Re: Give cheese to france?

[Bill Stewart]

At 09:44 AM 03/14/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Marx was primarily an economist, and a lot of what he had to say bore 
listening to.
I had to read that twice, because my reaction to reading "Das Kapital"
was that it was not only spectacularly boring, but spectacularly clueless 
as well.

The Labor Theory of Value has some glimmer of a clue behind it,
but the value of something is the value to the user,
though the seller's cost curves will be influenced by the labor that went 
into it.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Ken Brown]

Harmon Seaver wrote:

> Ah yes, forgot about that -- the fancy condo right smack in the downtown
> historic district used to be a while city block of historic buildings people
> wanted to save, and, in fact, there were developers with money who wanted to
> restore them, but the city, for some reason no one could figure out, condemned
> them, took the whole block with eminent domain, then razed the whole thing --
> with no plan whatsoever in mind for what would replace it. Or so it seemed. Then
> they sold the whole block to this other developer for one dollar, and gave him a
> ton of TIF to build a big, very modern, condo which doesn't even remotely jive
> with the rest of the area.
> This same city council approved a zone change from church/residential to
> business with no knowledge, supposedly, of what or who the purchaser of the
> property would be -- the church said it had to be kept secret. Turns out it's a
> new Super Wallmart.
> Isn't it great the way fascism works?

That's not fascism - that's old-fashioned public officials acting in
their own interests.

The first answer to it is democracy. Vote the buggers out.

The second is resistance. 

The third (not yet tried) is open government. Government should not be
allowed to keep secrets from citizens, and the words "commercial in
confidence"  on a contract signed by government should invalidate it. 
Local governments are people we employ to fix the drains and clean the
streets and make sure he schools stay open. No reason we should tolerate
them doing deals behind our backs.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Harmon Seaver]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 01:44:46PM +, Ken Brown wrote:
> Harmon Seaver wrote:
> 
> > Ah yes, forgot about that -- the fancy condo right smack in the downtown
> > historic district used to be a while city block of historic buildings people
> > wanted to save, and, in fact, there were developers with money who wanted to
> > restore them, but the city, for some reason no one could figure out, condemned
> > them, took the whole block with eminent domain, then razed the whole thing --
> > with no plan whatsoever in mind for what would replace it. Or so it seemed. Then
> > they sold the whole block to this other developer for one dollar, and gave him a
> > ton of TIF to build a big, very modern, condo which doesn't even remotely jive
> > with the rest of the area.
> > This same city council approved a zone change from church/residential to
> > business with no knowledge, supposedly, of what or who the purchaser of the
> > property would be -- the church said it had to be kept secret. Turns out it's a
> > new Super Wallmart.
> > Isn't it great the way fascism works?
> 
> That's not fascism - that's old-fashioned public officials acting in
> their own interests.

No, that's fascism -- fascism is the corporate welfare state, the
military/industrial complex, prison/industrial complex, etc. And this is how it
works on a smaller, more local scale. 

> 
> The first answer to it is democracy. Vote the buggers out.

   Impossible to do here, they're got a crooked little system set up with no
accountability. They changed it decades ago from a ward system to a common
council -- meaning that all the council is elected at large, everyone in the
city votes for all 6 council members, there's no ward representation at
all. This then means that the candidates with the most money win. A lot of
people have spent a whole lot of time and effort to get decent people elected,
but all that happens is that we end up with one or two good people on the
council who are not only outvoted on every issue, but are also constantly
browbeaten and humiliated to the point that they don't run again. 
It's pretty much hopeless. Probably the only way to change it at this point
would be a court action on the grounds that it's an unconstitutional form of
government -- which it clearly is, think how it would play out if the state
legislature or US congress was elected at large. At any rate, unless some civic
minded attorney decides to do it out of the goodness of his heart, it won't
change, people here are too discouraged to bother trying anymore. 


> 
> The second is resistance. 
> 
   see above


> The third (not yet tried) is open government. Government should not be
> allowed to keep secrets from citizens, and the words "commercial in
> confidence"  on a contract signed by government should invalidate it. 
> Local governments are people we employ to fix the drains and clean the
> streets and make sure he schools stay open. No reason we should tolerate
> them doing deals behind our backs.

Where is this happening?


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Ken Brown]

"Kevin S. Van Horn" wrote:

> By the way, one piece of evidence that economics is maturing into a real
> science is that it is becoming usable by "engineers"; in particular, it
> has been applied to investment analysis and portfolio theory, resulting
> in significant improvements in investment performance.



That's why the value of most investments has halved over the last 4
years then?

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Tyler Durden]

James Donald wrote...

On 11 Mar 2003 at 9:35, Tyler Durden wrote:
> "Does it mean that such observations are invalid just because
> Marx predicted them?"
Actually, I didn't write that, though I quoted it.

Marx was both untruthful, and spectacularly in error.
Marx was primarily an economist, and a lot of what he had to say bore 
listening to. And there's a core there that I believe is probably correct. 
For instance, despite your examples, there are industries where 
consolidation is occuring, and in ways that closely resemble what Marx 
predicted. A good example is the silicon chip industry. How many top-line 
fabs still exist (ie, capable of 0.38um and below)? The cost of such fabs is 
now in the billions, so there are only a few companies that can afford it. 
Amongst piles of other things, Marx predicted exactly this.

(Again, however, this doesn't mean I find Marx's predictions all that 
appealing, nor is communism-as-it-has-existed any system I'd want to live 
under again.)

If commies actually believed what they said, if they still
believed the prophecies, then they would still be working at
labor organization, rather than at conspiracy.
Well, here's where your rant sideswipes reality at its closest. Today's 
Marxists definitely seem, by and large, to be more interested in ideology 
and banner-waving than in helping, say, Haitian workers receive a living 
wage. When the commies of the world start drop-shipping rifles to striking 
miners in Bangladesh, then I'll be interested.


Ever since Lenin, a core principle of communism has been to
know the truth, and to lie about it.
Pooey. Here's where you seem distinctly skewed in your thinking by the 
Soviets. The Chinese communists have a much more interesting history, The 
"lying" probably doesn't really get going in China until about 1960 or so. 
The Chinese communists (particularly prior to 1949) were an absolutely 
necessary force in China from the 1920s until the mid 50s. (And this is 
probably not because they were communist per se, but more that the Chinese 
communists represented an imminently Chinese clustering of ideals and pooled 
resources in reaction to a murderous occupation by the Japanese and 
collusion by Chiang Kai Shek.)

The point is, Chinese communism didn't have "lies" as a core principal. The 
lies came much later.

-TD

_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Give cheese to france?

[James A. Donald]

--
On 11 Mar 2003 at 9:35, Tyler Durden wrote:
> "Does it mean that such observations are invalid just because 
> Marx predicted them?"

Marx was both untruthful, and spectacularly in error.

If commies actually believed what they said, if they still 
believed the prophecies, then they would still be working at 
labor organization, rather than at conspiracy.

Ever since Lenin, a core principle of communism has been to 
know the truth, and to lie about it.  Lying is to communism, as 
prayer is to Christianity.  The shared lie provides the 
solidarity and cohesion, the sense of identity, that shared 
prayer does to Christians.  Every lie provides a bond of 
conspiracy.  Trotskyists take this principal to bizarre 
extremes.  Stalinist lying is analogous to the old Catholic 
mass, where the priest speaks and the masses say amen, whereas 
Trotskyist lying is analogous to the prayer of the 
charismatics, where the congregation prays in tongues, rolls on
the floor and has fits. The Trotskyists demand greater personal
involvement and investment in lying, whereas the Stalinists
merely expect the faithful to display solemn credulity. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 /Hq03OpaW0rXDTXag6XeEQfadxRGzzjBh12ZU+Wx
 4OFCSisd7OtfMp1I1Fuzb32PHD2i7GVF7l9eaIZeD

Re: Give cheese to france?

[James A. Donald]

--
James A. Donald:
> > Comie fantasy. That theory is Marx's "monopoly capitalism". 
> > Commies have been loudly announcing Marx's prophecies to be 
> > coming true, even though after 1910 they no longer took the 
> > prophecies seriously themselves.

On 11 Mar 2003 at 7:04, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
> Open your eyes and look around yourself. Take any bigger,  
> established market - news, radio, TV stations, retail chains 
> are the first examples coming to my mind - take its top  
> 80-90%, and count the number of players there.

Children's cartoons used to be overwhelmingly dominated by  
Disney.  Now Disney is going down for the third time  AOL used 
to have a disproportionate share of the internet, Time magazine 
used to dominate the newsmagazine business.

Looks to me like News and radio are becoming substantially less 
centralized, not more.

True, the former leaders are consolidating -- because they are 
no longer the former leaders, and they are going broke.   The
AOL/Time/Disney combo will soon be in bankruptcy the way things
are going,  If they pull out, they will remain as a tiny shadow
of their former selves.

As I said, communists recognized there prophecies were turning 
out false in 1910 -- which does not stop them from announcing 
twice as loudly that their prophecies are coming true.


--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 v3hBJx3DbxVQMbHubW7SMcxaffWG0nFrxTS+hhXr
 4GKaJ72xl6I3Cumv8h0ugQYDze09SslYwYubKyPVF

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 07:04 AM 3/11/03 +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
>> Comie fantasy.
>> That theory is Marx's "monopoly capitalism".  Commies have been
>> loudly announcing Marx's prophecies to be coming true, even
>> though after 1910 they no longer took the prophecies seriously
>> themselves.
>
>Open your eyes and look around yourself. Take any bigger, established
>market - news, radio, TV stations, retail chains are the first examples

>coming to my mind - take its top 80-90%, and count the number of
players
>there. Do the same with the situation 10, 20, and 30 years ago.

Actually there are a lot more heavy-duty news channels (FWIW) now than
when there were 3 US broadcasters.

But more importantly, there are optimal sizes for
an organism (company) in a given environment.  Buying things
in bulk is cheaper, for instance; and some costs are amortized
more widely.  Its just physics/economics.  For an animal, its
things like heat loss vs. size, available calories, predation
that influence optimal size.

The merging of N companies into 1 can be more productive
(efficient) than maintaining N companies.  Its a simple
fact.  You might regret it or embrace it, depending on which
side of the cash register you're on.
(Ma and pa shops vs. Walmart: Ma und pa's perspective
differs from the customer who evidently prefers Walmart)


You will
>see the number of players is dramatically diminishing. The news
>announcements of high-profile mergers and acquisitions can be another
clue
>for you.

The dot-com bomb (and other tech/social 'bubbles') can be thought of as
one of the paleobio radiation / contraction events in geological
history.  When things are good, plenty of plans are tried out.  A few
asteroids later, you are left with pruned innovation.  NASDAQ's IPOs and
delistings are the Burgess Shale of tech.  (Modulo some irrational
exuberance :-)

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Tyler Durden]

"Does it mean that such observations are invalid just because Marx
predicted them?"
Good point. And also, just because someone points out that it looks like 
Marx's predictions may be coming true, it doesn't mean that that person 
believes this is desirable.

-TD





From: Thomas Shaddack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Give cheese to france?
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:04:11 +0100 (CET)
> Comie fantasy.
> That theory is Marx's "monopoly capitalism".  Commies have been
> loudly announcing Marx's prophecies to be coming true, even
> though after 1910 they no longer took the prophecies seriously
> themselves.
Open your eyes and look around yourself. Take any bigger, established
market - news, radio, TV stations, retail chains are the first examples
coming to my mind - take its top 80-90%, and count the number of players
there. Do the same with the situation 10, 20, and 30 years ago. You will
see the number of players is dramatically diminishing. The news
announcements of high-profile mergers and acquisitions can be another clue
for you.
Does it mean that such observations are invalid just because Marx
predicted them?


_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: Give cheese to france?

[James A. Donald]

--
James A. Donald:
> > The difference between private property owners doing this,
> > and the governemnt doing this is that 100% of private
> > property owners are NOT going to agree on anything.

On 9 Mar 2003 at 8:36, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
> This presumes the existence of significant amount of (at
> least potentially) competing private owners - then it is
> valid argument.
>
> However, there is the growing trend of mergers and
> consolidations, producing megacorporations and limiting the
> number of said owners.

Comie fantasy.

That theory is Marx's "monopoly capitalism".  Commies have been
loudly announcing Marx's prophecies to be coming true, even
though after 1910 they no longer took the prophecies seriously
themselves. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 pn7EKC9aBTqrOyM4bzwtwFZtOdqAOmXvvbLxZrlA
 4YfWL2n2mbdOvyx1+q5PrE3PPyZbwP/aYDT7In7J4

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Declan McCullagh]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 02:44:44AM +0100, Anonymous wrote:
> But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery 
> store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now 
> assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only 
> those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more donation to 
> George W Bush (or Hillary Clinton, whatever) may enter their 
> property to shop for groceries.
> 
> Their right? Why not?

