Conference back40::soapbox

    I think the US of A should become a theocracy with Jerry Fallwell at
    the helm.

    Glenn

    Well, I would start with the Constitution, and then eliminate all
    amendments after the BoR.
    
    I would make sure kids learned about the Constitution and their FF in
    history class, and would include many of the writings of the FF so that
    they would understand the context and intent of the Constitution.
    
    I don't think we could improve upon what our FF gave us.  Too bad we've
    pretty much trashed everything they stood for.
    
    
    -steve

    
    
     Along with .2
    
     I would find a non-biased, non-PC santized history book and have
    people read and understand what it meant/implies.... same with the
    'Federalist Papers'

    What can be learned from form feeds?

    .2
    
    > eliminate all amendments after the BoR.
    
    and indians don't count, and blacks are only 3/5 of a person each,
    right?

    Binder, we're starting over in modern times...we don't have that
    slavery problem any more.
    
    Why do you assume that the Constitution and DoI does not refer to all
    men/women?  

    .6
    
    > Why do you assume that the Constitution and DoI does not refer to all
    > men/women?
    
    gee, steve, i dunno, could it be this clause:
    
    "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the
    several States which may be included within this Union. according to
    their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
    whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a
    term of years, and EXCLUDING INDIANS NOT TAXED, THREE FIFTHS OF ALL
    OTHER PERSONS."
    
    point is, if you do away with the 14th, slavery suddenly becomes legal
    again, which accounts for the OTHER PERSONS, who are worth 3/5 of a
    person each, and since you have INDIANS NOT TAXED, indians must not
    count either.

    "...adding the whole number of FREE PERSONS.."
    
    Last I heard, blacks were not slaves, but free men.  Therefore, the 3/5
    part is moot.  I really can't imagine anyone trying to bring back
    slavery in this day and age. 
    
    -steve

    
         Hm,,,,   Seeing that I would have control of how many bills
    to make. I'd make billions of dollars to (print that is) take all
    States out of debt. After the government has paid all it's bills
    then all the taxes can be lowered so's people will have lots more
    to spend. 
    
         Then I could have a brand new '95 Blazer. 
    
         Rosie

 >       <<< Note 61.3 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Less government, stupid!" >>>
 >
 >   
 >   
 >    Along with .2
 >   
 >    I would find a non-biased, non-PC santized history book and have
 >   people read and understand what it meant/implies.... same with the
 >   'Federalist Papers'
    
    Can't do better than reading the constitution and the Federalist
    Papers. Pardon  me, though, if I suspect your motives when you talk
    about "non-PC sanitized history books".  Most school-oriented history
    books have always been essentially indoctrination in national (or
    regional) myths. You could still learn a lot from them, but it was
    *they* that tended to sanitize and distort history. 
    
    We need to understand the complexity and ambiguity of our own history
    not only for the sake of edging closer to the truth, but to give our
    children the skills at thinking and analysis that are so essential to
    their futures. It is often easier to accept simple official or
    semi-official views of an historical issue than to  wrestle with
    the uncomfortable complexity of that issue, but it more rewarding and
    more honest to do the hard thing.
    
    Kit
    

    
    
    What would you know about my motives?
    
    and why are they "suspect"?
    

| <<< Note 61.6 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>




| Why do you assume that the Constitution and DoI does not refer to all 
| men/women?

	LOOOOOOOPHOLES. People have always found a way to get around the law
Steve. Say someone drives drunk, kills someone, and finds a way to get away
with it. Do we close up that loophole or do we allow others to slip through it?
The FF could not have even begun to see the bigotry towards others that have
happened. We didn't live with such a mixture as we do now. Asians weren't here.
Blacks were slaves. Mexicans weren't around. India Indians weren't here.
American Indians weren't considered enemies yet. Women never really had any
decision making and were considered 2nd class citizens. How could the FF have 
seen all of this happen? Do you think they could have envisioned the country 
tearing itself apart because of slavery issues? With all that they could not 
even have imagined happening, how in the world can you insist on always saying 
this is what they meant, this will protect everyone, when history CLEARLY shows 
that this is not true.



Glen

    re: .12
    
    because in referring to "non-biased, non-PC santized history book" you
    adopt a slogan that carries a lot of baggage -- one that turns the
    reality of how history has been presented on its head. Sanitized biased
    history books in the service of the prevailing official or semi-offical
    view of the day have always been the norm.  The modern attempt to
    create school books that acknowledge the complexity and difficulty of
    our history is the very antithesis of biased and sanitized history.
    
    The effort troubles those who prefer the easier path of indoctrination,
    but it should not be feared by those who simply want students to 
    understand and to think.
    
    The issue is less serious in colleges, where students can, and should,
    read from a variety of primary and secondary sources.  Nor has the
    level of indoctrination been as severe here as in other more centralized
    countries, even free ones like France or Japan.
    
    Kit

>    because in referring to "non-biased, non-PC santized history book" you
>    adopt a slogan that carries a lot of baggage -- one that turns the
>    reality of how history has been presented on its head. Sanitized biased
>    history books in the service of the prevailing official or semi-offical
>    view of the day have always been the norm.  The modern attempt to
>    create school books that acknowledge the complexity and difficulty of
>    our history is the very antithesis of biased and sanitized history.
 
    
     You assume too much here Kit.... My only baggage is to have the facts
    appear sans editorial comments and revisionism. As for you last
    sentence above.... I believe the "modern attempt" is not what you
    suggest, but a sanitized version of things that happened. One example
    is how much religion, good or bad, played in the formation of thinking,
    acting, decisions etc. in the early part of this nation's history....
    yet, for the most part, history books have deleted almost all
    references to it. I only use religion as one example and don't want to
    rat-hole the topic, so please don't take it as promoting same.
    
      Another example is much of revisionist history re: WWII.... Are these
    the things you say are being "acknowledged"??
       
 >   The effort troubles those who prefer the easier path of indoctrination,
 >   but it should not be feared by those who simply want students to 
 >   understand and to think.
  
     Ah! So you think I want our youth "indoctrinated"??
    
     Sorry... I don't fear the truth.... I too want "students to 
    understand and to think.".... but only when the whole truth is laid out
    for them and have them decide for themselves...  Easy.. no?
    
      
 >   The issue is less serious in colleges, where students can, and should,
 >   read from a variety of primary and secondary sources.  Nor has the
 >   level of indoctrination been as severe here as in other more centralized
 >   countries, even free ones like France or Japan.
  
     Colleges??? Surely you jest!! Yes, students can, and should, read from
    a variety of primary and secondary sources, but in many cases unless 
    they toe the line laid down by the school and/or professor, they're 
    looking at sub-standard grade....   
   
    
    

    Re: .15
    
    >sans editorial comments and revisionism
    
    I like some of the editorial comments I've read.  ("Thus Rhode Island
    became a refuge for Pilgrims with too much originality.")
    
    Revision is necessary.  American history has experienced three
    historiographical phases.  The first was "heroic" and it was little
    better than mythology.  The Founding Fathers were models of perfection
    and that's all there is to it.  The second, starting in the 1920s, was
    "progressive" and viewed history as a constant struggle between the
    haves and the have-nots.  It shed more light on historical events than
    the heroic version, but I find it grossly oversimplified.  The modern
    phase also lacks the rose-colored glasses, but allows events to be
    shaped by an array of social, intellectual and political factors. 
    Historical figures are flawed, like any other human beings.
    
    >but only when the whole truth is laid out for them and have them
    >decide for themselves...
    
    Yes, but what is the "whole truth"?  One of my history profs had us
    read commentary by William Appleman Williams, who argues that the US
    was (and is, I suppose) an imperialist nation (and imperialism is bad). 
    I don't think you'd consider that part of the "whole truth" but it was
    a valuable experience.  If all you get is the party line, you don't
    learn to think critically.  It's in the clash of ideas that you learn
    to sort out what you agree with.
    
    >but in many cases unless they toe the line laid down by the school 
    >and/or professor, they're looking at sub-standard grade....
    
    You don't always have to say what you think.  I had a Marxist professor
    of pre-Columbian history.  In her eyes, the Native Americans could do
    no wrong.  Once she tried to tell us that although the Caribs ate human
    flesh on occasion, they were not cannibals.  There wasn't any point in
    challenging her, but that didn't mean that I had to agree with her.

    re .15
    
    You cite WWII as an example. I doubt there is much debate on the main
    points of the signficance of WWII, certainly at the school level. The
    current yakety-yak on that subject relates to the dropping of the
    atomic bomb, and relates to whether or not it was necessary. The
    unquestionned view has always been that it shortened the war and saved
    many lives. This was the view, for example, of my parents, both WWII
    veterans -- in fact my father was one of the first troops to land in
    Japan proper in 1945. 
    
