re than 15 continuous lines of a previous message. Please resubmit your message, this time quoting fewer lines of the previous message.
--- >On 5 Nov 2001, at 9:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I disagree Craig, in the specific case of an airplane flying over >> dont fly with such and such a mechanical problem, etc. > >There are somethings that it might be legitimate for a government (or >anyone else -- the government is not above anyone) to order >categories. Airline safety standards should be regulated by the >market (people have a right to patronize (or not) an airline whose >safety practices suit them). And the government has no business >allocating property rights (in airspace or anything else). > reasonable... >> Quite simply say a criminal was getting on the plane (a theif or >> whatever - nothing to do with war etc -- someone who it was suspected >> would pickpocket all the passnegers in 1ts class during the flight) -- >> it would be a normal act of jurisprudence to arrest or detain that >> person, IMHO. > >This would be prior restraint. Indeed. > Prevention of the commission of a >crime is legitimate. Yes, it is. > Forceably restraining ie, "prevention", as in your previous sentence >someone Well, "someone", a legitimate law enforcement officer. >on the basis >that someone a legitimate law enforcement officer.... >thinks (even for good cause) they MAY commit a crime >is something else. I don't see that it's something else, it's prior restraint, as in your previous sentence. > On the otherhand, the airline can rightfully >exclude anyone they want for any or no reason; an airline which >excludes known crimnals might be a marketing feature. Quite. > But this >would not be a legitimate act for a government. > Right, it wouldn't. Anyway, this is about prior restraint, as you said. Let's say we *absolutely* *knew* that on Wednesday someone with say green eyes was going to blow up an aircraft into the Sear Towers. (It's a hypothetical -- we *absolutely* know that is the case.) In that situation, I believe it would be correct for the rightful government to say "Attention airlines, we are forbidding all airlines from carrying any passengers with green eyes on Wednesday" It's a tough one though. More generally, I observe that the fact that the world is currently *incredibly totalitarian* makes us forget that even raving libertarians and objectivists would in fact totally support strong law and order in a new, rejuvenated, uh, libertarian society. ie, we're so used to saying things like "it's absolutely insane that it is illegal to smoke pot" that we forget that in the future when Harry Browne sweeps to power and Everything Is Ok, we libertarians will still want strong law and order. On the military front (the #1 purpose of government being to protect the national body from military attack), *once* the USA has totally disengaged from the rest of the world, as all libertarians want, *if* the USA is then attacked, the USA would be rightful to annihilate the aggressor, in that new hypothetical world. >Best, > >CCS I would also remind you that this woman is *an environmentalist*, ie the hip modern word for socialist. She shouldn't be allowed to do anything or go anywhere! :) http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/september/jl_why_us_atacked.htm http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/september/jl_nihilism.htm http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/september/jl_why_us_atacked.htm http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/september/jl_nihilism.htm --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you know that e-metal is a wonderful holiday gift? Avoid the hassle this year!
