From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1998 01:28:06 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone(fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199811110037.SAA20949@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <v04011702b26e8687c946@[206.189.103.230]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 7:37 PM -0500 11/10/98, Jim Choate wrote:
>Forwarded message:
>	No, I am saying that since EVERY government at one time or another
>> treats its citizens like roaches, it's time to radically change the nature
>> of it so that it basically can't be called a government any more.

>The problem isn't government, it's the people who enforce the government
>that abuse it.

	And the system protects them. Pinochet wasn't handed over to spain
now was he.

	It's the system.

>> >Well actualy it's whether it has a tax stamp whether you sell it out of a
>> >storefront or a truckbed is irrelevent. Considering the number of
>>people wh=
>
>> 	Wanna bet?
>
>Absolutely. I happen to know a whole passel of beer, wine, and liqour
>makers. Austin as aswim in micro-breweries. I'd be more than happy to pass
>your email address to the enibriated set and let them argue the point with
>you.

>> 	Most states have fairly strict laws concerning where liquor can be
>> sold.
>
>Actualy it's not the states (at least Texas and Louisiana), it's the local
>cities. The state of Texas doesn't care as long as you pay your liquor
>license and don't sell to minors and obey the local zoning ordinances.

	In N.C, Tennesee (IIRC), Illinois, and North Carolina (especially
N.C.) it's the state.

>> 	Which is completely irrelevant as to wheter or not it is currently
>> black market or not, which is the context I was working in.
>>
>> 	Stay on target.
>
>I am on target. The fact that a unregulated alcohol industry led to death,
>debilitation, and financial hardship justified the imposition of regulation
>on alcohol and its related operations.

	Crap. Pure B.S. What lead to it's regulation was a bunch of broads
who didn't want ANYONE drinking, so they pushed for abolition, which was a
total disaster, and lead to repeal.

>You just don't want the entire picture painted because it cast a harsh light
>on the premise that un-regulated economies are good things.

	While you keep repeating lies and half truths.

	Ever heard of "Muckraking"? Yellow Journalism? Could it have been
that that lead to some of this B.S. regulation? Nah, the press never would
have done something like that.

	Remember the movie "Reefer Madness", and the Jim Crow drug laws of
the early 1900's? Couldn't be that people in positions of power at the time
had certain agendas and used lies to further them could it.

	Nah, people in government NEVER behave like that.


>> >Not necessarily. The doctor has to have a medicaly supportable reason to
>> >dispence those drugs. Otherwise it's just as black market as Joe's.
>> 	Quibble Quibble. You know EXACTLY what I meant.
>Yeah, you meant to commit an act of ommission so that your position looks
>more favorable than it actualy does.

	No I didn't, EVEN IF I GET THEM LEGALLY, if I turn around and sell
them, it's black market, that was muy fucking point, I'm sorry if you can't
comprehend that sort of thing.

	Let me tell you a true story Jimmy. A while back I had a bit of
surgery done to repair a hernia. The Doctor gave me a perscription for a
pain killer (related to valium IIRC). 40 caps of it.

	I hated the shit, and didn't take it after the 2nd day, leaving me
clear headed, but in pain. No big deal, I've been in pain before. I traded
the rest of those drugs for an old computer.

	I got them thru the "white" market, with just cause, and legally (I
had never taken that kind of thing before and didn't know it's effects),
but I "recycled" them thru the black market.

	Either way, my point is still that the black market is about more
than just if the _product_ is illegal, it also relates to the trade.

>> >Didn't think of theft? Jesus H. Christ, you gotta be on Joe's drugs. The
>> >vast majority of material sold on *ANY* black market is stolen from its
>> >rightful owner. It is *the* example of black market trading that most folks
>> >think of first.
>>
>> 	No, the vast majority (in terms of dollars) of stuff sold on the
>> black market is Drugs.
>
>Really? Drugs are what $10B US a year or so. I bet stolen automobiles when

	Yeah, like anyone really knows for sure.

>taken as a whole gross more loss than that. And what makes you think that
>the vast majority of that drugs aren't purchased at the street level with

	Because I know a lot of people who've bought drugs, and for the
most part it was with money they earned or receieved thru legal means.

>> >How the hell do you sell something on the black market if you don't have
>> >possession of it? And exactly who is going to prosecute anyone for
>> 	Easy, it's called a Con.
>> 	Seriously tho, I said that the _selling_ of stolen goods might not
>> be illegal, but the possesion of such things, and the stealing of them are
>> seperate acts to the selling of them.
>Still doesn't answer my question.

	Your question is ignorant and irrelevant, but to answer it: Brokers.

	I have something to sell, but I don't want to hassle with finding a
buyer. Joe has a lot of connections, but no goods to sell, and you are a
buyer. I let joe know I have product, he makes the deal, and I hire Omar to
deliver it to you. Joe never even sees the merchandise, but is effectively
the seller.

>> 	There isn't a need to. Shoot them.

>Ah, so you admit that the general mechanism to settle inter-personal dispute
>under your plan is to allow people to run around shooting each other.

	No, and for you to even say it in that manner is complete
disingenious. You and I are having and "inter-personal dispute", and would
never suggest that you be shot for disagreeing with me. Nor would I if,
say, we had a car accident and were resolving that (unless you had done
something like driving drunk and blatantly violating common sense rules of
the road like running a stop sign or a red light, in which case you are a
threat to me and others). On the other hand, I catch you in my home
uninvited, I hope your life insurance is paid up. I catch you with MY
property without my permission, I hope your medical insurance is good,
cause you are going to be in a LOT of pain.

>Well, at least we've got an honest admission that murder would be legal in
>this system.

	Murder is a legal construct. It is "killing in violation of the
law" (no, that isn't the legal defination of murder, I realize that), if
you don't have "law", you don't have murder. If you have law, then murder
is illegal.

	You are talking about killing, and in cases (i.e. those not covered
by law) killing is legal. If I accidentally hit someone with a car, and
they die, that is not murder. If am a cop and shoot someone, it isn't
murder. If I am rich and famous (come on, you know the song, sing along
"Murder is a crime, unless it is done by a police man, or an Aristocrat
Know your rights, these are your rights...) and stab someone, it is not
murder, and if I kill someone (in most states) illegally entering my house,
it is not murder.

	Hell, in texas, I can shoot my wife, as long as she is in bed with
another person.

--
"To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a
jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a
gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather nave, and certainly
unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust"
http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html

Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com