    We now know that there was considerable contemporanous opinion among
    military and political leaders that the bomb need not have been dropped
    and didn't materially affect the outcome.  They may or may not have
    been correct in this view, but the virulent reaction to this "revisionism" 
    smacks precisely of the indoctrination, the sanitization, the bias that
    we have often introduced into our teaching of history, particularly as
    it relates to subjects still sensitive to current affairs.
    
    Let me offer another example. It always annoys me that my kids still
    get in kindergarten your basic "Columbus sailed the ocean blue to
    discover America for me and you" line in October.  What really happened
    is so much larger than that, the sudden juxtaposition of two
    irreconcilable cultures.  We don't need to deny that something good
    came of that to acknowledge that there were interesting people here
    with a range of civilizations, with good and bad characteristics, and
    that they suffered a great tragedy in that meeting. And that likewise,
    those who came were driven by both good and bad aims. Even that there
    were all kinds of misunderstandings and unintended consequences and
    lost opportunities.  There's much to learn there that our traditional
    historical teaching (read indoctrination) simply ignores. Even
    kindergarten kids could begin to learn some of that.
    
    Kit

    re: .13
    
    It is not even imaginable that whitey will try to open up the slave
    trade if we started over in modern times.
    
    But if you are so worried about it, we could make the new 11th
    Amendment so read something like this:
    
    Slavery is not constitutional for any race/color...the inalienable
    rights listed in the BoR apply to ALL citizens regardless of race or
    color.
    
    
    I'm sure someone could word it better, but you get the idea. 
    Personally, I think it is a moot point.
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 61.18 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| It is not even imaginable that whitey will try to open up the slave
| trade if we started over in modern times.


	Steve, are you sure you meant to put .13 as your reply? When I see the
response I will respond. But I'll hold off until then. But .13 doesn't deal
with the slavery issue, but things that the FF could not have forseen.

re: Editorialized Histories

What if they chose a novel approach and stuck to the facts?

    Re: .20
    
    Some facts aren't necessarily known.  For example, what were the
    motivations behind the American Revolution?  There were several, and
    the relative importance among them is not an established fact.
    
    Furthermore, part of history is organizing discrete events into some
    kind of continuum.  A lot of separate events contributed to Manifest
    Destiny, for example.  Groupings of events into trends isn't a matter
    of established fact.

>    Some facts aren't necessarily known.  For example, what were the
>    motivations behind the American Revolution?

That's not an excuse to editorialize or to promote editorial agendas.
It's a reason to say "this is how much we know".

>  There were several, and the relative importance among them is not
>  an established fact.

Then what's the point of promoting a non-contemporaneous editorial
opinion? Simply list them. If classroom discussions around the matter
lead to speculations, fine. The text book should be a reference of
facts.

    Re: .22
    
    >The text book should be a reference of facts.
    
    And what are the facts?  Some people will claim that X was a factor,
    and others will claim it was not.
    
    This would be like trying to teach chemistry or physics without
    discussing theories.  Well, not quantum physics, that's not fact.  Not
    much left of astrophysics, either.  I guess we'd just have to make the 
    students resynthesize the developments from the bare facts.

    re: .19
    
    Yes, I'm sure.
    
    If you weren't talking about the slavery issue, why did you reply to my
    note (which was dealing specifically with this issue)?
    
    In any case, my reply cuts to the chase.  (hey I made a rhyme!) 8^)
    
    -steve

>         <<< Note 61.20 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>
>re: Editorialized Histories
>
>What if they chose a novel approach and stuck to the facts?
    
    Which facts? And are all facts of equal importance? What about facts
    that can be deduced only by inference? 
    
    You make two monumental mistakes with such a statement:
    
    1. That writing history is as simple as "sticking to the facts"
    2. That school books of the past actually did that, and weren't often 
       somewhere between editorials and indoctrination. 
    
    What's needed is a marshalling of enough variety of facts and summaries
    of how people have interpreted those facts so that school children can
    learn to sift evidence in arguments and come to some informed
    conclusions.
    
    Kit

    
    
    
    I think Kit has hit on an important issue here.  There are several
    different groups on any issue that have "facts" to support their
    position and why the issue is or is not a problem.  When I served on
    jury duty, I got to see this type of display up close and personal.  
    
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 61.24 by CSOA1::LEECH "annuit coeptis novus ordo seclorum" >>>


| If you weren't talking about the slavery issue, why did you reply to my
| note (which was dealing specifically with this issue)?

