Homestead mailing list

["clanSkeen" <sgian AT planetc.com>]

 Toni,

>When you're already in debt because
>you're borrowing - and the lender has
l>otsa gelt - who will have the "better'
>attorney ?

The better attorney, while obviously a factor, is not as important as you
might imagine in this case.  It is certainly better at any rate than the
present laws that say that you, as the borrow, have NO recourses at all.
Courts operate heavily from precedents.  When a few borrows demonstrate that
the contracts are by their nature fraudulent, the next case is easier to win
and so on and so on.



>Kinda like anarchy ?

If you really don't know, haven't already heard it before, respond to this
and I'll show you the classic Libertarians refutation to the 'Recuctio ad
Absurdum' your question implies.  When a false dichotomy, a false polarity,
is created such as Democrat/Republican or Liberal/Conservativism; peoples
minds get focussed so closely on whether it would be better to be raped by
the Democrats or raped by the Republicans, that when someone suggest that
maybe we'd be better off not being raped at all - the two dearly held poles
disapper and they imagine that what is left is nothing --- gasp! ---
anarchy!

It isn't.  If your quesiton is not rhetorical, I'll gladly answer it.


> It is far harder to bribe every court and every jury in the country than
it is to bribe one president.

I don't think so. It only takes the
one you're depending on to see *your*
side ... 50-50 is more like it - and that is
provided the lender isn't his/her/their
relative/friend/golf partner, etc. Like
Cheney and that Supreme Court justice ....

Toni, the principle of Libertarianism is don't handle anyting nationally
that could be handled by the states,. nothing handled by the states that
could be handled locally, etc. you see the gist.  As Tvo has correctly
pointed out, once sided contracts used to be outlawed by almost all the
several states.  It took federal mucking with it to set that aside.   So
under a Libertarian handling of the affair, the Supreme Court would likely
never enter into it.  They would not hear cases that had no constitutional
merit.  To achieve what according to Tvo was achieved with a mere $25M to
one president could not be done with a million times that much money.  You'd
have to bribe every single local civil and criminal court in the country.


James