Dear TLE,

I support your right to duel or most any other thing you choose.

Historically, common law courts probably appeared as a means of stopping
dueling, fighting and other uses of force to resolve a conflict.

Probably, friends form both sides got tired of joining in and getting
hacked up along with their hot-headed friends. As a matter of
self-preservation, friends from both sides decided it made more sense to
secure their friends and get them to agree to go to a mediator/judge in
order to determine a just solution that both parties could live with.

These early judges quickly learned. not only how to find a solution, but
how to present their ideas in such a fashion that it appealed to all
parties or at least to those without an emotional interest. They had to
create enough peer group pressure to ensure all parties would mostly follow
the court's advice.

Many of these were religious leaders. Sometimes, they were thoughtful and
wise people. Additionally, they could apply the written or oral traditions
of their religions to the dispute. This added more weight to the decision.

Common law is not what some idiot attorney says it is. Common law does look
at precedents. It is not bound to precedents. The function of common law is
restitution. You may use the words, "Natural Law", if that will
help you overcome preconceived notions.
 
One definition of common law worthy of some thought is, "Common Law is
what a Fully Informed and Fully Empowered Jury says it is."

Many people will start on the game of, "what if?", while keeping
their thinking tied to the legal mess we have currently.

While you work this thought over in your head, keep these things in mind:

1. The decision has to appeal to a lot of people or there is no peer group
pressure to bring to bear.

2. There is no one to go out and steal money form other people to pay to
arrest and hold in jail other people for smoking, or reading titillating
material, or meat eating, enjoying their own bodies or any other
politically incorrect action. There ain't no "politically
correct" that doesn't fall before the advantages of free trade and
tolerance.

3. If you discover a conundrum, ask if it is a problem in a free world
where you don't have the infrastructure for tyranny.

Some of the problems with dueling include; there are some bad people out
there who are very talented in their destructive capabilities.

Randy Weaver might have a decent chance against Lon Haruchi in a duel for
murdering his wife, Vicki Weaver, at Ruby Ridge or other members of that
FBI Swat team who shot his son in the back. However if someone of Haruchi's
ilk had murdered the family of a young boy and the boy challenges him,
Haruchi would choose sniper rifles at 300 yards and the boy is dead.

If you are the aggrieved party, offering a professional offender their
choice of weapons would get a lot of people killed.

I think that dueling would cause the death of a lot of people for no good
cause. You have the right to do it. It is not a means of insuring justice
in any society.

In a free society, there will be competing courts that achieve more good
than bad or no court exist for long. Bad courts can only exist with a
supporting infrastructure of tyranny, like we have today.

The rights to common law courts were taken from the people and they were
told they would have to use the judges appointed by the Kings. These were
Dukes and other supporters of the Tyrants. They would use the courts as a
means to extract additional monies from the serfs. You know, that's a lot
like things are today.

Once we have unfettered competition, there will be courts that help achieve
justice, peace and reasonable enforcement of contract. Until that day, we
will have the mess we have currently... and against the legalized injustice
we have currently, I suppose, even dueling looks good.

Live Long & Free,

Don Winfield [btp2{at}mindspring.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

    RE: LISTENING TO THE GOVERNMENT
    by Chris Henderson 

Looks like the events on the attempted "shoe bomb" flight would
indicate that this trend to passive airline passengers is ending ... Not
only did the flight attendants fight to subdue the schmuck, but apparently
some of the passengers got involved ...

I don't think we will ever see another 09/11, at least not one lauched from
a hijacked airliner ...

Steve Trinward [strin{at}worldnet.att.net]

* * * * * * * * * * *

I'm not looking to defend what JF did in the 70s, but this needs to be squelched:

    Barbara Cunningham  said:

    I've never figured out exactly what Jane Fonda believes in other
    than the promotion of Jane Fonda. And she was directly
    responsible for several deaths of POW's during the Vietnam War.
    And, as best I can gather, she is unrepentant for her actions.

Truth is, that stuff about the POWs she's supposed to have caused the
deaths of, is an urban myth, disputed and refuted by some of the very POWs
she is supposed to have so affected! Not good to spread that level of
calumny, when it has been disproven. (PLEASE don't ask me for the source;
it's been debunked for years now ...)

The things she DID do were pretty unforgivable, but at the time I think she
basically believed in what she was doing, just lacked the sense to do with
some ... well, sense! (Joan Baez also opposed the war, perhaps even more
consistently, but she did her protesting at home, where it could not be
mistaken for 'aid and comfort' ...

Steve Trinward [strin{at}worldnet.att.net]

[Editor's Note: read a very good, unbiased account of Jane Fonda's
activities and the truth about POW treatment associated with her 'visits'
at http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa110399.htm> Be
sure to read Michael Benge's article, linked therein. Personally, this Viet
Nam combat veteran wishes nothing but the worst for Jane Fonda ... one of
few people I allow myself to actively hate. - jct]

* * * * * * * * * * *

    There's a report on a new study on the cost of FDA approval at:
    http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd120301b.html>

Hmmm. I read that entire web page, top to bottom, and I missed where it
mentioned the FDA. It did mention that the research is now more expensive
than it was, but the only folks that seem to be blamed by the web page were
the managed-care folks who now want more assurance that the drugs actually
work.

On related page
http://www.tufts.edu/med/csdd/images/StepsInDrugDevelopment.pdf>
there is a statement that the FDA "can halt studies if it deems them
unsafe, or if it believes the design will not meet the study's stated
objectives."

Perhaps Mr. Walker of Ms. Wells would bless us with actual excerpts from
the study indicating how the FDA significantly increases the cost of
development. Simply requiring studies of safety and effectiveness hardly
seems to be a damning indictment of the FDA.

    They claim that the cost of getting one new drug into service is
    $802 million including capital costs. No wonder there's not much
    progress.

    And that's absolutely unacceptable! Think of all of the people
    suffering and dying needlessly!

That high price certainly is unfortunate. But it remains to be shown that
it can be done at a much lower price without sacrificing reasonable
controls for safety and effectiveness. The cited study seems to be a
slender reed on which to build an indictment of the FDA.

    We need to get rid of the FDA, the DEA and the Controlled
    Substances Act. We've already got Underwriters Laboratories and
    Consumer Reports. If any other entity needs to exist to monitor
    drugs, I'm sure the free market would produce one.

I don't doubt for a moment that the FDA increases the cost of drug
development without producing any commensurate benefit; and I fully agree
that the FDA, the DEA and the Controlled Substances Act should be
eliminated, but neither the letter from Mr. Walker and Ms. Wells, nor the
Tufts study itself seems to be the compelling argument for that
elimination.

Or did I somehow miss all the good dirt at the cited web page?

Bill Bunn [billbunn{at}reninet.com]

---