	That's easy Steve. If you had read the note you would have seen that.
The FF who authored the Constitution and the DoI could in no way forsee what
would happen in the future. They could not have seen the bigotry, hatred
towards groups of people that weren't even here yet. They could not have
forseen that people would find loopholes in the law. Hell, we right laws now
that get revised further down the road because of loopholes. Look at the line,
"All men are created equal". Well, were slaves equal at the time? Do all people 
of today think people of colour are equal? No way. The loopholes are there.
People take advantage of them. There is no way the FF could have forseen that.
Do you think if they could have that they would have worded it differently to
prevent it? That's why when you spout off about the FF wanted this or that, or
meant this or that, so we don't need extra laws, you really crack me up. People
take advantage. You would gladly close up loopholes in a drunk driving law, yet
you bitch about people wanting to close up loopholes with other areas. 


Glen

	Last night on the Tonight Show, Jay Leno was talking about how the
repubs met in Gettysburg and the dems met at Dysneyworld this past weekend to
discuss their stratagies. He went on to say,


"The Republicans are trying to get back to the 1700 colonial times while the
Democrats are off in fantasy land! Business as usual!!" 


	I was rolling after that one....

   > Do you think if they could have that they would have worded it differently
   > to prevent it? That's why when you spout off about the FF wanted this or 
   > that, or meant this or that, so we don't need extra laws, you really crack 
   > me up. People
   > take advantage. You would gladly close up loopholes in a drunk driving
   > law, yet you bitch about people wanting to close up loopholes with other 
   > areas.
    
    Glen:
    
    Are you talking about EEOC laws or are you talking about even more
    laws piled on top to provide special class status for minorities.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 61.29 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>



| Are you talking about EEOC laws or are you talking about even more
| laws piled on top to provide special class status for minorities.

	Jack, I'm talking about laws period. I am talking about a law can be
sound one day when it is inacted, but further down the road some unforseen
thing shows up and people find ways to get away with a crime. So when people
say the FF covered everyone, they are correct. But when they say other laws
aren't needed, they are wrong. Loopholes make them wrong. 


Glen

    re: Note 61.30 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
    That's why laws, Acts and Constitutional Amendments must be CAREFULLY
    researched, discussed and debated BEFORE enacting them.  Look at
    Prohibition for example.  What an Abortion (ho ho, that too).  And
    look, we're doing it AGAIN with the War on Drugs.
    
    This is why the trend to get back to the Constitution is so great,
    IMHO.  It is the foundation of law in our Country.
    
    Too many laws are passed in a feel good effort to fix things that
    aren't really broken.  Good intentions and all...
                     

	I do agree that things have been done wrong Mike. But not everything.
You talk about we must do things carefully. We must research. That was done
with the oil dumping, but you bitch that the government should not tell you
what to do on your own property. That to me does not make sense. YES, there are
things that have been done that were wrong. Prohibition was one of them. They
jumped without looking. But do you really think with all the $$$ they have
spent on cleaning up the enviroment that they haven't done some research into
dumping oil?

    Research into dumping oil?  Wotta waste of money!
    
    All you have to do is go out at night when there's no moon, take the lid
    off the can, and dump it.
    
    Hell, leave it to the gummint to spend money researching the obvious.

    Politics, bolitics...
    Anarchy: its just a more truthfull form of what happens now, anyway...
    
    pierre

    I'm sure that would help the ozone layer too.

    Glenn

    re: .34
    
    Anarchy is one of those words that has been given a bad rap by
    government officials who make a living from government. The facts may
    be that anarchy should be equated with individual rights and
    responsibilities. If people were allowed to live their own lives
    without government interference, the government would call it anarchy,
    most would call it freedom.
    
    ...Tom 

    Yes, but would it help New Zealanders in getting a decent tan?

    Looks like they don't need help!

    An alien view of the US:
    
    The only way I can describe the US is to say it's "extreme".  Name any
    subject and the extreme positions will be represented in the US.
    
    Education?  The best in the world (Harvard, MIT, UC.., etc), the worst
    in developed countries (unable to functionally read at college level,
    unable to locate Europe on a world map)
    
    Environment?  Strong pro-environmental stands vs. total dis-regard for
    environment if it impacts the bottom line. (Cut down all the trees, it
    saves jobs, fish every fish, ditto)
    
    Justice?  Right to a fair trial vs. trial by media.  Sanctity of life
    vs. capital punishment.  Dignity of the individual vs. highest
    incarceration rates in the world.
    
