Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : 5spl -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (1451)	6/4/2004 4:04:08 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

You're right - there'd have to be a caveat for policing, given that to throw someone in jail is indeed to alter their social standing (albeit justifiably), and taxation for the (very few) purposes that libertarians recognize could also be considered as altering the economic disposition of a citizen. Good thinking (although I guess it's not what you were looking for). LPS5

To: TimF who wrote (1451)	6/4/2004 4:15:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Respond to of 2534

Appointed agency directors such as Vespa-Papaleo should be enforcing policy, not making it. That's the key screw-up in the NJ case, IMO. An elected judge should be analyzing the net effects, based on the arguments presented by the attorneys. His decision becomes the policy enforced by Vespa-Papaleo, until if so otherwise changed by appeal. The "chain of command" then, is: Individuals (represented by either themselves or lawyers) --> present to the elected Judge (who decides) --> and "that" will be carried out by the State agency (under responsibility of aforementioned director). The cycle repeats, going back to individuals if the outcome isn't satisfactory/needs to be changed.