At 08:57 PM 4/24/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, David Honig wrote:
>
>> At 11:05 AM 4/24/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>
>> >(Even contractual issues are amenable to this analysis. If Alice
>> >doesn't want to be taped in her interactions with Bob, she can
>> >negotiate an arrangement that he turns off his tape recorders in her
>> >presence. If he violates this contract, perhaps she can collect. Some
>> >day this will likely be done via polycentric law, a la "Snow Crash.")
>>
>> Nice.
>
>So we instead force everyone to reveal that they are recording, in all
>cases then. That's the only way a 'mutual contract' can work, take away
>the 'right not to speak'.
No Jim, what's *nice* about this is that it makes recording-restrictions a
*Private Contractual* matter, not a *State Violence* matter.
Surely you agree that one can enter into private contracts that constrain
your freedom
in ways beyond what the State can do. If entered into without duress,
and while mentally and legally competent, this is moral as no coercion is
involved.
