Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations

[Peter Veeck]

Michael Dillon wrote:
> 
> At 10:50 AM -0500 7/18/97, Peter Veeck wrote:
> 
> >1.  "An annual membership fee of $1,000 (US) will be charged to all
> >entities joining ARIN.  Membership is open to any entity/individual
> >wishing to join, regardless of whether the entity/individual receives
> >address space directly from ARIN."
> >
> >This strikes me as a poll tax.  Pay $1000.00 and you can vote.
> 
> This is utter nonsense. A poll tax is a tax that must be paid because you
> are alive. It bears no relationship to the ARIN membership fee or to the
> fee which you pay to your movie theater and you can see the movie. Or the
> money you pay to the bartender and you can drink the beer.

poll´ tax´´ (pol), a capitation tax, the payment of which is sometimes a
prerequisite to exercise the right of suffrage.
(http://www.answers.com/getent.cgi?email=veeck%40texoma%2enet&word=poll+tax)

-------------------
AMENDMENT XXIV 

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any
primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors
for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in
Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any
State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
(http://205.185.3.2/presidents/aae/side/amend.html)
-------------------
Arkansas Amendment for Voter Registration without Poll Tax Payment by
Calvin R. Ledbetter Jr. (Vol. 54, No. 2, Summer
1995)

By 1963 the poll tax was gradually fading from the American political
scene. After Reconstruction "the poll tax was adopted by
southern states as one of a number of devices to restrict the suffrage."
However, over a period of time its use declined, and most southern
states eliminated it by the late 1950s. Only five southern states
(Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia) still retained the
poll tax. The passage of Amendment Twenty-Four to the United States
Constitution in 1964 outlawed the poll tax in federal elections and
caused some election confusion in these five states. Four of these
states chose to keep a poll tax for state and local elections until this
practice was ended by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1966. Arkansas
chose a different path.

Arkansas had first adopted the poll tax in 1892. Prior to this time in
Arkansas and the rest of the South, "the methods that the Democrats had
employed to end Reconstruction had not caused either turnout or
opposition to cease by 1880." In the 1880s a majority of black males
over the age of twenty-one participated in elections held in nine of the
eleven southern states. In some Arkansas counties "a fusion ticket" was
arranged. Under this procedure black Republicans and conservative white
Democrats met before an election and set aside offices for each other,
guaranteeing no opposition. This fusion principle functioned long after
the end of Reconstruction in Arkansas, and under its mutually
advantageous provisions, blacks "held numerous county offices and seats
in the Legislature until 1894."
(http://www.uark.edu/depts/histinfo/public_html/ARKQuart/voter.html)

> 
> Every corporate entity in the democratic world charges a fee to become a
> member or a shareholder and only members and shareholders can vote. This
> does not translate into a poll tax and your comments betray your total lack
> of understanding of both capitalist and democratic systems.

ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT OF THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF AMERICAN
REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS, LTD.

SEVENTH: (3)  to secure united action and to represent the Internet
community nationally and internationally;
(http://regionalweb.texoma.net/Arin/Arin.htm)

--------------------
Am I part of the Internet community?
If I am unable to join ARIN because I cannot afford a $1,000.00
membership, by what right do they represent me?
Shall I set up my own organization and represent you?

--------------------
The right of voting for representation is the primary right by which
other rights are protected."

-- Thomas Paine (http://www.igc.apc.org/cvd/quotes.html)

> 
> >       "... two expiring after the first year, two expiring after the second
> >year, and two expiring after the third year."
> >
> >Strikes me as a bit more than enough time to do the paperwork.  I don't
> >really understand why a board can't be elected at the first
> >organizational meeting by the membership.
> 
> Because it wreaks havoc on an organization to have the entire board of
> trustees replaced at one point in time. ARIN is designed for stability. And
> if you had taken the trouble to do your research before spouting off in
> public then you would know this because it is well documented in the
> discussions on this very mailing list that can be read by anybody who takes
> the time to look them up at http://www.arin.net

Isn't ARIN starting out with a new board?  Is there such a fear that the
membership will not elect the proper people that they must be appointed?

> 
> >ARIN is not a democratic or even a representative form of organization.
> >To me it looks like "noblise oblige".
> 
> Your ignorance is showing. ARIN's structure is quite normal for a
> non-profit corporation. And you spelled the French word "noblesse" wrong.

Ah, you must have recognized the situation, since you understood what I
was miss-spelling

> 
> >Yes, but the operating officers of ARIN are being taken from NSI.
> 
> This is not what I see on http://www.arin.net. There is only one operating
> officer, Kim Hubbard, who comes from NSI and so far no one has come up with
> any good reason why she should not hold the position.

I'm sorry, perhaps you can direct me to the location at
http://www.arin.net where it lists an operating officer who is not from
NSI.
> 
> >> If you want a say in IP allocations, join ARIN. Form a registry.
> >> If you want a say in DNS, sign the MoU, and participate. Form a registry.
> >
> >These things are equivalent to governance, I don't want to govern--only
> >to be represented.
> 
> Tough nookies. The essence of democracy is that all citizens *MUST* share
> in governing. Abdicating that responsibility is tantamount to supporting
> fascism and dictatorship. If you want to abdicate your responsibilities
> then kindly unsubscribe from this list and let the rest of us get some
> serious work done.

In Federalist No. 10 James Madison described a "pure Democracy" as "a
Society, consisting of a small number of citizens, who
assemble and administer Government in person." One argument against
creating such a democracy in America was simply that it was impossible
to do so given the large territory and widely dispersed population of
the United States. But Madison claimed that there were other reasons for
avoiding pure democracy: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of
turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with
personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been
as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths." The
reason democracies resented such a sad spectacle, Madison wrote, was
that a "common passion or interest" could easily animate a majority of
citizens who would find it easy to work together to violate the rights
of the "weaker party or an obnoxious individual."
(http://www.vote.org/v/direct.htm)

---------------------------
Guided Study at Texas Tech University 
Lesson One Assignment: Questions

16.Which of the following types of government does the United States
share with the United Kingdom (Great Britain)? 
       A.a federal system 
       B.a presidential form of government 
       C.capitalism 
       D.representative democracy 
(http://www.dce.ttu.edu/courses/govt/ls1/assign1b.htm)

----------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Today's cases present a challenge to an amendment to the Arkansas State
Constitution that prohibits the name of an otherwise
eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election
ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of
Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The Arkansas Supreme Court
held that the amendment violates the Federal Constitution. We agree with
that holding. Such a state imposed restriction is contrary to the
"fundamental principle of our representative democracy," embodied in the
Constitution, that "the people should choose whom they please to govern
them." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Allowing individual States to adopt their own
qualifications for congressional service would be inconsistent with the
Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the
people of the United States. If the qualifications set forth in the text
of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended.
(http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html)

Peter Veeck
RegionalWeb.Texoma.net