From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Libertarian freedom quiz Was: Re: Libertarians
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:40:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.164519.23419@genie.slhs.udel.edu>,
rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman) writes:

|>In article <C19KMK.K9C@dscomsa.desy.de> Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:

|>}I fail to see any validity in a "Libertarianism" that could stand idly by
|>and
|>}allow Hitler to commit genocide in Europe. Would Libertarians support an
|>embargo
|>}against a country if its leaders were commiting mass murder?
|>}
|>
|>But Libertarianism does not stand idly by.  We seek repeal of current laws
|>restricting individuals in their attempt "to aid overseas organizations
|>fighting to overthrow or change governments."  This includes "voluntary
|>cooperation with any economic boycott."  Lines quoted are from the 1992 LP
|>Platform.

You have answered my point, however what you propose would consitute an act of
war. Supply of arms to beligerents is grounds for counterattack. This was
precisely the ground chosen by the NAZIs in WWII against the US. In fact this
was justified to the extent that the US was acting to aid the UK but since the
NAZIs were the original agressors over Poland and Checz, the point is moot.

More recently the US used supply of weapons to aid opposition forces fighting
against a murderous government as causum belli in Nicaragua.

The Libertarian party should reasearch a bit more international law before
writting their manifesto.


|>}|>}Easier topics, is the US govt entitled to tap the phones of its citizens
|>}|>within
|>}|>}its borders? Is it entitled to tap the phones of it's citizens in other
|>}|>}countries? If not is there any circumstance in which it is permissible
|>for
|>}|>the
|>}|>}government to tap a phone?
|>}|>}
|>}|>}
|>}|>The Libertarian Party supports and defends the fourth amendment to the US
|>}|>Constitution which guarantees protection against unreasonable searches and
|>}|>seizures.
|>}|>
|>}|>To repeat what I said earlier, the application of liberty far exceeds the
|>}|>issue of taxes.
|>}
|>}If there is proof that a person is an extorsionist, demanding money with
|>menaces
|>}etc would it be justified to tap his phone with the objective of capturing
|>his
|>}accomplices?
|>}
|>}The problem here is that if the tap is denied then the rights of the victims
|>of
|>}the extorsion are going to be infringed, does the infringement of the
|>criminals
|>}rights override the infringement of his victims rights?
|>}
|>A tap may be placed but only through due process.  From the Fourth
|>Amendment, "...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported
|>by Oath or affirmation, and particulary describing the place to be
|>searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  In other words, law
|>enforcement agencies must bring enough evidence before a judge for a
|>warrant for the tap to be legal.  This point was addressed previously by
|>June Genis in an earlier post.

But this is no real position at all, merely an affirmation of the status quo.
There is no analysis as to the correct balance between the liberties of the
individual and those which must be surrendered in the interests of society as a
whole.


|>}The problem with the Libertarian party is that they contribute nothing to
|>the
|>}debate. Faced with a problem they do not offer a solution but instead attack
|>the
|>}circumstances of the question. It is far more valuable in the persuit of
|>}individual liberties to demonstrate practical mechanisms by which the
|>individual
|>}can be protected from abuse by authority than to merely attack the basis of
|>the
|>}authority. The latter position is merely anarchy, a theory which is
|>attractive
|>}in its simplicity but disastrous in its application.
|>}
|>
|>Okay, present those practical mechanisms you think will protect people from
|>the abuse of authority.


Ok, however since you are asking for detailed positions I can only answer them
in the context of my own country, the UK. Here I am paraphrasing a much longer
document which I cannot make avaliable at this time:-

In the first place the starting point I would propose is the establishment of a
legislative bill of rights, the reform of the House of Lords and the
dissillution of the Crown perogatives in very much the same manner as recently
proposed by Tonny Benn (Comonwealth of Britain Bill 1993).

From this starting point the most immediate concern is the position of MI5,
since there is prima facie evidence of very serious offenses amounting to high
treason having been commited by MI5 (cf Spycather allegations, Peter Wright) the
case for the establishment of a parliamentary system of accountability in this
area is now unanswerable.

The use of the security forces to investigate civil, non violent political
organisations should be made a criminal offense not subject to crown imunity. A
public interest defense should also be instituted against the official secrets
act.

Beyond the immediate role of government the establishment of private agencies
which infringe civil liberties must also be controlled. The use of private
vetting services to establish the political opinons of employees and prospective
employees must be brought under control. The right to be informed that such a
reference has or will be requested must be established in law, such references
must be made avaliable to the subject who shall have the right of redress under
the libel laws in the case of false material.

A statutory offense of abuse of authority should be instrumented from which
there should be no plea of crown imunity. Abuse of authority shall cover acts
where deliberately false allegations are made and proceedings instituted under a
statutory tribunal with the intention to pervert the course of justice. 

The motivation behind the statutory abuse of aurthority idea is to provide a
method of redress in cases such as the Handicombe affair. This was a case in
which a policewoman who brought a case against her employers for sex
discrimination was subjected to a malicious prosecution under the police
disciplinary code. Although the affair was settled with a massive award of
damages, the individuals who ordered the malicious prosecution escaped all
culpability since it was a civil trot and the authority met it. By making the
abuse of authority a criminal tort the individuals at fault could be brought to
justice.


--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism