Tim May wrote: > > At 10:31 PM -0700 6/20/00, Lizard wrote: > Libertarians don't interfere in the choices of others to buy useless > gadgets or to believe foolish things. Where did you get the notion > that "most libertarians" would advocate intervening in such matters? I do not know of any libertarian or right-anarchist who believes a capitalist society can exist without some means of demanding compensation for fraud. If you contract to buy apples and I sell you potatoes instead, there must be some means of extracting justice. Capitalism is based on the idea that contracts are enforceable -- and that words have meanings. If I sell you software which I say "blocks pornography", and it does not do so, it is an act of fraud, end statement. Claiming, "Well, I consider the New York Times to be pornographic" would not stand up in any court, statist or private, any more than "Well, by 'cures cancer' I mean 'does not cure cancer'" would. If you advocate, somehow, a capitalist system in which there is no means to force a person to stick to the terms of a contract, you're well beyond any liberatarian/anarchocapitalist I know of. Sounds more like a recipe for some vague form of hippie socialism to me. > As far as perpetual motion machines go, they are no less realistic > than are the claims of most of the world's religions. I don't see > libertarians intervening to block Catholics from believing in the > miraculous powers of drinking the blood of Christ at mass, nor do I > see them stopping Holy Rollers from handling snakes in tent churches. But the government IS (properly) forbidden from spending stolen tax dollars on religious rituals. So long as the government is purchasing such software to use in schools I am involuntarily funding, I have, at the least, the right to demand that it works as advertised. Likewise, if a faith healer promises to perform a specific act in return for money, and fails to perform that act, it most certainly is grounds for a lawsuit. It doesn't matter if the source of the healers power is mystical or not -- if he claims he can cure blindness, and fails to cure blindness, he's going to get sued. Most of the worlds religions do not make testable claims, but to the extent any of them do, they should be held to the same standards as any business. (Religions weasel out by placing the onus on the vcitim of fraud -- "You were not healed because you lack faith!". Censorware manufacturers have no such out. They're selling snake oil, and it is time someone called them on it.) The fact that something is spoken does not make it a speech act in itself. Uttering "Your money or your life" while pointing a loaded gun at someone in a park is not merely an act of free speech. Personally, I would rather a world without libel, slander, or defamation laws. But given such laws exist, why not turn them on the agencies of the State? Two simple questions: In your world view, are contracts enforceable, or aren't they? Yes/No. Do you feel that most blocking software works 'as advertised'? Yes/No. >Despicable. Oh, you're just miffed because I was right on Y2K.