Let me take your hypothetical and move it closer to home.* I take
photographs and occasionally license them or sell prints. I post some
general terms on my website:
http://www.mccullagh.org/cgi-bin/photodownload.cgi?name=licensing-conditions

Yes, I have the right to license (sell) my photos only to Democrats,
Republicans, Libertarians, or socialist Eurotrash, as Tim might call
them.  And these same folks have the right to shop elsewhere if they
conclude my terms are onerous or objectionable.

In fact, I've declined to do business with the Disclosure Project,
a we've-seen-UFOs type of group, because I didn't want to support their
cause. (http://www.mccullagh.org/theme/disclosure-project-ufo-may01.html)

Many newspapers and magazines will choose not to do business with
people who want to use their photographs for derogatory purposes.
(http://www.politechbot.com/p-03181.html) And so on.

This is a Good Thing. It's called voluntary transactions, and it's
part of living in a free society.

-Declan

* Yes, all this assumes that intellectual property laws exist, but the
arguments are true in general. I chose to switch the hypothetical
since yours about grocery stores muddles things -- I can imagine
complaints that somehow that should be different, as if people would
starve without giving $$$ to Hillary.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Tim May]

On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 07:55 PM, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:

R. A. Hettinga wrote:

By the way, one piece of evidence that economics is maturing into a 
real science is that it is becoming usable by "engineers";

Well, finance, anyway, where it is possible to calculate some risk.

You can't calculate prices, though. You discover them.

For commodities, if you could somehow discover the demand and supply 
curves and predict how they were going to move, you could in fact 
calculate what prices were going to be.  The problem is that you can 
only observe exactly one point on the demand or supply curve -- where 
it crosses the other curve.  You can't observe any other point until 
at least one of the two curves moves.  It's conceivable (although I'm 
not aware of anyone even attempting this) that if you had some 
(perhaps probabilistic) model for both curves as a function of some 
exogenous variables, that you might get some useful predictive 
information about prices.

All markets involve versions of supply and demand curves. However, 
predicting the future of market prices is notoriously difficult.

The problem is caused by a lot more than inability to see more than 
just the one point where the two curves intersect...that's just a 
statement of the market clearing price.

Whether the price of GE stock, for example, may go up next week, or 
down, or follows a shape described after the fact by some complex 
equation is unknown for a LOT of reasons.

(Friends of mine operate a medium-sized hedge fund, using as much 
knowledge as they can gather from tens of thousands of market values 
per day, using a whole panoply of buzzword math technologies (support 
vector machines, neural nets, Bayesian networks, agents, blah blah). 
They spent time with Doyne Farmer, formerly of Prediction and now at 
the Santa Fe Insitute. And yet they are only trying to gain a slight 
edge.)

Commodity prices are close enough to being like stock prices that the 
prediction problems are comparable. (And predicting commodity prices is 
a popular regime for trying these techniques.)

--Tim May

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Kevin S. Van Horn]

R. A. Hettinga wrote:

By the way, one piece of evidence that economics is maturing into a real 
science is that it is becoming usable by "engineers";
   

Well, finance, anyway, where it is possible to calculate some risk.

You can't calculate prices, though. You discover them.

For commodities, if you could somehow discover the demand and supply 
curves and predict how they were going to move, you could in fact 
calculate what prices were going to be.  The problem is that you can 
only observe exactly one point on the demand or supply curve -- where it 
crosses the other curve.  You can't observe any other point until at 
least one of the two curves moves.  It's conceivable (although I'm not 
aware of anyone even attempting this) that if you had some (perhaps 
probabilistic) model for both curves as a function of some exogenous 
variables, that you might get some useful predictive information about 
prices.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Thomas Shaddack]

> Comie fantasy.
> That theory is Marx's "monopoly capitalism".  Commies have been
> loudly announcing Marx's prophecies to be coming true, even
> though after 1910 they no longer took the prophecies seriously
> themselves.

Open your eyes and look around yourself. Take any bigger, established
market - news, radio, TV stations, retail chains are the first examples
coming to my mind - take its top 80-90%, and count the number of players
there. Do the same with the situation 10, 20, and 30 years ago. You will
see the number of players is dramatically diminishing. The news
announcements of high-profile mergers and acquisitions can be another clue
for you.

Does it mean that such observations are invalid just because Marx
predicted them?

Re: Give cheese to france?

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 10:19 PM -0600 on 3/9/03, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:


> By the way, one piece of evidence that economics is maturing into a real 
> science is that it is becoming usable by "engineers";

Well, finance, anyway, where it is possible to calculate some risk.

You can't calculate prices, though. You discover them.

Most "economics" is still about top-down design these days, and, as such, is hogwash.

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Kevin S. Van Horn]

Tyler Durden wrote:

Actually, I am dimly aware of this. From the little I've been able to 
glean, there is a very slow, steady progress in the 'science' of 
economics/econometrics. 
By the way, one piece of evidence that economics is maturing into a real 
science is that it is becoming usable by "engineers"; in particular, it 
has been applied to investment analysis and portfolio theory, resulting 
in significant improvements in investment performance.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Thomas Shaddack]

> The difference between private property owners doing this, and
> the governemnt doing this is that 100% of private property
> owners are NOT going to agree on anything.

This presumes the existence of significant amount of (at least
potentially) competing private owners - then it is valid argument.

However, there is the growing trend of mergers and consolidations,
producing megacorporations and limiting the number of said owners. Some
corporate entities have more money than many smaller countries. So said
"100% of owners" can easily be both owners of the megastore chains within
50 miles near you. Where you will go then, if smaller local shops were
long ago erradicated by said stores (see eg. Walmart strategy)?

> The "100%" assumption presupposes that "the capitalists" are
> like the state, a single entity with a single will, in which
> case it is obvious that simply replacing the will of "the
> capitalists" with the will of "the people" would be a vast
> improvement, rather than slavery terror and mass murder.

It doesn't have to be 100.00%; significant amount is enough to cause
rather large-scale inconvenience. This is especially dangerous in areas
with high barrier to entry, preventing easy operative formation of new
competing subjects.

Forming of artificial barriers to entry - closed standards, firewalling of
critical technologies with patents, etc. - is another dangerous trend; for
many small subjects, interoperability is beneficial, while for one or a
handful of big! subjects lack of interoperability (at least without paying
obscene fees and signing NDAs)  is a neat tool to squeeze the potential
competition out of the market.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer]

On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 09:00:48 -0800, you wrote:
>
> --
> On 8 Mar 2003 at 2:44, Anonymous wrote:
> > But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery
> > store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now
> > assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only
> > those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more donation
> > to George W Bush (or Hillary Clinton, whatever) may enter
> > their property to shop for groceries.
>
> The difference between private property owners doing this, and
> the governemnt doing this is that 100% of private property
> owners are NOT going to agree on anything.
>
> The "100%" assumption presupposes that "the capitalists" are
> like the state, a single entity with a single will, in which
> case it is obvious that simply replacing the will of "the
> capitalists" with the will of "the people" would be a vast
> improvement, rather than slavery terror and mass murder.

You are exactly right! Now comes the question: If the mall has 
the right, but can't join with all malls to solidify the 
uniformity of the prohibition, then a property right will be 
interfered with, either the right of one mall to prohibit, or 
the right of malls to agree to prohibit. Else the power of 
monopoly (all malls unified) has part of the effect of the 
government's monopoly.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Tim May]

On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 05:44 PM, Anonymous wrote:

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:44:44 -0500, you wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:20:39AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
First of all, stating one perhaps should have the right to wear 
whatever
T-shirt you want in a mall
The better way to frame the question: May a private property owner
legally exclude people from it? Seems to me the answer should be, as a
general rule, yes.
-Declan
Black people? Members of the Armed Forces? School teachers?
Government employees? NRA members? Attorneys? (Well, OK, screw
them, regardless.)
A property owner has every right to exclude black people, soldiers, 
teachers, etc.

But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery
store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now
assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only
those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more donation to
George W Bush (or Hillary Clinton, whatever) may enter their
property to shop for groceries.
Their right? Why not?
\

Yes, of course it is their "right."

But these silly "lifeboat ethics" debates were tiresome more than 30 
years ago, argued in person. Typing answers to them is even more 
tiresome.

Read some of the sources. Few of you social democrats here have done so.

Which is OK, as it's your life. But you don't belong on this list if 
you have not.



--Tim May
"That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David 
Thoreau

Re: Give cheese to france?

[AARG! Anonymous]

> But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery
> store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now
> assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only
> those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more donation to
> George W Bush (or Hillary Clinton, whatever) may enter their
> property to shop for groceries.
>
> Their right? Why not?
> \
>
> Yes, of course it is their "right."
>
> But these silly "lifeboat ethics" debates were tiresome more than 30 years ago, 
> argued in person. Typing answers to them is even more tiresome.

That's not what it was.

>
> Read some of the sources. Few of you social democrats here have done so.

Maybe you could re read Locke's first and second treatise. Can't 
hurt.

>
> Which is OK, as it's your life. But you don't belong on this list if you have not.

I assume if I refuse to leave, I can expect you to shoot me?

I take it you favor the bearing of arms by citizens. I do too, 
severely. But I submit for your consideration that 10,000 
screaming Sarah Bradys can't damage the too-tentative support of 
those rights as effectively as one gun-nut loon who advocates 
shooting unarmed, non-violent soccer moms at the mall who refuse 
to be expelled on trespassing grounds due to the war protests 
printed on their t-shirts.

>
>
> --Tim May
> "That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David Thoreau

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Tyler Durden]

"Read some of the sources. Few of you social democrats here have done so."

Poo-poo on such "sources". I can't believe that someone supposedly trined in 
physics really believes such sources to be of a huge amount of value.

I know I'll take heat for the following statement (deservedly--I admit it's 
a huge bias), but as a physicist myself, any political or social "science" 
is for me highly suspect if it does not rely upon mathemtical expressions 
and can not make quantifiable predictions. And for the most part, we've 
never seen that.

What I mean is that we can state all the political and economic theories we 
want, but in the end I doubt they have much relevance to reality. So I've 
never really gone out of my way to dig deeply into such sources. Social 
theories always seem quaint to me...they may have some real relevance at the 
time of conception, but technology (for one) takes such wild turns that many 
ideas which seem "obvious" at one point are almost useless a few years 
later. Like, imagine what even the most brilliant of late medieaval 
philosophers might have said about the future of fortifications. Many of 
such statements may have been insightful and "correct" at the time they were 
formulated, but they also probably could not have taken into consideration 
the existence and implications of gunpowder, which would wipe out the notion 
of a fortification (in the castle sense) just about completely.

Strong crypto is one form of gunpowder from the late 20th century. And while 
we can gesticulate about the probable implications, in the end I doubt 
anything that is said now will hold much relevance to the world as it will 
stand 30 years from now. So right now the only really valid "philosophy" is 
coding itself, and the generation of apps and structures based on this new 
gunpowder (which like gunpowder can't be put back in the can). This will 
(along with many other technologies) change the world into something we 
probably can't even imagine right now. And the only people who will be seen 
as having been "correct" in any sense will be those that developed 
technologies that will be used in the future. What we SAY will seem quaint 
and irrelevant. (Hey! Where's my flying car and domestic robot?)

-TD







_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Re: Give cheese to france?

[James A. Donald]

--
On 8 Mar 2003 at 2:44, Anonymous wrote:
> But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery 
> store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now 
> assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only 
> those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more donation
> to George W Bush (or Hillary Clinton, whatever) may enter
> their property to shop for groceries.

The difference between private property owners doing this, and
the governemnt doing this is that 100% of private property
owners are NOT going to agree on anything.

The "100%" assumption presupposes that "the capitalists" are
like the state, a single entity with a single will, in which
case it is obvious that simply replacing the will of "the
capitalists" with the will of "the people" would be a vast
improvement, rather than slavery terror and mass murder. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 HgEdYNVKv2tU/toXy+I4n7ghSLCNWUPXGAeW1QBT
 4k9jI77S/WhRm+irKmtf3wrOpbIQpPsFLWh2y5bwz

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Anonymous]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:15:52 -0800, you wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 06:21 AM, An Metet wrote:
> I've been hearing liberals bleat about the actions of the cops and
> mall security.
>
> "Their civil rights were violated!"
> "They have free speech!"
> "The mall is a public accomodation!"
> "Property rights don't trump personal rights!"
>
> These fuckards really need to learn what private property is.
>
>
> "The Net was partly financed by taxpayers, therefore the government has the right to 
> stop hate speech on the Net and force encryption keys to be escrowed."

