There is only one problem with full libertarianism, it relies on general good will and people behaving decently.
Government legislation shouldn't be a smack you on the rear end if you don't conform but rather a description of how society in general agrees behaviour should look in a given circumstance. The idea of making it enforcable is so that those who don't wish to conform to societies standards can be stopped from doing so. Shane Atkinson is an excellent example of abhorrant behaviour that transgresses the bounds of acceptable behaviour. In a truely liberian society we would either smile and put up with him, or else raise a posse to lynch him. Either way not a pleasent thought. Govt legislation doesn't have to be enforced BUT!!!! and this is a big BUT!!! when people break the law, and continue to grossly infringe on others peoples rights to to live their lives at peace, then it is used to enforce a decent level of acceptable behaviour. The alternative is anarchy or the mob mentality where the biggest and strongest wins. It is an interesting note that in countries with the most laws they are often enforced the least ( think South America) while those with fewer laws tend to enforce them more harshly. Shane On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:03, you wrote: > Being a libertarian myself, I detest the thought of the government > getting involved in trying to legislate spam... > > My .002c worth. > > Cheers > > Jason > > Peter Elliott wrote: > >On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 15:11:30 +0000 > > > >Shane Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>One simple piece of legislation would slow it down ... if you send it, > >> you must be able to receive a reply to it. make it illeagel to forge > >> headers and addresses. If people don't want it they send you an email > >> opting out and if you don't listen they bounce it back at you. Image > >> some stupid sdpammer sending 100 million or more spams and having 90% of > >> them bounce back to his/her server. They would go out of business pretty > >> soon. > > > >there is little point in legislation without enforcement and none(zero, > >zilch, nix, nada, nought, nowt & nuttin) of the proposed solutions are > >attractive in the slightest *once* one begins to think of them in this > > way. > > > >just try it as an exercise and you'll soon see just how appalling the > >consequences of these "good" intentions are - not just for the civil > >libertarians among us - but for anyone using email. > >the costs we(the users) would have to bear are frightening. > > > >cheers > >peter > >*not* in flame mode and *not* particularly innarested in discussing the > >multifarious ins+outs of any such proposed schemes. -- Shane Hollis Notes Unlimited New Zealand Ph: 021 465 547 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
