that it is the job of government to "enforce" contractual
> agreements. Naturally, he also extends the format of these contracts
> to include government authority to enforce criminal penalties for
> statements made by the great grandfather of the second cousin of the
> spouse of one of the person making the contract.

You are completely misrepresenting me here -- I distinctly said 
"grandmother of the first cousin".  And my favorite theme is from one 
of the Brandenberg Concertos.

>   Follow any thread after a Crispin post and you will find people
> arguing over issues he raises which have little basis in reality.

You have a point there.  You will search in vain for a stitch of 
reality in this post.

> > Contracts, with clearly stated conditions and with judgeable or
> > falsifiable/testable conditionals, are a matter for the courts (private
> > courts, in fact), but vague promises, advertisements, propaganda, etc. are
> > not.
> 
>   Dimitri wrote a couple of posts which dealt well with the original
> concept of two parties agreeing on an arbitrator/judge to settle
> contractual disputes (e.g. the court of Prince X) and the following
> usurpment of these free-will agreements by people in power who decree
> that _they_ are now the only valid arbitrator/judge in contractual
> matters.

It's pointless to reply to Dimitri -- he filters my posts.  Of course 
I would be delighted to engage in a civilized discourse with him, but 
it's impossible.

>   We now have a system where if someone breaks agreement with you the
> government locks them in a cage where there is no possibility of them
> paying you what they are contractually obligated to. The government
> doesn't give a fat rat's ass what your desires are for resolution of
> the dispute. They are always busy protecting the nebulous "other"
> rather than someone real, with a real interest in the situation.

A revealing paragraph, indeed.

>   The government mandates that contractual agreements must be 
> settled in a forum where the corporation with an army of lawyers
> can bury the attorney that Joe Average picked out of the yellow
> pages. When you enter into a contractual agreement with someone who
> has a guy named "Big Louie" as arbitrator, however, the government
> calls it organized crime.
>   Pardon me if I fail to see the distinction.

OK

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html