You are kidding, right? You actually do know, right, that if the 
mall was fully owned and totally operated by the state, they'd 
either have to prohibit all political messages on T-shirts, or 
none, right?

>
> "Roads are paid for by the public, so searches of vehicles are permitted."

Where did you get that? Did your tin foil hat fall off again?

>
> "Magazines are delivered using trucks which travel on government-financed roads and 
> over government-built bridges. This makes is legal for government to have a say in 
> what these magazines print."

That clackity clack sound is your train running off the tracks.

>
> "Homeowners get various subsidies from government, therefore their houses are 
> subject to inspection by government."

No, they are subject to inspection under building codes during 
construction whether you get a subsidy or not.

>
>
> The confusion by many of the recent posters here shows why statism has taken such a 
> foothold in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere.

Up the meds, Tim.

>
> --Tim May

Whose motto should be "So little time, so many windmills".

>
>
>
> Join the boycott against Delta Airlines for their support of the Big Brotherish 
> "CAPPS II" citizen-unit tracking program.
>
> http://www.boycottdelta.org
> http://boycottdelta.org/images/deltaeyebanner.gif
>
> With our help, Delta Airlines may be joining United and US Air in the
> bankruptcy scrap heap.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Anonymous]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:44:44 -0500, you wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:20:39AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> > First of all, stating one perhaps should have the right to wear whatever
> > T-shirt you want in a mall
>
> The better way to frame the question: May a private property owner
> legally exclude people from it? Seems to me the answer should be, as a
> general rule, yes.
>
> -Declan

Black people? Members of the Armed Forces? School teachers? 
Government employees? NRA members? Attorneys? (Well, OK, screw 
them, regardless.)

But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery 
store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now 
assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only 
those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more donation to 
George W Bush (or Hillary Clinton, whatever) may enter their 
property to shop for groceries.

Their right? Why not?

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Kevin S. Van Horn]

Harmon Seaver wrote:

The better way to frame the question: May a private property owner
legally exclude people from it? Seems to me the answer should be, as a
general rule, yes
Absolutely yes, except for the fact that malls have invited the public in,

Are you saying that if I invite people to a party, I cannot then throw 
them off my  property when and if they become abusive or offensive?

so once you've done that, it's pretty hard to exclude some portion of it.

No, it's not hard at all.  "Sir, I'll have to ask you to leave the 
premises."  That's all it takes.

Plus the whole other issue of whether the malls aren't partially owned by the public.

There is no "public," only individuals who sometimes, temporarily and in 
limited ways, work together.

If they've used eminent domain

then they are accomplices to armed robbery, and the property  seized 
should be returned to its rightful owners, who may then exclude anyone 
they damn well please.

It would probably be best for society as a whole

Forget about "society"; only actual, individual people live, think, 
suffer, enjoy, have rights, etc.

There's also the issue of corporations not having any civil rights in the first place

Their owners certainly have property rights.  These rights stem from 
their nature as human beings (or from God, if you are so inclined); they 
are not granted by  nor subject to the approval of any government.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Harmon Seaver]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:44:44PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:20:39AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> > First of all, stating one perhaps should have the right to wear whatever 
> > T-shirt you want in a mall 
> 
> The better way to frame the question: May a private property owner
> legally exclude people from it? Seems to me the answer should be, as a
> general rule, yes.

   Absolutely yes, except for the fact that malls have invited the public in, so
once you've done that, it's pretty hard to exclude some portion of it. Plus the
whole other issue of whether the malls aren't partially owned by the public. If
they've used eminent domain and TIF money, they're not privately owned, at least
until they finish paying it off. And from a moral standpoint, if they did indeed
use eminent domain to take property from private owners, they don't have any
basis for complaining about anything. It would probably be best for society as a
whole if the corporate execs involved in such activities were taken out and
lynched. 
   There's also the issue of corporations not having any civil rights in the
first place, so I'm not even sure they really have, or should have, property
rights, in the same way that individuals do. 



-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Declan McCullagh]

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:20:39AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> First of all, stating one perhaps should have the right to wear whatever 
> T-shirt you want in a mall 

The better way to frame the question: May a private property owner
legally exclude people from it? Seems to me the answer should be, as a
general rule, yes.

-Declan

re: give cheese to France

[jayh]

Actually shooting 150 visitors would be hell on business. Damn, your pesky tenants 
will probably object strenuously if you simply shooed 150 potential (opinionated) 
customers.

Stalin & the Chinese tried the shooting route, the fallout wasn't cool.

Fortunately the market apparently has responses to censorship (homocidal or 
otherwise). 

jay

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Tim May]

On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 06:21 AM, An Metet wrote:
I've been hearing liberals bleat about the actions of the cops and
mall security.
"Their civil rights were violated!"
"They have free speech!"
"The mall is a public accomodation!"
"Property rights don't trump personal rights!"
These fuckards really need to learn what private property is.

"The Net was partly financed by taxpayers, therefore the government has 
the right to stop hate speech on the Net and force encryption keys to 
be escrowed."

"Roads are paid for by the public, so searches of vehicles are 
permitted."

"Magazines are delivered using trucks which travel on 
government-financed roads and over government-built bridges. This makes 
is legal for government to have a say in what these magazines print."

"Homeowners get various subsidies from government, therefore their 
houses are subject to inspection by government."

The confusion by many of the recent posters here shows why statism has 
taken such a foothold in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere.

--Tim May



Join the boycott against Delta Airlines for their support of the Big 
Brotherish "CAPPS II" citizen-unit tracking program.

http://www.boycottdelta.org
http://boycottdelta.org/images/deltaeyebanner.gif
With our help, Delta Airlines may be joining United and US Air in the  
bankruptcy scrap heap.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Tyler Durden]

"I'm ashamed to be on the same list with you statists and fascists."

Lot's I don't get here.

First of all, stating one perhaps should have the right to wear whatever 
T-shirt you want in a mall isn't necessarily "statist". There are, possibly, 
non-state-originating arguments in favor of such a notion. More than that, 
there CERTAINLY are ways in which such a "right" could be enforced sans 
state.