    Firearms?  ....nuff said
    
    Abortion?  .... (Curious how some people are both pro-life and
    pro-capital punishment)
    
    Intellectual pursuits?  Some of the most respected, knowledgable,
    wise(?) people on earth on a myriad of subjects vs. deliberate
    anti-intellectualism in the media (and other places?)
    
    World position?  World policeman vs. Isolationism, "Bring me your poor
    etc" vs. 187.
    
    The role of government?  Keep to a minimum (the apparent wish) vs. one
    of the largest, most intrusive, most widespread government apparatuses
    in the world.  
    
    Healthcare?  The best (the most expensive, most heroic) vs. chronic
    disease typically due to over consumption of sugar, fat, alcohol,
    ....
    
    Wealth?  The wealthiest (OK so the Sultan of Brunei may be wealthier)
    vs. ranks of homeless and beggars.
    
    So what's my point?  Well, the note said United States and this a
    Soapbox - it just seems to me that it is very difficult to talk about
    THE United States when the divisions are so wide.  And the divisions
    will get wider yet.  How do get out of this cycle?  Beats me.  Use of
    common sense maybe, use of timescales beyond the next quarter in
    business, beyond the next election in government?
    
    The trouble is that US influence is spreading so fast and so pervasively,
    probably because of the instant gratification component of the culture,
    that even us aliens will get affected.
    
    But try it for yourself - think of a subject and you will find the
    extremes represented and vocal and eager to push their view point on
    you and the rest of the world right here in the USA.
    
    Having said all that I like living here and like most of the people that
    I have met.    
    
    Axel
    

   Axel, thanks for sharing your views with us.  I have to say they are
   very accurate!

    
    You're from where, did you say ?
    
      bb

    No I didn't say - I'm one of those people lovably described by the INS
    as a resident alien.
    

    
    me too! 8)
    
    
    					ian

    the united states is, perhaps, as diverse a nation as there is on the
    planet. the freedoms we have (and are trying to retain) only amplify
    that diversity - in negative and positive ways. most non-americans
    don't understand our passions for differing and valuing opposite
    viewpoints. most view that passion as arrogance and critisize it as
    such. fair enough. however, when ANY nation in the world gets into
    trouble who do they look to bail their butt out?

    Babble-on the Great, we is.

    Thought some would enjoy the following, which is an extract from 
    "Janio at a Point" The full text of the book is at 
    http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/Janio.html and is reprinted here
    with permission

    ---------------------
Information Hiding 
by Greg Swann.

We have looked at a number of the obviously tragic consequences of 
government, but there are others of which we can take account that are 
not so obvious. You can call it "beating a dead horse" if you want, a 
Madness. So be it. I want to make sure that horse _stays_ dead...

All of these non-obvious effects are the result of what I call 
Information Hiding. We can easily see that government _commits_
crimes: it taxes, regulates, conscripts, murders - all in a day's 
work. And there is no barrier to our noticing that the state is
_lousy_ at keeping Crime from occurring and recovering losses. What is 
not so easy to notice is the way the government, by its crimes,
_contributes_ to non-governmental crimes...

This is no absolution. The man who wields a gun _deserves_ to be shot. 
If he is misled by the state into thinking that this is an intelligent 
solution to the problem of survival, it is still only _he_ who is in 
charge of his brain. It is still only _he_ who motivates himself to
_pick up_ that gun. No matter what "egged him on" and how, it is still 
only _he_ who is acting. If he commits a crime, he is at fault. 

But it is worthwhile to look to the actions of government, to see if 
they do induce people to commit crimes. I say they do, and, moreover, 
that the actions of government tend to dilute the value of 
self-preservation and self-love. Beating a dead horse though it may 
be, I say that the idea of government is at war with human life as 
such, _in retaliation for being what it is._ The "secret weapon" in 
that war is Information Hiding...

And again and again I protest that I _do not_ think they are evil. I 
don't believe anyone _intended_ any of this. The Gangsters and their 
brothers under the sheepskin _do_ intend to commit crimes. But they 
don't intend to create a self-accelerating self-destruction engine.
That happens as an unintended consequence. There is no "conspiracy" to 
send the world to hell in a handbasket. It's just rolling that way 
from the causal forces acting upon it, which no one is trying to 
stop...

Government is Madness. Like any Madness, it achieves the opposite of 
its intended consequence. And like any Madness, it can only be checked 
by the recognition that it _is_ a Madness. That it cannot work and 
that it is wasteful of the precious time of a finite life to continue 
to try to _make_ it work... This they are not yet ready to do - and 
don't hold your breath...

Okay: so what is Information Hiding? It is action that distorts or 
disguises the information content of causal events. It is not just 
government that does this. When the adult buys that child a second ice 
cream cone, he is "hiding" the lesson the child _could have_ learned 
from his error, that it is wise to be careful with values one prizes. 
But government, by virtue of its being a "Cosmic Injustice" engine,
hides information _epidemically..._

Here's an easy example: currency inflation. There have been few 
governments in history that have resisted the urge to despoil the 
trading medium. They pump out paper money as though it were toilet 
paper, and soon enough toilet paper is worth more in trade. By this 
action, the state "hides" the value of personal savings. In a paper 
economy, cash is constantly losing value against goods. If you 
exchange it for goods as soon as you get it, you realize more than you 
would at any later time. If instead you bank your cash, it diminishes 
in value through time. If you leave it there for long, it will lose
_all_ of its trade value. You will still have the same _quantity_ of 
cash, or even more, allowing for interest. But the quantity of goods 
you can _buy_ with that money will have shrunk drastically...

Similarly, government bankruptcy laws hide the value of fiscal 
restraint. If you can kiss-off on your debts at any time, you have no 
good reason to take them seriously. Now, thank goodness, there are 
some fairly effective _market_ restraints on credit fraud, notably the 
credit rating system. But the government, by arbitrarily and
_criminally_ "forgiving" debts owed to others, encourages those people 
who _already_ suffer from an irrational view of the future 
consequences of present actions to _further_ shrink their range of 
vision. 

Now a question you might ask at this point is: how would an Anarchy 
deal with personal bankruptcy? I can't dictate what choices people 
should make, but I can envision a system that would be Just to all 
parties: indenture. A person who is strapped with debts he cannot 
cover could sell his future labor to a bankruptcy contractor. This 
person would pay the debts, then provide bed and board for the debtor 
and keep the full value of his labor, until the debt is repaid. It's 
hard to imagine that bankruptcy would be even as small a problem as it 
is now, since there would be no arbitrary restraints on credit 
reporting. 

The bankruptcy laws are forms of liability limitation, of which every 
variation is an Information Hiding crime. Another type is the limited 
liability corporation. When a proprietorship or partnership causes an 
injury, the owners are liable for the _full_ damages, to the extent of 
their assets. But when an _incorporated_ business commits a crime, it
is liable only to the extent of the assets _of the business._ The 
other assets of its owners remain untouched. This is simply an 
arbitrary fiat of law, but it is not without consequences. First, it 
tends to reward incorporation and to penalize other ways of organizing 
businesses. It may be, as some of the Conservatives say, that free 
trade is _necessarily_ large-scale industrialism. But their argument 
is skewed by this and other types of laws that tend to reward large 
organizations at the expense of smaller ones. Second, it
_dramatically_ hides the consequences of Crime from the owners of 
corporations. A proprietor can lose not just his business, but also 
his _house._ Consequently, he is _much_ more apt to be careful than 
the owners of a corporation, whose houses are artificially protected 
by the law. In an Anarchy, I would expect that the principle of full 
restitution would hold, the restoration of the previous condition as 
much as is causally possible. People would be liable for the full 
consequences of their crimes, _irrespective_ of their assets.

Another form of liability limitation is the way the state responds to 
unintentional injuries. If you cause a traffic accident that results 
in a death, you will have to pay the full damage to both cars through 
your insurance premiums. You may be fined, and you may have your 
driver's license revoked. But you _will not_ be held liable for the 
death you have caused. You will not be liable to the people who have 
standing contracts with the deceased and you will not be obliged to 
compensate those contractors for their losses. If you wonder why there 
are so many people who _do_ drive, but _shouldn't,_ here is your 
answer. They are not held accountable for their errors, and hence they 
have no utilitarian reason to seek the truth. 

