From: The Sheriff <sheriff@speakeasy.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 12:58:22 +0800
To: Steve Schear <schear@lvdi.net>
Subject: Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
In-Reply-To: <l03020905b0c71912dc2f@[209.130.131.207]>
Message-ID: <l03020904b0cb7994661b@[209.130.132.185]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>At 5:02 PM -0800 12/24/97, Steve Schear wrote:
>>If you would be so kind as to a) specify that supreme court ruling,
>>and b) identify an online resource where I can obtain the text of
>>that decision, so that I can 1) confirm or deny your allegation, and
>>2) debate your position intelligently, I would greatly appreciate it.
>
>It has to do with the application of laws, especially Federal, to
>corporations.  Recall that Corporations are legal fictions and,
>unlike individuals, are not constitutionally vested with inaliable
>rights.  They have been affirmed some rights, including free speech
>but the SC, but generally with more limitations.

Okay, I'll avoid that since I have never read a scrap of
corporational law.

>>What if I run a business out of my house?  What if I don't need
>>employees (such that I could affort to hire a couple of people,
>>or nobody at all)?  If I hire someone who is white because I don't
>>want to hire someone is black, then it is not a loss that is felt
>>within the black community, since I don't *need* to hire anybody
>>in the first place.
>
>Use of your property, as long as its private, were vested with many
>>constitutional rights (many of which now been eroded by decades of SC
>>'interpretation').  However, once you operate a business upon a property
>>(evidenced by the issuance of a business license) it becomes a 'public
>>convenience' which can (and often is) heavily regulated and restricted.
>
>So, operate w/o a business license and incorporation and keep your rights
>but risk prosection for tax evasion, or license your business and lose many
>of those consititional protections you covet.  Catch-22.

Just out fo curiosity -- if I were to take my taxes out like I
were operating a business out of my house without declaring I am
as such, and then not take the "excess" tax money back as a return,
would the Fed have any grounds for suit of fraud, since I had paid
all the taxes of a business properly?

What I'm wondering is if the fraud charge would be because I haden't
paid the proper taxes or not.

>>I find it very interesting that liberal activists in California,
>>who rabidly insist that racism is wrong, that we must have racial
>>dialogues, that we should all "just get allong," used the court
>>system to fight Proposition 209, which ends affirmative action in
>>that state.  The people voted their will, and the activists took
>>to the courts to override the people's will -- in effect, saying
>>that the California voting public is just a bunch of idiots.
>
>They simply showed their true 'liberal' idiological colors.  What they
>really seek isn't guarantees of equal opportunity but equal outcomes
>under law, what Robert Bork calls Radical Egalitarianism in his recent
>book, "Slouching Towards Gamorah."

I haven't seen or read the book.  However, it would seem to me that
equal opertunity and equal outcome aren't one and the same.  While
you are making it possible for folks who wouldn't normally hit the
middle income road to do so, you are then also restraining the
brighter bulbs from taking off like NASA rockets (and the analogy is
correct, since being a genius doesn't guarantee success).

Best wishes and fresh-roasted peanut taste,
The Sheriff. -- ***<REPLY TO: sheriff@speakeasy.org>***
- ---
As kinky as it sounds, finger me to see my PGP key and
confirm the signature attached to this message.
- ---
Any and all SPAM will be met with immediate prosecutory
efforts.  Solicitations are NOT welcome here!
- ---
        ----BEGIN INFLAMATORY BLOCK----
Version: 160 (IQ)
Comments: Definitely one of their greatest misses.

Reporter: "Do you know what Public Enemy is?"
- ---
Citizen: "Public enemy?"
          [long pause]
         "Probably somebody in office."
        -----END INFLAMATORY BLOCK-----


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNKXNjABMw4+NR29ZAQGO8wf7Bic4Y5v74dP4uCowXyqT68BkHlhU1/+p
hs4rD7w8D27TJkIep9kBLCZfvPo0i3cGqMN6NluAHJ4auf+TjezVCe4cheTXyZCJ
K/aoyZHgrmV1vH/wHHvbODc8Aq5kVzrcCAnfPF9T4j/2gS3pbMp+VALlix/Cp53u
TRpqLNCTlFnwiZVO8h82hF/gnNiNxmHQ7UoPG1WJYXUSiDTmRjEhM0RnmDdThaEh
W1Yh0O1Xpl6F6B13ZNTby3PTDh2FzllscFmPtWtxl4iCWeHERHL6f4Jpb/9uVrgB
N7eT1veC7fkSMFJaKGNT73GEBzxz5gphjmVLPsr8QKdVjVfS20eyRw==
=B4z0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----