More than that, what's all this about "dousing" hating, and whatever about 
supposed "statists" and "fascists", just because they wrote something on the 
friggin internet? If I believe that George W. should be king and Lord of all 
who gives a crap unless I actually try to DO something about it?  Talk is 
cheap. Even laws are cheap...I don't get too worked up over fascistic laws 
and violation of the constitution or watever until someone actually starts 
trying to restrict my 'rights' (whatever the hell that actually means).

-TD




From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Give cheese to france?
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:21:52 -0800
On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 02:11 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Besides, the publicity has been great.  I was told that after it made
news, 150 women wearing
the same T-shirts showed up at the mall.  The security guards locked
themselves in their offices.
Probably messed their pants, too.
If people didn't leave my property when told to, and the actual police 
would not expel them, then I would consider it morally justified to start 
shooing those 150 bitches. Sometimes people don't understand anything 
except bullets.

My defense would be that it was my property, they were trespassing, and the 
police refused to do their job.

Frankly, many of you on this list really need to be doused with gasoline 
and then lit.

I'm ashamed to be on the same list with you statists and fascists. The 
Eurotrash nitwits are the worst. It's as if they were born in Communist 
countries and never shook their early training...which, come to think of 
it, is probably likely.

--Tim May
I'm ashamed to be on the same list with you statists and fascists.

_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: Give cheese to france?

[An Metet]

NOTICE: This message may not have been sent by the Sender Name 
above.  Always use cryptographic digital signatures to verify 
the identity of the sender of any usenet post or e-mail.

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer wrote on March 7, 2003 at 07:07:02 +0100:

> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:21:52 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 02:11 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> >
> > > Besides, the publicity has been great.  I was told that after it made
> > > news, 150 women wearing the same T-shirts showed up at the mall.  The
> > > security guards locked themselves in their offices. Probably messed
> > > their pants, too.
> >
> > If people didn't leave my property when told to, and the actual police
> > would not expel them, then I would consider it morally justified to
> > start shooing those 150 bitches. Sometimes people don't understand
> > anything except bullets.
> >
> > My defense would be that it was my property, they were trespassing, and
> > the police refused to do their job.
>
> Stupid defense, and if you found a judge stupid enough to allow
> it, I'd be surprised. If you proved the elements above, you are
> still guilty of murder. You'd be the bitch in prison over that
> one. No state in the US allows lethal force for trespassing. Do
> it the way you said and you go down for murder one.

Two words: Jury nullification.

I've been hearing liberals bleat about the actions of the cops and
mall security.

"Their civil rights were violated!"
"They have free speech!"
"The mall is a public accomodation!"
"Property rights don't trump personal rights!"

These fuckards really need to learn what private property is.

--
Tom Veil
"Give us the negatives, Tom"

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Tim May]

On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 02:11 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Besides, the publicity has been great.  I was told that after it made
news, 150 women wearing
the same T-shirts showed up at the mall.  The security guards locked
themselves in their offices.
Probably messed their pants, too.
If people didn't leave my property when told to, and the actual police 
would not expel them, then I would consider it morally justified to 
start shooing those 150 bitches. Sometimes people don't understand 
anything except bullets.

My defense would be that it was my property, they were trespassing, and 
the police refused to do their job.

Frankly, many of you on this list really need to be doused with 
gasoline and then lit.

I'm ashamed to be on the same list with you statists and fascists. The 
Eurotrash nitwits are the worst. It's as if they were born in Communist 
countries and never shook their early training...which, come to think 
of it, is probably likely.

--Tim May

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:06:28PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> At 12:56 PM 03/06/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >Are you sure there weren't TIFs involved in building the mall? The 
> >mall here
> >in Oshkosh (now defunct, turned into offices) was build with city money, 
> >the
> >newest upscale condo being built downtown is mostly TIF money, likewise the
> >newest big "low rent" housing development.
> 
> There's worse state involvement than that -
> an appalling number of malls get eminent domain support from towns
> to force nearby landowners to sell them the land.
> Costco's management recently rejected a shareholder proposal that
> would have forbidden Costco to use eminent domain when building new stores.

Ah yes, forgot about that -- the fancy condo right smack in the downtown
historic district used to be a while city block of historic buildings people
wanted to save, and, in fact, there were developers with money who wanted to
restore them, but the city, for some reason no one could figure out, condemned
them, took the whole block with eminent domain, then razed the whole thing --
with no plan whatsoever in mind for what would replace it. Or so it seemed. Then
they sold the whole block to this other developer for one dollar, and gave him a
ton of TIF to build a big, very modern, condo which doesn't even remotely jive
with the rest of the area. 
This same city council approved a zone change from church/residential to
business with no knowledge, supposedly, of what or who the purchaser of the
property would be -- the church said it had to be kept secret. Turns out it's a
new Super Wallmart. 
Isn't it great the way fascism works? 

> 
> But even without that, most malls are owned by corporations,
> which only exist because the State calls them into existence,
> and in return for that favor it's legitimate for the state to place
> arbitrary restrictions on what they can do.

All corporate charters should require yearly re-approval, reviewed by a
board of citizens, all elected. 



-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:21:52 -0800, you wrote:
>
> On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 02:11 PM, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> Besides, the publicity has been great.  I was told that after it made
> news, 150 women wearing
> the same T-shirts showed up at the mall.  The security guards locked
> themselves in their offices.
> Probably messed their pants, too.
>
> If people didn't leave my property when told to, and the actual police would not 
> expel them, then I would consider it morally justified to start shooing those 150 
> bitches. Sometimes people don't understand anything except bullets.
>
> My defense would be that it was my property, they were trespassing, and the police 
> refused to do their job.

Stupid defense, and if you found a judge stupid enough to allow 
it, I'd be surprised. If you proved the elements above, you are 
still guilty of murder. You'd be the bitch in prison over that 
one. No state in the US allows lethal force for trespassing. Do 
it the way you said and you go down for murder one.

>
> Frankly, many of you on this list really need to be doused with gasoline and then 
> lit.

Maybe YOU need them to be doused; others are unlike to think 
they "need" dousing.

>
> I'm ashamed to be on the same list with you statists and fascists. The Eurotrash 
> nitwits are the worst. It's as if they were born in Communist countries and never 
> shook their early training...which, come to think of it, is probably likely.

Take a day off, go for a walk.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Steve Furlong]

On Thursday 06 March 2003 22:21, Tim May wrote:



* Except I think he made a typo: he wrote "shooing" but I suspect he 
meant "shooting".

Ditto, completely. Tim, you bring the matches and I'll get the gas.

(Now, when I find myself in complete agreement with Tim, is it time to 
adjust my meds? )

Really, some of you statist bastards need to look at the success of 
societies which respect and protect private property and compare with 
the success of those which do not. You can measure "success" by almost 
any criteria and get the same result. You'd think that watching statist 
nations self-destruct for more years than most of you have been alive 
would provide a clue, but I guess statist bastards' rock-like skulls 
and flabby, underdeveloped minds are clue-proof.

In the meantime, you stupid, statist bastards can keep hiding behind 
your remailers when you post your anti-property or anti-American 
screeds. You'd better --- after all, hundreds, even thousands, of 
protesters have been shot dead right in the street for protesting.

-- 
Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere   Have GNU, Will Travel

Guns will get you through times of no duct tape better than duct tape
will get you through times of no guns. -- Ron Kuby

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Bill Stewart]

At 12:56 PM 03/06/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Are you sure there weren't TIFs involved in building the mall? The 
mall here
in Oshkosh (now defunct, turned into offices) was build with city money, the
newest upscale condo being built downtown is mostly TIF money, likewise the
newest big "low rent" housing development.
There's worse state involvement than that -
an appalling number of malls get eminent domain support from towns
to force nearby landowners to sell them the land.
Costco's management recently rejected a shareholder proposal that
would have forbidden Costco to use eminent domain when building new stores.
But even without that, most malls are owned by corporations,
which only exist because the State calls them into existence,
and in return for that favor it's legitimate for the state to place
arbitrary restrictions on what they can do.
(That's a political assertion, not a legal assertion -
from a legal standpoint, the Pruneyard decision probably supports the
guys with the shirts.)  Malls that are owned by private individuals
or partnerships ought to be a different case, and apparently there have
been some courts which have decided that Pruneyard applies to
malls with "public" walkways outside the stores, but doesn't apply
to the insides of big-box stores.
The guys with the shirts were interviewed on several TV shows last night -
apparently the guards approached them while they were eating in the food 
court,
and started off by demanding that they take off the shirts or else leave.
The guys with the shirts may have just been abbreviating their descriptions,
but they appear to have forgotten the magic words for this sort of situation,
which are "Get your manager" and optionally "Who's the manager from the
mall company?" (since mall rent-a-cops are often from a rent-a-cop agency
rather than direct mall employees.)

One thing that came out on The O'Reilly show was that, while the rent-a-cops'
behavior seems bizarre and jingoistic, apparently there's some context to it -
a couple months ago, there was a group of people who did an antiwar protest 
inside the mall,
carrying picket signs and yelling a lot, so the guards may have assumed that
these guys were part of the same thing.

~
Later updates - On Wednesday, about 100 people did a protest march at the mall
protesting the arrest.  Mall management has asked that police drop 
charges.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 12:56 PM 3/6/03 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:33:11AM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
>>
>> However malls generally don't take state money, the flow is in the
>> other direction.   My house's yard, the whole neighborhood was
>> "approved", "licensed", "regulated", "zoned" by all kinds of
>> bureaushits,
>> and pinks would say I receive benefits by virtue of using roads (etc)

>> but that doesn't
>> mean some random taxpayer can plant a sign on my lawn.

>Are you sure there weren't TIFs involved in building the mall? The
mall here
>in Oshkosh (now defunct, turned into offices) was build with city
money, the
>newest upscale condo being built downtown is mostly TIF money, likewise
the
>newest big "low rent" housing development.

While I'd personally love to screw over the Crossroads pinheads, I'm
also wary
of letting the creeping socialism make everything public.  The solution
is to stop
creeping socialism (such as the tax-subsidies others have implied for
Crossroads,
or the documented government funding of arenas) so the line
is clear.  The risk is "unlawful taking" otherwise.

Meanwhile, I'm disinclined to start applying GNU-license-virulence
to what is public and what is not, because of the depth and breadth of
the financial tentacles.

Besides, the publicity has been great.  I was told that after it made
news, 150 women wearing
the same T-shirts showed up at the mall.  The security guards locked
themselves in their offices.
Probably messed their pants, too.

---
\{conspiracy} Funny that that area of upstate NY is where Ritter lives,
and was quieted recently. \{endconspiracy}

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:33:11AM -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> At 10:58 PM 3/5/03 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
> >On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote:
> >> Steve is right.  Free speech is tested by wearing "Fuck the Army"
> >> t-shirts [1]
> >> in public places, not "Peace" while in some private store.
> >
> >Not too fast. What about "nonobvious involvement of the state"?
> >Don't prematurely assume this is private, non-state conduct.
> >
> >What connections exist, if any, which link the state to that
> >mall? For example, was the construction of the mall, or the
> >awarding of the permit, or the environmental exceptions made,
> >etc., such that the state has a sufficient role in the existence
> >of the mall so as to implicate by that link the fourteenth
> >amendment's extention of the first amendment to that operation
> >of that mall? Some research should be done to determine the
> 
> Yes, you are correct.  For instance, there was a case last year
> of a govt-sponsored arena tossing lesbians for kissing,
> whereas intersex kissing was permitted.  The arena wisely
> caved and brownosed rather than face a lawsuit.
> 
> However malls generally don't take state money, the flow is in the
> other direction.   My house's yard, the whole neighborhood was
> "approved", "licensed", "regulated", "zoned" by all kinds of
> bureaushits,
> and pinks would say I receive benefits by virtue of using roads (etc)
> but that doesn't
> mean some random taxpayer can plant a sign on my lawn.
> 
> The only state involvement here was the Police observing someone
> refusing to leave
> private property when asked.  Having observed that, which defines
> trespass, the cop enforced
> trespass law.  It doesn't matter why the trespasser was asked to leave.

Are you sure there weren't TIFs involved in building the mall? The mall here
in Oshkosh (now defunct, turned into offices) was build with city money, the
newest upscale condo being built downtown is mostly TIF money, likewise the
newest big "low rent" housing development. 


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 10:58 PM 3/5/03 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote:
>> Steve is right.  Free speech is tested by wearing "Fuck the Army"
>> t-shirts [1]
>> in public places, not "Peace" while in some private store.
>
>Not too fast. What about "nonobvious involvement of the state"?
>Don't prematurely assume this is private, non-state conduct.
>
>What connections exist, if any, which link the state to that
>mall? For example, was the construction of the mall, or the
>awarding of the permit, or the environmental exceptions made,
>etc., such that the state has a sufficient role in the existence
>of the mall so as to implicate by that link the fourteenth
>amendment's extention of the first amendment to that operation
>of that mall? Some research should be done to determine the

Yes, you are correct.  For instance, there was a case last year
of a govt-sponsored arena tossing lesbians for kissing,
whereas intersex kissing was permitted.  The arena wisely
caved and brownosed rather than face a lawsuit.

However malls generally don't take state money, the flow is in the
other direction.   My house's yard, the whole neighborhood was
"approved", "licensed", "regulated", "zoned" by all kinds of
bureaushits,
and pinks would say I receive benefits by virtue of using roads (etc)
but that doesn't
mean some random taxpayer can plant a sign on my lawn.

The only state involvement here was the Police observing someone
refusing to leave
private property when asked.  Having observed that, which defines
trespass, the cop enforced
trespass law.  It doesn't matter why the trespasser was asked to leave.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Harmon Seaver]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:58:06PM +0100, Anonymous wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> > At 11:03 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
> > >From the article, New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen
> > >Gottlieb says, "We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we
> > >believe that protects the freedom to speak." How is Constitutionally-
> > >protected freedom of speech imperiled when an agent of a private
> > >corporation asks someone to leave because his speech is offensive?
> >
> > Steve is right.  Free speech is tested by wearing "Fuck the Army"
> > t-shirts [1]
> > in public places, not "Peace" while in some private store.
> 
> Not too fast. What about "nonobvious involvement of the state"? 
> Don't prematurely assume this is private, non-state conduct.
> 
> What connections exist, if any, which link the state to that 
> mall? For example, was the construction of the mall, or the 
> awarding of the permit, or the environmental exceptions made, 
> etc., such that the state has a sufficient role in the existence 
> of the mall 

   Given the amount of projects that are done hereabouts with TIF (tax
incremental financing) funds, I'd say the odds are pretty good most malls and
even large housing units are not actually "private property". At least until
they're paid off in full.


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote:
>
> At 11:03 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
> >From the article, New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen
> >Gottlieb says, "We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we
> >believe that protects the freedom to speak." How is Constitutionally-
> >protected freedom of speech imperiled when an agent of a private
> >corporation asks someone to leave because his speech is offensive?
>
> Steve is right.  Free speech is tested by wearing "Fuck the Army"
> t-shirts [1]
> in public places, not "Peace" while in some private store.

Not too fast. What about "nonobvious involvement of the state"? 
Don't prematurely assume this is private, non-state conduct.

What connections exist, if any, which link the state to that 
mall? For example, was the construction of the mall, or the 
awarding of the permit, or the environmental exceptions made, 
etc., such that the state has a sufficient role in the existence 
of the mall so as to implicate by that link the fourteenth 
amendment's extention of the first amendment to that operation 
of that mall? Some research should be done to determine the 
depth of state involvement in that mall before everyone goes 
running off down the "private mall" path. The state need not 
occupy the space, or staff and direct the security service or 
anything else there.

"The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), "embedded in our 
constitutional law" the principle "that the action inhibited by 
the first section [Equal Protection Clause] of the Fourteenth 
Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that 
of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely 
private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful." Chief 
Justice Vinson in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948). It 
was language in the opinion in the Civil Rights Cases, supra, 
that phrased the broad test of state responsibility under the 
Fourteenth Amendment, predicting its consequence upon "State 
action of every kind . . . which denies . . . [365 U.S. 715, 
722] the equal protection of the laws." At p. 11. And only two 
Terms ago, some 75 years later, the same concept of state 
responsibility was interpreted as necessarily following upon 
"state participation through any arrangement, management, funds 
or property." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 4 (1958). It is 
clear, as it always has been since the Civil Rights Cases, 
supra, that "Individual invasion of individual rights is not the 
subject-matter of the amendment," at p. 11, and that private 
conduct abridging individual rights does no violence to the 
Equal Protection Clause unless to some significant extent the 
State in any of its manifestations has been found to have become 
involved in it. Because the virtue of the right to equal 
protection of the laws could lie only in the breadth of its 
application, its constitutional assurance was reserved in terms 
whose imprecision was necessary if the right were to be enjoyed 
in the variety of individual-state relationships which the 
Amendment was designed to embrace. For the same reason, to 
fashion and apply a precise formula for recognition of state 
responsibility under the Equal Protection Clause is an 
"impossible task" which "This Court has never attempted." Kotch 
v. Pilot Comm'rs, 330 U.S. 552, 556 . Only by sifting facts and 
weighing circumstances can the nonobvious involvement of the 
State in private conduct be attributed its true significance."

U.S. Supreme Court
BURTON v. WILMINGTON PKG. AUTH., 365 U.S. 715 (1961)
365 U.S. 715
BURTON v. WILMINGTON PARKING AUTHORITY ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE.
No. 164.
Argued February 21, 23, 1961.
Decided April 17, 1961.

Re: Give cheese to france?

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 9:58 AM -0800 on 3/5/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:


> "Fuck the Army"
> t-shirts [1]

I thought it was "Fuck the Draft" Levi jackets, if I remember my supreme
court case law right:

>> Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971).  Cohen was convicted of
>> disturbing the peace for entering a courthouse while wearing a jacket
>> bearing the epithet  "Fuck the Draft ".

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: Give cheese to france?

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 11:03 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
>From the article, New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen
>Gottlieb says, "We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we
>believe that protects the freedom to speak." How is Constitutionally-
>protected freedom of speech imperiled when an agent of a private
>corporation asks someone to leave because his speech is offensive?

Steve is right.  Free speech is tested by wearing "Fuck the Army"
t-shirts [1]
in public places, not "Peace" while in some private store.

[1] Literally, it was so tested; the legal readers will know what I'm
talking about.

Enforcement of the Court's ban on coercive monotheist nationalist
allegiances will
be another test case, of whether the constitution + courts can keep
demobcracy
and the American taliban at bay.

Linking both issues, I imagine there will be some *CLU [2] cases
about messages in public schools with garments as the medium.

[2] with apologies to Liskov