Welfarism is Information Hiding of a similar sort. So, incidentally,
is the _voluntary_ support of mendicants. By rewarding people for 
doing nothing, the state - or the "soft touch" - conceals from those 
people vital survival information. It hides the bodily and spiritual 
consequences of idleness and discounts the future value of the pursuit 
of righteousness. The state does this for a reason - to buy votes. But 
the people who allow themselves to be "bought" in this way are 
immeasurably damaged by it. For hand-outs _also_ distort awareness of 
the true value of _values,_ having them and fidelity _to_ them. A life 
that does not have to be _earned_ is of no value - to _anyone,_
including the person living it. If the needs of ourselves and our 
children are to be provided without our having to _produce_ them, 
there is no reason at all to educate our children to be independent,
self-sufficient individuals. If you wonder why ghettos are such 
filthy, crime-infested places, here is your answer. By imposing itself 
between people and the awareness that error causes pain, the state 
hides from those people the _disvalue_ of error. Now this is bad 
enough by itself, but what happens when the Cosmic Nipple dries up, as 
it eventually must? Many, many people who never "bothered" to learn 
how to live will starve to death...

"Free" "education" is a hand-out of which most Americans avail 
themselves - at their peril. Statist education is _always_ propaganda, 
carefully contrived and ritualized lies about the greatness, beauty 
and virtue of organized crime. But there is information hiding as well 
as deceit in public education. For example: at its very best, it is 
lousy. Because it loudly advertises itself as being "free", while 
quietly stealing its funds, public education deeply discounts the 
utility of pursuing alternatives to itself. The United States has not 
yet forbidden alternatives to government education. But by means of 
this trickery, it "persuades" people to submit their children to 
twelve years of victimization, brutalization, and _damn_ little 
education, instead of seeking a product of higher quality.

_Because_ everything it does is arbitrary - because it _does not_ act 
as a real person acts, using his own resources toward his own chosen 
ends - _everything_ a state does distorts information. I could name 
examples endlessly. The Neo-Classical Economists have done some 
remarkable work on the information content of the market price and how 
it is skewed by taxes, regulations, subsidies and price supports. One 
need only think of those news films of dairymen dumping milk in the 
rivers to see what can happen. In the same way, the concept of
"public" ownership is the source of the so-called "paradox" of "The
Tragedy Of The Commons". As an example, consider that bison, which 
cannot be privately owned, are near extinction, where cattle, which
_can_ be owned, are more numerous than ever. The garb of patriotism in 
which the state wraps itself, the songs and stories and myths taught 
in the state's schools, disguise the _disvalue_ of warfare. If you 
have ever talked to a young man _eager_ for the chance to get himself 
killed in the defense of some Gangster, you know what I mean...

It goes on and on. The state's willingness to use "Cosmic Injustice" 
to mitigate politically favored crimes hides the disvalue of Crime.
Taxes and other penalties on virtue discount the value of virtue.
Forbidding effective self-defense and peaceful dispute resolution 
discounts the value of non-coercive social interaction. In general, 
the Information Hiding that is an unavoidable consequence of 
government obscures the value of _life..._

We can look at the history of civilization as the gradual realization,
in the minds of individual people, that life is _precious,_ that being 
alive is a value for which _very_ few others ought to be traded. We 
can observe this process through the spread of literacy, hygiene, 
aesthetic appreciation, etc. Even through the spread of
_constitutional_ government, to give the devil his due. But government 
is never other than a Madness in the pursuit of the value of life. It 
is a less-threatening Madness than those that preceded it. In a tribal 
system, few babies live long enough to be threatened by "the bomb" or 
the IRS. But it is still a Madness, and it is still a very dangerous 
peril to life. 

First and always because of the force it wields - and here the tribes 
come out ahead; by their very inefficiency they lack the capacity to 
commit assembly-line murder. But second because its "Cosmic 
Injustices" discount the _future_ value of being alive. Those skittish 
youngsters who want to get killed in order to prove they are "men" are 
the perfect example... We noted that people who own homes are more 
likely to consider the future consequences of their actions than those 
who rent. Would not the same sort of relationship hold with respect to
_life_ as a value? Wouldn't the person who treasures his life be less 
likely to commit acts with potentially injurious future consequences 
than the one who doesn't...?

Now think of The Man Who Wielded The Gun... I'm not exonerating him 
and blaming the state. Only he controls his actions, and only he is at 
fault for the crime. But who was it who taught him to hold his life in 
such low esteem...?
_____________________________________________________________________________

[email protected]
http://www.primenet.com/~gswann (last updated 7/31/95)
[email protected]

                 We are what we do, not what we say we do...
                                                - Janio Valenta

    
    <---- Oh, sure, easy for YOU to say...