Re: Fraud and free speech

Tim May wrote:
> 
> At 5:51 AM -0700 6/8/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> >Well I think that there are some that would confuse the issue between 1st
> >Amendment free speech and the issues surrounding fraud. Especially those
> >in government who write the laws that regulate commercial speech.
> 
> The mistake has been to extend "fraud" laws to non-contract situations,
> e.g., ordinary speech (as distinguished from contracts).

  Any time that you see a thread in which Kent Crispin accuses someone
of trying to "muddy the waters" you can pretty much guarantee he is
trying to throw a logical curveball of his own.
  Kent added some tripe to the thread supporting his favorite theme,
which is that it is the job of government to "enforce" contractual
agreements. Naturally, he also extends the format of these contracts
to include government authority to enforce criminal penalties for
statements made by the great grandfather of the second cousin of the
spouse of one of the person making the contract.
  Follow any thread after a Crispin post and you will find people
arguing over issues he raises which have little basis in reality.

> Contracts, with clearly stated conditions and with judgeable or
> falsifiable/testable conditionals, are a matter for the courts (private
> courts, in fact), but vague promises, advertisements, propaganda, etc. are
> not.

  Dimitri wrote a couple of posts which dealt well with the original
concept of two parties agreeing on an arbitrator/judge to settle
contractual disputes (e.g. the court of Prince X) and the following
usurpment of these free-will agreements by people in power who decree
that _they_ are now the only valid arbitrator/judge in contractual
matters.
  We now have a system where if someone breaks agreement with you the
government locks them in a cage where there is no possibility of them
paying you what they are contractually obligated to. The government
doesn't give a fat rat's ass what your desires are for resolution of
the dispute. They are always busy protecting the nebulous "other"
rather than someone real, with a real interest in the situation.

  The government mandates that contractual agreements must be 
settled in a forum where the corporation with an army of lawyers
can bury the attorney that Joe Average picked out of the yellow
pages. When you enter into a contractual agreement with someone who
has a guy named "Big Louie" as arbitrator, however, the government
calls it organized crime.
  Pardon me if I fail to see the distinction.

TruthMonger

On Sun, Jun 08, 1997 at 10:23:43PM -0400, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> Tim May wrote:
> > 
> > At 5:51 AM -0700 6/8/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> > >Well I think that there are some that would confuse the issue between 1st
> > >Amendment free speech and the issues surrounding fraud. Especially those
> > >in government who write the laws that regulate commercial speech.
> > 
> > The mistake has been to extend "fraud" laws to non-contract situations,
> > e.g., ordinary speech (as distinguished from contracts).
> 
>   Any time that you see a thread in which Kent Crispin accuses someone
> of trying to "muddy the waters" you can pretty much guarantee he is
> trying to throw a logical curveball of his own.

The ones you really have to watch out for are my logical spitballs.  
But I am deeply flattered that you take me so seriously.

>   Kent added some tripe to the thread supporting his favorite theme,
> which is that it is the job of government to "enforce" contractual
> agreements. Naturally, he also extends the format of these contracts
> to include government authority to enforce criminal penalties for
> statements made by the great grandfather of the second cousin of the
> spouse of one of the person making the contract.

You are completely misrepresenting me here -- I distinctly said 
"grandmother of the first cousin".  And my favorite theme is from one 
of the Brandenberg Concertos.

>   Follow any thread after a Crispin post and you will find people
> arguing over issues he raises which have little basis in reality.

You have a point there.  You will search in vain for a stitch of 
reality in this post.

> > Contracts, with clearly stated conditions and with judgeable or
> > falsifiable/testable conditionals, are a matter for the courts (private
> > courts, in fact), but vague promises, advertisements, propaganda, etc. are
> > not.
> 
>   Dimitri wrote a couple of posts which dealt well with the original
> concept of two parties agreeing on an arbitrator/judge to settle
> contractual disputes (e.g. the court of Prince X) and the following
> usurpment of these free-will agreements by people in power who decree
> that _they_ are now the only valid arbitrator/judge in contractual
> matters.

It's pointless to reply to Dimitri -- he filters my posts.  Of course 
I would be delighted to engage in a civilized discourse with him, but 
it's impossible.

>   We now have a system where if someone breaks agreement with you the
> government locks them in a cage where there is no possibility of them
> paying you what they are contractually obligated to. The government
> doesn't give a fat rat's ass what your desires are for resolution of
> the dispute. They are always busy protecting the nebulous "other"
> rather than someone real, with a real interest in the situation.

A revealing paragraph, indeed.

>   The government mandates that contractual agreements must be 
> settled in a forum where the corporation with an army of lawyers
> can bury the attorney that Joe Average picked out of the yellow
> pages. When you enter into a contractual agreement with someone who
> has a guy named "Big Louie" as arbitrator, however, the government
> calls it organized crime.
>   Pardon me if I fail to see the distinction.

OK

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
> >   Dimitri wrote a couple of posts which dealt well with the original
> > concept of two parties agreeing on an arbitrator/judge to settle
> > contractual disputes (e.g. the court of Prince X) and the following
> > usurpment of these free-will agreements by people in power who decree
> > that _they_ are now the only valid arbitrator/judge in contractual
> > matters.
>
> It's pointless to reply to Dimitri -- he filters my posts.  Of course
> I would be delighted to engage in a civilized discourse with him, but
> it's impossible.

Kent is lying again, as usual.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps