At 11:55 PM -0400 4/12/00, dmolnar wrote:
>
>> If people won't read Friedman or Hayek or Rand or Nozick or whatever,
>> why will they read the refutations from folks like us?
>>
>> David Friedman, not Milton. He has written on contract law
>> extensively, especially in anarchic situations. And there is much
>[many book refs omitted]
>
>Thanks for the pointers. Time to go pick up "Anarchy, State, and
>Utopia..."
Nozick is interesting, but he is not as "practical" as Friedman and
Benson ("The Enterprise of Law") are.
Much of the basic "there should be laws to protect our privacy"
arguments are so ill-founded and anti-liberty as to not be worth
discussing.
"What if my neighbor remembers something I told him last year? Don't
I _own_ that information he is telling to others? There ought to be a
law!"
Feh. The Founders didn't even consider this a topic to debate, so far
as I know (I haven't read _every_ page of the Federalist Papers).
Issues of what the butcher might remember about one's meat
preferences were not considered to be a legitimate issue for
governmental regulation or notice.
BTW, other legal scholars, like Posner (same guy as in the Microsoft
case) and Sunstein may have interesting things to say about this
issue. Bork, too, who asserted correctly, in my view, that the
Constitution has no specific "privacy protections."
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
