I think an appropriate libertarian position might be that the the citizen
should not have to pay the government to gains access to the laws that
the government is imposing on the citizen. Some libertarians would argue
that even imposing the incremental cost of dissemination may be
objectionable, the argument being that if the government had to bear the
cost of dissemination, there would be fewer laws!!!
Perhaps the Newt approach to make Congressional bills available to the
public at no charge reflects some of these sentiments.
In addition, it is also worth reflecting on the lowest cost to society
approach ... this is and argument for public domain citation for
example.
I also note that Chief Judge Richard Posner of the Sixth Circuit labelled
the charge for appellate bbs opinions a "confiscatory tax", Posner has I
think fairly good libertarian credentials.
What is interesting in the public access debates is to find the
leadership coming from not only an Al Gore, but a Newt Ginrich and a
Richard Posner.
Alan Sugarman
HyperLaw, Inc. ®
sugarman@panix.com
On Fri, 3 Feb 1995, Anne Washburn wrote:
> I hate to be crass here, but a thought occurs that no one has mentioned
> in this discussion, nor in the other one about neutral
> citation....TANSTAFL.
>
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. All of you business people are
> more aware of that than anyone else. SOMEONE has to pay for SOMETHING,
> whatever it is, however it's charged, whomever is charged, etc. You're
> not giving away anything, either.
>
> I am certainly not against access to the law, etc., but nothing is free.
> You might not want to be the one who pays, but someone always pays.
>
> Just my 2 libertarian cents!
>
> Anne Washburn, Librarian
> Smith Helms Mulliss & Moore, LLP
> Greensboro, NC
> my opinions are my own...
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST