Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Canada and the "banality of evil"
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, January 13, 2008

I don't know if you've been following the case of Ezra Levant, a Canadian publisher who published the Mohammed cartoons and was called before the Alberta "Human Rights Commission" for doing so (based on a complaint by a Imam).

This is what defiance and fighting for your freedom looks like in modern Canada. As Levant says:
This is what an interrogation in 2008 looks like. It's not in a dungeon, or even a secure government facility. It's not done by paramilitaries in uniforms. It looks banal — in a meeting room at a law office, with a bored bureaucrat. It's what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil".
Watch the video, and especially watch the posture of the bureaucrat.



You can find the entire YouTube playlist here. (HT: laura)
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Here’s an embeddable YouTube playlist of all the videos.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1C0BA528800C4AE5

This woman reminds me of Ellsworth Toohey from The Fountainhead, who said:
The basic trouble with the modern world … is the intellectual fallacy that freedom and compulsion are opposites. To solve the gigantic problems crushing the world today, we must clarify our mental confusion. We must acquire a philosophical perspective. In essence, freedom and compulsion are one. Let me give you a simple illustration. Traffic lights restrain your freedom to cross a street whenever you wish. But this restraint gives you the freedom from being run over by a truck. If you were assigned to a job and prohibited from leaving it, it would restrain the freedom of your career. But it would give you freedom from the fear of unemployment. Whenever a new compulsion is forced upon us, we automatically gain a new freedom. The two are inseparable. Only by accepting total compulsion can we achieve total freedom.
The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand
 
Written By: Laura
URL: http://pursuingholiness.com
Is was once the political left who were the advocates of free speech and expression. Now they, in the name of "tolerance for minority cultures" are the main repressors of speech.

The western world will have to rely on conservatives, like the Western Standard, to be the exclusive purveyors of free speech going forward.
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
My Soviet friends always said, "In the USSR you have freedom of speech. You can say anything you want....once."
 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
I can’t wait until he posts all of the video parts on his website.

They’re absolute instant classics, and should be immediately played in all civics classes.



 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
And this is how freedom dies....not killed by a jackbooted soldier, but at the hands of some bored clockpunching buraeucrat.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Great minds think alike. I’m talking about the same thing over at UCV. I hope that these videos get played in EVERY school in the future. Naaah, won’t happen.
 
Written By: Cargosquid
URL: http://unitedconservatives.blogspot.com/
One of Mark Steyn’s publishers - MacLean - is also dealing with the Canadian HRC. Oh Canada!
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Though Franks can never undo what he did in taking ten years of a man’s life who wasn’t hurting anyone, he should at least watch that video a bunch of times to see how a real man acts in the face of state authority.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
Though Franks can never undo what he did in taking ten years of a man’s life who wasn’t hurting anyone, he should at least watch that video a bunch of times to see how a real man acts in the face of state authority.
Not that Dale needs someone like me to pipe up for him, but I am genuinely curious as to how you seemingly equate jury duty and a "Human Rights" Investigation???
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Shark:

Wouldn’t you like to know. Everything you need is right there in my single sentence, toward the end.

Hint: Franks followed his state orders (though he called them instructions).

Now, try to do some actual, real, deep, thinking. Franks can pipe up for himself, but he can’t think for you.

 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
Hint: Franks followed his state orders (though he called them instructions).
Yeah, he participated in a jury and found a man guilty (quite reasonably).

The horror!

There’s still quite the difference between jury duty and the HRC farce.

Thank god I don’t "think deeply" to the point where I get like you...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"The horror!"

Then you’re as morally reprehensible as Franks (and now McQuain).

But at least you probably get an attaboy or pat on the head from them, often enough. They should be embarrassed, of course, to have so many choirboys at their disposal, but then again, they think that just because there exists some law or other, it authorizes them to do harm to other people at the behest of the state, and then excuse themselves by virtue of the law.

"I was just doing my job." (Franks: "judge’s instructions.")

Tell you what, shark, if you think what Franks did is reasonable, why don’t you come over here and sing his praises? Do you have the balls?

McQuain and Franks don’t. Oh, they’ll jump into the fray in a heartbeat so long as they get to argue points of technicality over history, law, practical politics, and so on, as Franks did with Perkins. But here, Franks and McQuain waited until the podcast to "address" the "usual suspects," which is their way of dismissing what are moral arguments.

Now, why do you think that is? It’s for the same reason that most of you choirboys are completely silent over there. Go read the thread. Let’s see if you’ve the nerve to step up and argue the moral issue. And if not, then you should just shut up.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com

There’s still quite the difference between jury duty and the HRC farce.
Selling harmless product and speaking do the exact same amount of damage to anyone. Now, I don’t agree with the imam’s complaint that his religion is being defamed by the publication of some mildly offensive, and even completely unoffensive cartoons. The commission shouldn’t even exist, but that is an alleged harm in a way selling product TO PEOPLE WHO WANT IT isn’t.

Principles, meet integration. When the state can restrict one harmless thing, they can restrict the other quite nicely. All that matters is really the politicians in charge- and the nature of the men holding court over the private decisions of other men.

At least the bureaucrat would not destroy Ezra Levant’s LIFE with these comments. Forcing a public apology, yes, if she was a sadist with absolutely zero regard for common sense, as opposed to the abysmally low level she shows in these clips. But not imprison him for violating the state’s codes, while doing no harm to anyone. No, that glory we hand over to the libertarians.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Then you’re as morally reprehensible as Franks (and now McQuain).
Good company to keep.

Guess I’m a state-loving myrmidon or whatever it is you guys call it.
But at least you probably get an attaboy or pat on the head from them, often enough. They should be embarrassed, of course, to have so many choirboys at their disposal, but then again, they think that just because there exists some law or other, it authorizes them to do harm to other people at the behest of the state, and then excuse themselves by virtue of the law
Nothing of the sort. They were authorized to determine if a citizen broke laws. Determining the guilt or innocence of someone is not doing them harm. Sorry, but I don’t begrudge any state the ability to set and enforce laws, and penalize those who transgress. It is a necessary evil for any civilized nation to endure. If you want to argue that the law in question is a load of crap, that’s a different set of encyclopedias. But the process is a necessary one. The process of the HRC is not in that class, so your attempts to draw the two together fails.
Tell you what, shark, if you think what Franks did is reasonable, why don’t you come over here and sing his praises? Do you have the balls
Why should I? I JUST SAID IT HERE.
Go read the thread. Let’s see if you’ve the nerve to step up and argue the moral issue. And if not, then you should just shut up.
*YAWN* Yeah, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to shut up just because your panties are in a twist.

Jury duty isn’t immoral. Not engaging in jury nullification isn’t immoral either.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Selling harmless product and speaking do the exact same amount of damage to anyone
Eh, "harmless" is a matter of debate though
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Eh, "harmless" is a matter of debate though.
How so? The second hand weed smoke? The fact a hippy somewhere is being happy? What, exactly, about someone else smoking marijuana hurts YOU specifically?

If you mean that the man smoking it is hurt, well, a man can actually pay money to be whipped by a woman in leather, so as long as he wants it, I won’t be objecting.

Has Eve run out of apples?
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"Then you’re as morally reprehensible as Franks (and now McQuain)."

Hey! Don’t forget me! I would have voted guilty too.

I am really starting to dislike libertarian anarchists. Lots of noisy assertiveness and insults but not much real substance.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I should say MOST libertarian anarchists.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Once a strong moral principle is stated, asserting it is hardly a sin. Nikoley’s certainly done that to my satisfaction. And I can go twenty rounds on any premise you care to drop.

I’ll even go first, because I’m awesome like that. Harmless man loses 10 years of his life for importing harmless, but verboten, herbs across border with weak, moderately friendly nation. Harmless man is dragged into room for verbal hearing on harmless, but verboten, cartoonery. Discuss consequences and principles.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Trevalyan, out of curiosity, is there anything that someone could be transporting across the border that you would consider bad and worthy of punishment? Fissile materials perhaps? I’m trying to understand if your argument is hinging on the idea that transporting of anything is not harmful because the mere act of transporting is inert, or if it’s this particular substance (marijuana) in this case.

I also wonder if you (and others) believe that the probability of greater harms in the future (such as the distribution of marijuana to minors or the detonation of a dirty bomb) as a result of the transport makes it worth punishing the transportation?

Or is this whole argument about one’s right to take drugs?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Harmless man loses 10 years of his life for importing harmless, but verboten, herbs across border with weak, moderately friendly nation. Harmless man is dragged into room for verbal hearing on harmless, but verboten, cartoonery. Discuss consequences and principles.
Harmless man loses 10 years of his life for importing harmless, but verboten, herbs across border with weak, moderately friendly nation.
State has a right to put a "verboten" tag on transporting certain items across their border. The debate here centers on if you believe the "verboten" designation is just for this particular product.
Harmless man is dragged into room for verbal hearing on harmless, but verboten, cartoonery. Discuss consequences and principles
State does not have a right to place a "verboten" tag on publication of cartoons, or other speech (with the usual exceptions)

Seems pretty easy to someone like me, but that’s because I don’t think too deeply I suppose.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I note that every serious attempt to make a nuclear weapon still rests firmly in the hands of states. Now, if it was up to me and the stuff couldn’t simply be destroyed, tracking fissile material would be one of the few duties I’d trust a minarchist government with. Even so, I’d sooner just retaliate against ANY state or individual, period, found to be making nuclear weapons. Those things are literally unprecedented destruction. VX, anthrax, whatever- nothing compares.
I also wonder if you (and others) believe that the probability of greater harms in the future (such as the distribution of marijuana to minors or the detonation of a dirty bomb) as a result of the transport makes it worth punishing the transportation?
Yeah, yeah, think of the children. Nice try- I might have had a drop of sympathy for Franks’ argument if it was the rarest component, radioactive material. But we all know it wasn’t. I’d sooner every teenager in America was getting high than condemn a man who wasn’t hurting anyone, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Are you saying nuclear materials are the only thing that might be worthy of regulation at the border? What harm, however, is there in moving some plutonium about? Who’s being harmed exactly?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
And right away, everyone sets about to avoid the point, just like McQuain and Franks did with the podcast.

Yea, lets’ talk about nukes, nerve agents, speed limits, and every other sort of thing in order to avoid talking about the fact that a man bringing in a good that people wanted, were going to pay him for voluntarily, were going to use and distribute to other paying customers, was going to hurt nobody (which is irrelevant anyway; people have a right to harm themselves), was put away by Franks for 10 years.

Rather than have the integrity of the guy who admitted he hated drugs and would likely convict, Franks avoided letting it be known that he was opposed to drug laws, so he got on the jury without being fully honest. Then, once there, it would have cost him nothing to at least hang the jury, and it would have cost nothing but a little extra time to attempt to convince the others to a not-guilty plea.

Instead, he follows orders, does his job (sound familiar), and sends a man away for 10 years who wasn’t hurting anyone, was minding his own business, and was perfectly within his libertarian, "Free Markets, Free People" moral rights.

Now, if any of you want to argue the point, and only the point, I will be over on the other thread.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
State has a right to put a "verboten" tag on transporting certain items across their border. The debate here centers on if you believe the "verboten" designation is just for this particular product.
Yeah- they’re blocking importation of marijuana because importing from Mexico is wrong. It’s nothing to do with the fact they’re trying to ban a perfectly harmless substance.

Puh-leeze. They’re banning citizens partaking of a product, and the importation rules are just a subsect of that.
State does not have a right to place a "verboten" tag on publication of cartoons, or other speech (with the usual exceptions)
Sez who? You? The Constitution? Yeah, that’s working out real well. A tyranny waged by fifty independent states is just as bad as a tyranny waged by one. The Constitution was supposed to prevent that. So who’s really surprised when the state ignores the words as quickly as the principles?
Are you saying nuclear materials are the only thing that might be worthy of regulation at the border? What harm, however, is there in moving some plutonium about? Who’s being harmed exactly?
Oh, I get it now. It’s a lawyer game, because the children are our future. Very slick, sir.

In answer to your question, I’ll take the risk that the evil brown people are looking for the first sign of weakness, so that they can blow up every city and every nuclear missile. Vigilance is a good defense against terrorists: and there ain’t a good defense against ICBM’s. In fact, screw it, I changed my mind. Now that I think about it just a little more, ship over the plutonium. America has lots of long friends who can reach and touch any one with a pillar of fire. If their people want to countenance our cities being nuked, then the response comes in kind.

The Russians, and the Muslims, are more rational than to simply destroy their entire civilizations. So you know what? I think I’ll take them over you.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Richard Nikoley accuses Franks of not standing up for his beliefs because he works within the system we have. The thing there is no other place on Earth that has more potential to move toward a libertarian government right now than the U.S.
Nikoley, on the other hand, wants no government. His ideal state does exist. If he were a real man of conviction, he’d move to Somalia tomorrow. Until he does, the worst Franks could do is tie him.
Harmless man loses 10 years of his life for importing harmless, but verboten, herbs across border with weak, moderately friendly nation. Harmless man is dragged into room for verbal hearing on harmless, but verboten, cartoonery.
Reality: man who imports verboten, non-harmless herbs should definitely be treated differently from one who publishes possibly insulting (yet physically harmless), completely legal cartoons.


 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Nikoley, on the other hand, wants no government. His ideal state does exist. If he were a real man of conviction, he’d move to Somalia tomorrow.
Ah yes, where roving bands of men rob the innocent and fight over their meager resources. The fact you can’t figure out the differences between thugs who can’t reason their way out of a wet bag, and Nikoley’s principled anarchism, says much more about you than it does about him.
Reality: man who imports verboten, non-harmless herbs
Drugs are ebil, as are the people who use them!

How is my choosing to "harm" myself with maryjane interfering with your life, Pooky?
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Yeah- they’re blocking importation of marijuana because importing from Mexico is wrong. It’s nothing to do with the fact they’re trying to ban a perfectly harmless substance.

Puh-leeze. They’re banning citizens partaking of a product, and the importation rules are just a subsect of that
So?

In this case, they STILL have the right to place the "verboten" tag on a product. They have the right to place the "verboten" tag on bringing something across their borders. Go debate the justness or merits of placing the "verboten" tag on this substance with someone else who cares.
State does not have a right to place a "verboten" tag on publication of cartoons, or other speech (with the usual exceptions)
Sez who? You? The Constitution?
Actually yes.

In one instance, the State is engaging in a process allowed to it, and one that may even be necessary (at least as pertains to border importation).


In the other instance, the State is engaging in a process that should be denied to them.
The Russians, and the Muslims, are more rational than to simply destroy their entire civilizations. So you know what? I think I’ll take them over you.
And thus losing any credibility....
Now, if any of you want to argue the point, and only the point, I will be over on the other thread.
HOORAY, stay there please!

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
And thus losing any credibility....
Hey, the Russians are on the other side of the world. And contrary to popular belief, Muslims are NEVER going to make America part of the caliphate. So I can’t be whipped into handing over freedoms to "deal" with them.
In this case, they STILL have the right to place the "verboten" tag on a product.
Ok, as long as we’ve established that. No getting through "The State may do this, for our own protection."

Enjoy it, then.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"The fact you can’t figure out the differences between thugs who can’t reason their way out of a wet bag, and Nikoley’s principled anarchism, says much more about you than it does about him."

Perhaps you could share with a moron like me how you plan to prevent any sort of anarchism, principled or not, from turning into Somalia. The world wonders. At least the ’A’ word is out in the open now.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"Richard Nikoley accuses Franks of not standing up for his beliefs because he works within the system we have."

What "beliefs?" Like these? Go ahead; read it, if you dare.

Franks didn’t "work within the system." That’s what we all do, trying to get by and prosper, enjoying what little freedom we still have to tend to our own peaceful affairs without interference from the state.

Franks actively used the system in order to put a so-far-as-we-know peaceful man tending to his own affairs away for 10 years, shredding his life and that of his family. Then he wrote a blog patting himself on the back at how "civil," "interesting," and "a good experience" it was.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
"What natural rights do, on the other hand, is provide an unchanging yardstick for legitimacy that is built on the fundamental characteristics of human nature. No government that arbitrarily kills its people, takes their property, and imprisons them, can possibly be legitimate under natural rights theory. And that remains true even if a majority of the population votes to take the lives, liberty, and property of the remaining citizens. Such a government might be perfectly democratic, and faithfully enacting the "social compact" desired by a majority of its citizens, but it would nonetheless be deeply illegitimate.

By eliminating any transcendent moral restraint on government, Jon and Max’s argument serves as a de facto legitimization of the worst kind of tyranny and despotism. I therefore reject it utterly."
Now, any of you numskulls want to guess where that comes from, and what it means?
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
...Oh, pardon me. This part was in bold:

"And that remains true even if a majority of the population votes to take the lives, liberty, and property of the remaining citizens."
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
Ok, as long as we’ve established that. No getting through "The State may do this, for our own protection."
If you want to argue about the usage of that power, potential for abuse, misuse and overreach, that’s fine.

Just because you’re throwing a hissy fit that you can’t get your pot w/o covert measures doesn’t mean that it’s the end of our civilization or the end of your freedoms.

There are instances where the state is justified in tagging as not allowed, and there are instances where they are not justified. And there are instances where they are not allowed to tag at all.

Because you’re upset that you think something was unjustly tagged, you don’t want ANYTHING tagged. It doesn’t work that way currently (feel free to get it changed if you can)

Your problem is that you want to have a discussion about the drug laws, but you’re trying to shoehorn it into a different area altogether.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Franks actively used the system in order to put a so-far-as-we-know peaceful man tending to his own affairs away for 10 years, shredding his life and that of his family.
Consider him a martyr for the cause

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Franks didn’t "work within the system." ....Franks actively used the system
See, from the post, I didn’t realize the Franks brought the charges. Or was he the one that put the drugs in the trailer? I could’ve sworn he was called called to jury duty.
That’s what we all do, trying to get by and prosper, enjoying what little freedom we still have to tend to our own peaceful affairs without interference from the state.
Very nice, Tevye. Can you attach the mp3 of the fiddle to that?
arbitrarily
You want to tell me where that comes from and what it means?
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Franks also made the preceding points:
The purpose of government is to protect natural rights. The purpose of the social compact is to negotiate an acceptable level of civil rights with that government.

Where civil rights differ radically with natural rights is that, with civil rights, there can be a disagreement about whether or not they should exist.
And what did Franks define as "natural rights"?
The right to life, the right to property, and the right to produce offspring. These three things, at minimum, are the basic natural rights, because they are a universal part of man’s biological and psychological makeup. Taken together, these three rights make up an overarching, and additional, natural right of liberty, that is, the right to exercise our natural rights without arbitrary interference.
Since Franks has also stated that he supports a government based on the US Constitution, which allows the government to make laws governing the transportation of products across our borders, it seems obvious that there is no contradiction between his view of natural/civil rights and the government’s ability to imprison a man for transporting certain products based on the Constitution. To Franks following the rules within the Constitution is not "arbitrary".

You don’t accept the role of government as expressed in the Constitution. We get it. Dry your eyes and sleep well in your moral superiority.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Ted repeats his mis-statement here. Let me repeat the refutation:


"Bzzt, WRONG, that was NOT Franks’ choice. By his actions, he willingly -reinforced- said laws, and did not personally act to deny their legitimacy, as he could have easily and -LEGALLY- done during the voir dire."


The charge is that Franks didn’t even rise to the level of principled LEGAL -libertarian- opposition to the drug wars by legitimately refusing to act to imprison a mere drug smuggler. Once again, I ask if the declaration of contraband is all that Shark and Ted need, especially in regard to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Law_of_1793
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
You’re comparing the right of a state to regulate the commerce of plants to the human slave trade?

Put down the bong and clear your head.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Consider him a martyr for the cause

That is truly, profoundly, sick. Even here, I’m shocked by that level of depravity.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"You’re comparing the right of a state to regulate the commerce of plants to the human slave trade?

Both "the commerce of plants" and "the human slave trade" result in declaring something contraband in contravention of natural rights, with resulting imprisonment for violating said laws. The principle is the same in both cases.

I notice that you were too cowardly to address the fact that Franks could have acted morally, -legally- and been excused from jury duty simply by saying that, as a libertarian, he opposed the drug war.


But that would have involved telling the truth...

"Put down the bong and clear your head."

That’s about the most hilariously misguided ad hominem ever.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
"That is truly, profoundly, sick. Even here, I’m shocked by that level of depravity."


War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

That’s your new "libertarian" credo, Kyle, learn to love it well.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Consider him a martyr for the cause

That is truly, profoundly, sick. Even here, I’m shocked by that level of depravity.
That’s a shocking level of depravity? You don’t get out much do ya?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"That’s a shocking level of depravity? You don’t get out much do ya?"

He’s a tender-minded lad, and doesn’t generally hang out around pro-statist freedom haters who claim to be classical liberals. You must pardon his squeamishness around rank hypocrisy and misology.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://

He’s a tender-minded lad, and doesn’t generally hang out around pro-statist freedom haters who claim to be classical liberals
Then he’s still not.

There’s not a single word in that sentance that can be accurately applied to me. But by all means, don’t let that stop you!

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
That’s a shocking level of depravity? You don’t get out much do ya?

Apparently not, at least not to the places you seem to frequent. Thank God.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
I notice that you were too cowardly
Yes, I am quivering in fear — or I don’t care what Franks does with his life.
Both "the commerce of plants" and "the human slave trade" result in declaring something contraband in contravention of natural rights
With that kind of in-depth comparison, you must oppose ANYTHING being declared contraband. Extremism at its best.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Apparently not, at least not to the places you seem to frequent. Thank God.
I get the impression that anyone watching Saturday morning cartoons or playing Wii would display levels of "animosity" that would shock you. I just don’t find jury duty to be depraved. Boring and annoying yes, depraved, no.

Perhaps if I ran around yelling "free Mumia", that would make it better for you?

Before you lecture me on this guy’s family being w/o daddy for 10 years, maybe you should lecture him about choosing to put his freedom and time with his family at risk by choosing to violate the drug smuggling law?

Life is about choices, he chose badly.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Sorry, I mean "levels of depravity..."
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
E. Brown
The charge is that Franks didn’t even rise to the level of principled LEGAL -libertarian- opposition to the drug wars
Wrong. This wasn’t a "drug war" case, it was a smuggling case. If the guy had a thousand pounds of a legal prescription medicine, he’d still be going to jail. Franks’ opposition to the "drug war" doesn’t enter into it.

Both "the commerce of plants" and "the human slave trade" result in declaring something contraband in contravention of natural rights, with resulting imprisonment for violating said laws.
Wrong. It wasn’t the smuggling of escaped slaves that was contrary to natural rights, it was the possession of slaves in the first place. Unless you think having slaves is ok (or that possession of plants should be illegal) then you can’t equate these two cases.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
shark, you keep reinforcing my belief that you are a sick, sick f*ck, but here...

I just don’t find jury duty to be depraved.

... you add liar to the list of indictments against your character. It was your martyrdom comment I said was depraved, not jury duty, and you know it.


Life is about choices, he chose badly.


Yes, he chose a lawyer that allowed the likes of Franks on the jury.

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Ahhh...the victim mentality we all love so dearly. Anger, righteous indignation, and now victimology. You get the hat trick!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"Wrong. It wasn’t the smuggling of escaped slaves that was contrary to natural rights,"

It was the laws -against- the smuggling of slaves that were against natural rights. They were thus -contraband- in the North and those who smuggled them were guilty of violating American public policy.



"it was the possession of slaves in the first place."

(Warning, the following is a reductio ad absurdum and does not reflect the views and policies of this station or its advertisers)

Sez you, the "public policy" of the time said otherwise. In fact, in the context of 1850, it would be regarded as absurd to place the freedom of slaves over the freedom to smoke a weed available wild in all states and territories of the U.S. If you whine, "But that’s not the context NOW," I fully agree. There’s a reason that the context changed, and it’s because for scientific and moral reasons we’ve realized that the justification for slavery and racial discrimination is wrong.

Individuals with functioning gial cells will see where this argument is going, so I’ll leave it at that.


"Unless you think having slaves is ok (or that possession of plants should be illegal) then you can’t equate these two cases."


I DON’T think that having slaves is OK, therefore I’m in favor of refusing to enforce laws that make it illegal to smuggle said human beings to Canada.

I DON’T think that imprisoning people for importation of benign or legal substances is OK, therefore I’m in favor of refusing to enforce laws that make it illegal to import benign or legal substances.

In any case, Franks’s erstwhile defenders have been throwing enough red herrings around to feed the American cat population for the next year.
When the time came to stand up and be counted, he was on the side of the bureaucrat, not the publisher.

As he ever will be...
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
"Since Franks has also stated that he supports a government based on the US Constitution, which allows the government to make laws governing the transportation of products across our borders, it seems obvious that there is no contradiction between his view of natural/civil rights and the government’s ability to imprison a man for transporting certain products based on the Constitution. To Franks following the rules within the Constitution is not "arbitrary".
Liar, or effing stupid, I don’t know which.

He supports a government based on the US Constitution to protect natural rights. The essay makes clear that government is subordinate to natural rights, and the only legitimacy for the state is to protect them, and when negotiated away, even by popular vote, the state is rendered wholly illegitimate.

That’s what he said, it’s what he meant.

Stealing millions worth of property and imprisoning a man for trading in it when it’s generally harmless, a natural right of people to determine for themselves if they wish to partake of it, and so on and so forth is a clear breach of natural rights.

As such, Franks was morally bound to do what he could without sacrificing himself once he got on the jury. He perpetuated the very crime he indicted by his essay.

By his own words, he actively served "de facto legitimization of the worst kind of tyranny and despotism."

He can’t escape it. You guys can red herring and hair split it until the cows come home. By the way: he’s not arguing this, and hides behind a podcast precisely because he knows he’s been had, particularly in light of his previous essay.

 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
because he knows he’s been had, particularly in light of his previous essay
Or because it’s obvious that you guys are so far out there that it’s just more amusing to watch you pound your fists, wail, and gnash your teeth as you demand that everyone share your righteous indignation.

You opt out of the constitutional system and then throw a tantrum when no one follows you. How’s that technique working out for you?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
shark, you keep reinforcing my belief that you are a sick, sick f*ck, but here...
Well maybe so, but I’m just the SOB who never smuggled a truckload of pot over the border illegally.
I just don’t find jury duty to be depraved.
... you add liar to the list of indictments against your character. It was your martyrdom comment I said was depraved, not jury duty, and you know it.
At this point I barely care what you said to be honest. Your overreaction to what was supposed to be a throwaway remark is pretty sad.
Life is about choices, he chose badly.
Yes, he chose a lawyer that allowed the likes of Franks on the jury.


No, he chose to do something that would put him in position to be tried by a jury.

He chose to smuggle drugs. Oh well. Now he gets a chance to smuggle sausage for the next 10 years or so.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Or because it’s obvious that you guys are so far out there that it’s just more amusing to watch you pound your fists, wail, and gnash your teeth as you demand that everyone share your righteous indignation."

Yea, that would be the other side, eh? Except that Franks and McQ — especially McQ — never shy away from an argument they can win. I’ve known Bruce since Usenet around 1995, back when he used to sound pretty much as I do now. How ’bout you?

That’s not to say the Bruce is an anarchist, but he understands it at least as well as I do, and he knows the principles of individual natural rights like the back of his hand. He’s argued them forcefully for years, thousands of pages, and "millions of lives" (that last bit is a joke). He’s not here. You draw your own conclusions.

"You opt out of the constitutional system..."

You have no idea what you’re talking about. So you just make sh*t up.

 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
JWG to abolitionists in 1850:

"You opt out of the constitutional system and then throw a tantrum when no one follows you. How’s that technique working out for you?"
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
"He chose to smuggle drugs."

Indisputable fact. And then what?

Blacks chose to "sit at the front of the bus" (that’s a metaphor, hopefully to preclude the kind of necessary read herringing and hair splitting you have to engage in).

Jews chose to escape, circumvent, or confront the Nuremberg laws.

Slaves escaped.

I could go on. There are plenty of other legal injustices in history, here and abroad. Their legality is the whole point.

You know, if you guys could find a way to hold a moral principle with both hands, you wouldn’t have to spend nearly so much time reading and posting comments. But perhaps that’s just an answer in itself.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
Ernie:

Sadly, that’s the state of the thing. What is it. Do human being generally only have the capacity to recognize injustice once it’s ancient history?

There must have been hundreds of thousands of JGWs and sharks in 1850. 1776 too:

"You opt out of the colonial system and then throw a tantrum when no one follows you. How’s that technique working out for you?"

Nothing new under the sun. Some are born to plow new ground, some to tend to current crops.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
"Nothing new under the sun. Some are born to plow new ground, some to tend to current crops."

Apparently, some also like to sow kudzu.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
Do human being generally only have the capacity to recognize injustice once it’s ancient history?

Once it’s ancient history, there’s less chance it will run up against their own beliefs and present a contradiction they can’t bring themselves to face.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
He chose to smuggle drugs."

Indisputable fact. And then what?
THEN HE FACED THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS.

He’s either a criminal or practicing civil disobedience in disobeying a law he felt was unjust. There is no third option.

In either case, he made the choice, and he’s facing the consequences. If he was being a civil disobedient, he (and you) should WELCOME the fact that he’s in jail! He’s (as noted earlier) a martyr for your cause. If only YOU had the stones this brave man has! When do YOU smuggle druge for your cause? FAH! You’re a marijuana hawk! Always urging others to do what you won’t! Big brave you, willing to blunt up in the privacy of his home (or parent’s basement) but when do you put yourself on the line for the cause!
Blacks chose to "sit at the front of the bus" (that’s a metaphor, hopefully to preclude the kind of necessary read herringing and hair splitting you have to engage in).

Jews chose to escape, circumvent, or confront the Nuremberg laws.

Slaves escaped.
So.........you’re comparing drug smuggling to- no....you’re EQUATING drug smuggling to:

1) Principled civil disobedience in fighting for a civil right that was due to them

2) Escaping or trying to subvert a murderous, hellishly evil set of fascist laws

and

3) Escaping from a life of forced servitude.

WOW..........just wow.

I have never seen stoners so up in arms. Man, people get defensive when you take their pot.



 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"THEN HE FACED THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS."

Indeed, but you didn’t really address the question, did you?

The question is whether his actions were outside the bounds of natural rights, which Franks devoted a whole long essay with sidebar quotes and everything to uphold.

You may begin by telling us who he harmed, i.e., whose natural rights he came in conflict with. Bonus point if you point out where he was violent in doing so.

Franks’ essay, which I mostly agree with, logically leads to the conclusion that the only legitimate role for the United States, and jury members failing that — their raison d’être — was to ensure his protection.

Well, we know the rest of the story.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
Blacks chose...Jews chose...Slaves escaped...I could go on
Oh, please do. It’s quite fun to watch you continue to compare a man jailed for smuggling weed to the plight of minorities throughout history.

Why aren’t you leading civil rights marches through the streets to the state and national capitals? I’m sure blacks, jews, and other oppressed minorities will be right there with you to support their brothers-in-arms aka the drug smugglers.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
JWG in 1930:


"Why aren’t you leading civil rights marches through the streets to the state and national capitals? I’m sure blacks, jews, and other oppressed minorities will be right there with you to support their brothers-in-arms aka the bootleggers."
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Shark in 1930:


"I have never seen drunks so up in arms. Man, people get defensive when you take their booze."
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Why aren’t you leading civil rights marches through the streets to the state and national capitals?

Do you drool every time the buzzer goes off, too?

Good puppy!
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"Do you drool every time the buzzer goes off, too?

Good puppy!"

Exactly, Kyle, asset forfeiture, the imprisonment and killing of otherwise peaceful individuals and the criminalization of possession of a weed found wild across the continental U.S. = "Free Markets, Free People."
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
bootleggers
Are you trying to argue that there are no federal laws currently on the books that regulate the importation of alcohol?

You guys are so blinded by extremism that you can’t even see straight.

Why aren’t you storming the Capitol over the continued "illegitimate" regulation of alcohol?

The Constitution of the US gives Congress the enumerated right to regulate commerce across the border.

You believe our government is has become illegitimate because it regulates the importation of products across the border.
asset forfeiture, the imprisonment and killing of otherwise peaceful individuals and the criminalization of possession of a weed found wild across the continental U.S. = "Free Markets, Free People.
You have confused the constitutionally enumerated right of the government to regulate commerce across its borders with other issues that are separate from interstate commerce.

There’s a difference between a government using a legitimate power to make a bad law and a government illegitimately exerting power.

Now, please, please, please, tell me more about how Jews and blacks are just like drug smugglers. I can’t get enough!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"You have confused the constitutionally enumerated right of the government to regulate commerce across its borders with other issues that are separate from interstate commerce. There’s a difference between a government using a legitimate power to make a bad law and a government illegitimately exerting power."

Red herring again. If it was homegrown pot sent across state lines, you’d cry out "Interstate Commerce." If it was homegrown, sold within the state and Franks was doing his Good German routine in a state court (as he undoubtedly would), you’d vomit-whine "Federalism & State’s Rights."

"The Constitution" does not trump natural rights. You and your fellow self-lobotomized force-worshipers are the only ones fetishizing hemp here.

 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
"Now, please, please, please, tell me more about how Jews and blacks are just like drug smugglers. I can’t get enough!"

Here, folks, is the sign of a misologist who absolutely refuses to reason from principles to a conclusion. The spectacle of such willful intellectual and moral self-castration is sickening.

By JWG’s perverted anti-reasoning, the existence of pornographers is an argument for generally restricting forms of speech. He’s going to vomit-whine that "speech isn’t unrestricted" and then appeal to the "shouting ’fire’ in a crowded theater" shtick. Well, the bureaubot referenced in the video above is charging Levant with doing just that in the "theater of Canada and the world." According to JWG’s standards, she’s doing exactly the right thing.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
It really is a sign of how well off we have it as a society nowadays. How easy we have it, how few monsterous injustices we REALLY face, when agitating for the right to import blunts is the leading cause.

And it is a sign of just how deeply insulated we are because we have it so well, when people- allegedly seriously and non-ironically- compare the plight of a weed smuggler to Nuremberg, Jim Crow and Slavery.

I’m done here. I have to go write my elected officials and tell them I support strengthening the drug laws, including a death penalty for smuggling pot.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"It really is a sign of how well off we have it as a society nowadays. How easy we have it, how few monsterous injustices we REALLY face, when agitating for the right to import blunts is the leading cause."

Misology again, the incident with Levant is of a piece with Franks’s little escapade and the Gordon Brown organ harvesting scam, etc., etc.

Erosion of the right to self-ownership STARTS by attacking socially unpopular people and activities (and by idiots like Shark forgetting that historically, the "socially unpopular" in the past were Jews and blacks) and then ends in destroying the rights of "good, respectable people" like Levant.

 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
According to JWG’s standards
According to my standards, people have a natural right to free speech.

According to my standards, people have a natural right to cross a border and avoid slavery.

According to my standards, people have a natural right to have laws applied to them equally regardless of the color of their skin or the god they do/don’t worship.

According to my standards, people do not have a natural right to cross national borders without the expectation of regulation.

According to my standards, people do not have a natural right to cross a border with a plant that the majority of citizens on that side of the border have agreed to be illegal.

——

Seriously, fight to change the drug laws. But you guys are whacked out when you start bringing in slavery and Nazis.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
the "socially unpopular" in the past were Jews and blacks
First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the blacks, and I did not speak out -
because I was not black.

Then they came for the drug smugglers, and I did not speak out -
because I was not crossing a national border with a truck full of hidden pot.

——

Somehow it just seems to lose its edge at that point...
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
According to my standards, people have a natural right to have laws applied to them equally regardless of the color of their skin or the god they do/don’t worship.

shorter JWG: "Process is morality". I’ll give you this, Orwell never thought of that one. Lessee, should we rename the DMV to "Ministry of Enlightenment"?

The Banality of Evil, indeed.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Yes, I am evil because I believe the US Government should equally enforce laws that are enumerated in the Constitution.

Do you really wonder why no one wants to follow you and your fellow chicken-littles?

I only keep commenting because every time you write something I get a laugh. Please don’t stop.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Did you know that the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000 prohibits the import of products containing dog or cat fur into the United States?

To the barricades!!! This is an outrage!!! Amerikkka must be deemed illegitimate!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Do you really wonder why no one wants to follow you and your fellow chicken-littles?

Everything is about following for you, isn’t it? You can’t even think in any other terms, can you? Quite the pathological case study you are.

I only keep commenting because every time you write something I get a laugh. Please don’t stop.

Good Puppy.

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"shorter JWG: ’Process is morality’. I’ll give you this, Orwell never thought of that one. Lessee, should we rename the DMV to "Ministry of Enlightenment"?’

The Banality of Evil, indeed."

Yep, so much for "self-ownership." Freedom is only free if it is "PC" for JWG. He and his kind were the ones mocking abolitionists in 1850 for opposing constitution consensus on behalf of the freedom of slaves.



 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
"Everything is about following for you, isn’t it? You can’t even think in any other terms, can you? Quite the pathological case study you are."

Willing slaves always are.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Erosion of the right to self-ownership STARTS by attacking socially unpopular people and activities (and by idiots like Shark forgetting that historically, the "socially unpopular" in the past were Jews and blacks
By that logic, Mumia should be freed from his Govt "gulag" because he was only jailed because murderers are socially unpopular!


 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"By that logic, Mumia should be freed from his Govt "gulag" because he was only jailed because murderers are socially unpopular!"


What part of "force or fraud" do you not understand, minnow?
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Everything is about following for you, isn’t it?
Everything? No.

But I do follow the logic that differentiates between slavery and border regulation.

Now go find some of those dog fur nazis and give ’em hell!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Podcast – Dale Franks, “You can always argue with these guys, you can always argue with a brick wall.”

The brick wall is mopping the floor with Dale’s ass. And Dale’s conceited “lost interest” is a failing not uncommon with him. The “slippery slope” argument and “what if it were anthrax” screams of desperation.

The point has been made regarding whether or not Dale was “working within the system” to change the laws he may or may not agree with, but I feel compelled to put it another way.
Jury nullification is working within the system. The jury is one of the few ways that an individual can effectively exercise dissent from the state.
I consider that as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man (trial by jury), by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution....
- Thomas Jefferson
Truth is, Mr. Franks had every opportunity to voice his dissent over the laws in question but chose not to. And if fact, he decided to actively participate in the defendant’s demise and helped to further the immorality of like convictions.
If Franks did not wish to engage in jury nullification, at any time before or during the trial, Franks could have removed himself from the equation, but chose not to.

Franks chose the power of the state, over the just fate of the defendant. To state that he doesn’t believe in the drug laws, yet is more than willing – in fact going out of his way – to participate in sending a man up the river for ten years for violating these laws he claims he doesn’t believe in, is undeniable hypocrisy. If his stated opinions of the drug laws are indeed true, his disgusting actions to want to participate in the manner he did, also give reasons to believe that his motivations were purely juvenile wantings of relevance. See, … I matter.

I suspect Mr. Franks is smart enough to realize the arguments of morality represented here and on another thread are heavy enough to cause him to question his decision. Yet I suspect his self inflated ego will not allow it.


 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
JWG;
Red herring again. If it was homegrown pot sent across state lines, you’d cry out "Interstate Commerce." If it was homegrown, sold within the state and Franks was doing his Good German routine in a state court (as he undoubtedly would), you’d vomit-whine "Federalism & State’s Rights."
This red herring is the key to Brown’s argument. Even though this guy would have been convicted on the same charges in the same court if his trailer was full of Cuban cigars (or North Korean teddy bears), for him it’s all about the pot.

As you’ve said, government regulation of commerce isn’t limited to a few things or a few people. Government regulation is imposed on thousands of items and is applied not just to the "socially unpopular", but to everyone living in the U.S.
Why aren’t you storming the Capitol over the continued "illegitimate" regulation of alcohol?
You’re getting to the heart of why this is so upsetting. In the Dale-as-a-Nazi-soldier scenario, what is everyone else’s part? Unless you’ve got a Colombian drug lord stashed in the basement, you can’t claim to be the equivalent of the Germans that risked their lives by hiding Jews. So what we have are some neighbors that are telling the soldier he did the wrong thing, but they’re not taking their actions to the level of their indignation. It’s morally a step up from being the soldier, but it doesn’t get the Jew off the train.


 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Franks chose the power of the state, over the just fate of the defendant. To state that he doesn’t believe in the drug laws, yet is more than willing – in fact going out of his way – to participate in sending a man up the river for ten years for violating these laws he claims he doesn’t believe in, is undeniable hypocrisy.
I don’t see it. Because Franks also believes in the idea that choices have consequences. And he chose to violate that law. You can agitate to change the rules all you want....but while they’re still in effect, you gotta play by them. And if you choose not to, you willingly and knowingly put yourself in a position where you will deal with the results of those actions.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"It really is a sign of how well off we have it as a society nowadays."
You should either shut your insolent mouth or make it clear that you’re authorized to speak exclusively for yourself in this, because you’re not the one pulling ten years in prison.
"I’m done here."
Good. Get the fu*k out of my sight.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
"But you guys are whacked out when you start bringing in slavery and Nazis."
They most certainly are not. They see something crucially important that you are never going to see through your lizard eyelids.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
"I suspect Mr. Franks is smart enough to realize the arguments of morality represented here and on another thread are heavy enough to cause him to question his decision. Yet I suspect his self inflated ego will not allow it."
I seriously wonder about the first part of that, Pogue. I think you’re probably wrong about it.

I think you’re right about the second half. I cannot imagine that he’s going to check himself on this. He’s going to do his best to ignore it all and hope it blows away. If that’s true, then he is very seriously miscalculating.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
He’s going to do his best to ignore it all and hope it blows away. If that’s true, then he is very seriously miscalculating.

Yes this has the feel of something that has legs. A very deep split has been exposed here, in stark terms. I suspect that ten years from now, it’ll still be referenced. And when Rhett walks out of prison, Dale will be reminded to examine all he has had in his life from now till then, that he has denied to Rhett.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
PogueMahone:
Franks chose the power of the state, over the just fate of the defendant. To state that he doesn’t believe in the drug laws, yet is more than willing – in fact going out of his way – to participate in sending a man up the river for ten years for violating these laws he claims he doesn’t believe in, is undeniable hypocrisy.

*Word*.

"It should have been him."
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
They see something crucially important that you are never going to see through your lizard eyelids.
You’re right. I’m not going to see everything as Nazis and slavery. And society is not going to crumble and my rights are not going to collapse because of it.

Get over yourselves. You are not the sole receivers of wisdom who alone see the Truth while the rest of us plod along numb, dumb, and blind in our collectives.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"And society is not going to crumble and my rights are not going to collapse because of it."

"It should have been you."
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://

Get over yourselves. You are not the sole receivers of wisdom who alone see the Truth while the rest of us plod along numb, dumb, and blind in our collectives.
Oh, you can see and hear just fine.

But you can’t PROCESS, or you’d understand why imprisoning a man who has violated no one’s rights is such a problem.

People are more offended by what others say, than by what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Extrapolate the consequences of that, if you dare.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
my rights are not going to collapse because of it.

That’s where you’re wrong. Your rights have collapsed as far as they have already due to just these kinds of "small" moral failures by a nation of Dale Franks’s - and through your failure to see it. "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Dale went below and beyond even that mandate, and you will pay a price for it, however small that is.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"It really is a sign of how well off we have it as a society nowadays."
You should either shut your insolent mouth or make it clear that you’re authorized to speak exclusively for yourself in this, because you’re not the one pulling ten years in prison.
Yeah. I never smuggled drugs. Imagine that. Guess that makes me "insolent".

He’s pulling 10 years in prison for sneaking in a truckload of drugs? GOOD! Sometimes the system does work!
"I’m done here."
Good. Get the fu*k out of my sight.
Piss off. Next time you address me, you keep it civilized pally.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
And when Rhett walks out of prison, Dale will be reminded to examine all he has had in his life from now till then, that he has denied to Rhett
Why? Dale didn’t deny anything to Rhett. Neither did the state or the judge or the jury. Rhett is still free to have things in his life, like his prision issue, his bar of soap, and possibly a shank (if he’s a naughty boy).

The idea of personal responsibility is sure missing here.

Poor victimized brave drug smuggler. Maybe when he’s serving his 10 years of martyrdom, he can pen something inspirational just like MLK did when he was jailed for bravely disobeying unjust laws.

Because they’re exactly the same!

Cue Billy: "We shall overcome....."
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Why should anyone address you civilly, Mr. Shark?

You are scum.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
The idea of personal responsibility is sure missing here.

Haha. It sure is.

Next time you address me, you keep it civilized pally.

Go fvck yourself.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
People are more offended by what others say, than by what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Extrapolate the consequences of that, if you dare.
I think you meant to reverse that. The ability to offend someone through speech is protected by the Constitution, so it would be a good thing if people were less likely to be offended by what you do in private.

Regardless, he wasn’t in the privacy of his own home. He was transporting drugs across an international border.

My rights to freely transport anything over the US border "collapsed" as soon as the US Constitution was ratified.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The real problem that nothing even approximating a free society can exist while people like "shark" - and Mr. Franks - exist and are able to exercise political power. The enemy is not some distant government or some imposed tyranny. The enemy are seemingly reasonable, "sensible" and "moderate" people like Dale Franks and his supporters on this board. They empower and sanction the SWAT teams and the tyrannical laws.

I have no idea what the answer is. I don’t think there is an answer.

The unfortunate Oskar Loerko summed up the martyrdom of his experiences in the Third Reich—his pain at the undignified situations into which he was constantly forced, his bitterness at the conformity and opportunism of his friends, his despair at the boastful meanness of those in power—in the words: ’There is a disgust in the world that reaches beyond death and will last to eternity.’ - Joachim Fest, THE FACE OF THE THIRD REICH

"The boastful meanness of those in power." "Comformity and opportunism" - this well describes Franks and his friends.

And the disgust - well, that goes almost without saying, doesn’t it?
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
My rights to freely transport anything over the US border "collapsed" as soon as the US Constitution was ratified.

I.e., "’Rights’ — void where prohibited by law!"
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
The enemy are seemingly reasonable, "sensible" and "moderate" people like Dale Franks and his supporters on this board
and
THE FACE OF THE THIRD REICH
Oh, goodie — another extremist to yell "Nazi, Nazi!!" and "You are the enemy!"

You guys are doing a bang up job with the convincing arguments! I just can’t understand why no one wants to believe you.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"’Rights’ — void where prohibited by law!"
So another person who argues the US Constitution is illegitimate, since it clearly enumerates the Congress with regulating commerce across the border.

Noooo, you guys aren’t extreme at all.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The enemy are seemingly reasonable, "sensible" and "moderate" people like Dale Franks and his supporters on this board. They empower and sanction the SWAT teams and the tyrannical laws.

I have no idea what the answer is. I don’t think there is an answer.


There are two historical outcomes:

1. Devolution — through ceaseless, incremental "deselection" of those with any spark of individuality, creativity or talent — of the Homo Sapiens species into a more idiotic, nearly pre-sentient, Homo Erectus-like humanoid. (Representative examples: Algeria. Burma.)

2. War to throw off a tyranny. (Representative example: The American Revolutionary War.)

— These may not be the "answers" you’re looking for, but they are the choices reality presents. (Choice 3, Escape to a new, empty frontier, is no longer viable.)
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
more idiotic, nearly pre-sentient, Homo Erectus-like humanoid. (Representative examples: Algeria. Burma.)
Wow. I hope you didn’t mean this the way it came out. Or maybe you were the author of Ron Paul’s newsletters?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I think you meant to reverse that. The ability to offend someone through speech is protected by the Constitution, so it would be a good thing if people were less likely to be offended by what you do in private.
I think you’re missing my point. The criminalization of this action based on a necessity to regulate trade with other nation-states looks silly in the light of NAFTA. So in terms of the Constitution, what this amounts to is trying to control any presence of a particular, non-harmful substance in the United States itself.

Now, if you want to stretch the Commerce Clause to the point where the government should get involved in any business transaction "in the name of the People," great. It explains the legality of the federal government’s continuing interference in every aspect of American business. If freedom to make your own, private decisions about your life is subject to the whims of others, then this interpretation makes sense.

Otherwise, you’re just reaching for an excuse to enforce your own prejudices against a drug. I don’t use marijuana, myself, but I heartily defend the rights of others to do so. Understand yet?
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
There are two historical outcomes:
More, actually. For instance, China continues to manage a tyranny while encouraging a bastardized form of trade.

It’s wholly plausible to have a society where creativity and merciless oppression walk hand in hand. Don’t you think so?
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
" [...]

Otherwise, you’re just reaching for an excuse ..."


+1

Why are some of you law & orderers sneering at Rhett in the ways that you are?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
It’s wholly plausible to have a society where creativity and merciless oppression walk hand in hand. Don’t you think so?
No. If you really think so, try to screen "Some Like It Hot" in Tehran, and see how long it takes before your theater is in flames and you’re in prison or being hanged after a thorough flogging.

 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
I heartily defend the rights of others to do so.
I couldn’t care less if someone uses drugs.

I just know that either you accept the legitimacy of Congress to regulate imports into the country or you believe the US Constitution is illegitimate.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
I just know that either you accept the legitimacy of Congress to regulate imports into the country or you believe the US Constitution is illegitimate.

"Legitima(te)" is just a mealy bullshat word employed by you as a dodge away from having to contemplate the ethics of a handful of powder-wigged imbeciles in a Philadelphia drawing-room cooking up a blueprint for forcefully ordering all the "We the People"s to do what they say.
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
No. If you really think so, try to screen "Some Like It Hot" in Tehran, and see how long it takes before your theater is in flames and you’re in prison or being hanged after a thorough flogging.
Different kind of creativity. If you want a hint of the other kind, consider that they’re not too terribly far from creating nuclear weapons.

Some nations have shown exceptional creativity in some fields compared to others. Lack of cultural freedom does not imply lack of wealth. At least, lack of wealth for a certain class.
or you believe the US Constitution is illegitimate.
I don’t treat it like holy writ, if that’s what you mean. Terrible things have been done that it didn’t cover, and sometimes in spite of it. And there were a whole lot of decades in which Congress didn’t restrict certain products in an attempt to "ban substances." So much for the commerce clause, as least as popularly understood.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
handful of powder-wigged imbeciles in a Philadelphia drawing-room cooking up a blueprint for forcefully ordering all the "We the People"s to do what they say
Nope. No extremism there.

This has been very educational.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"This has been very educational."

Yep, it tells me that you’re more obsessed with a hemp roll than the natural rights of human beings.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
I’m more interested in the Constitution than with how you define "natural rights."
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"This red herring is the key to Brown’s argument. Even though this guy would have been convicted on the same charges in the same court if his trailer was full of Cuban cigars (or North Korean teddy bears), for him it’s all about the pot."

It would be equally wrong if he was convicted for importation of dog or cat fur, or any of the other stupid and unprincipled examples JWG horked up.

Intervention in trade is only justified in cases of force or fraud, period. "Free markets" mean FREE markets, not "democratically voted-on regulated markets." Once again, free markets, like free speech, mean that you have the right to sell products that others may find offensive, as long as the means and production of same are not in themselves violations of the NIFF principle.


"As you’ve said, government regulation of commerce isn’t limited to a few things or a few people. Government regulation is imposed on thousands of items and is applied not just to the "socially unpopular", but to everyone living in the U.S."

No, really? That’s just skippy with you then and, as long as there is a "democratic increase" in the amount of regulation a la the famous boiling frog, you will have nothing to say about it?


"In the Dale-as-a-Nazi-soldier scenario, what is everyone else’s part?"

There has been no demand for Franks to act as a Henson, Tubman or ten Boom.
The only demand has been for him to not claim to be a (neo-)libertarian while at the same time acting like a Freisler or Vyshinsky.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
"I’m more interested in the Constitution than with how you define "natural rights.""

Then you admit that my 1850 quote of you is exactly correct:

JWG to abolitionists in 1850:

"You opt out of the constitutional system and then throw a tantrum when no one follows you. How’s that technique working out for you?"


Thanks for the confession, it tells me just how much you understand about the history and progress of human freedom...


jacques merde
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
There has been no demand for Franks to act as a Henson, Tubman or ten Boom.
The only demand has been for him to not claim to be a (neo-)libertarian while at the same time acting like a Freisler or Vyshinsky.


My "demand" is that he live up to the responsibilities he has accepted for himself, or not accept them. Without jury nullification, the responsibility of being some kind of self-proclaimed leading libertarian voice conflicts with the responsibility of jury duty when there are oppressive drug and contraband laws extant. Nullification could have reconciled the two, but it would have been perfectly acceptable to forego nullification if he had refused the responsibility of jury service.

He didn’t need to be a hero, if he’d only declined the opportunity to be a villain.

JWG:
I’m more interested in the Constitution than with how you define "natural rights."

Funny, I was going to accuse you of believing just that (without the gratuitous caveat of "how you define..."). I guess I rest my case.

Now, given that, will you disavow libertarianism and go join the neocons? Or the Buchananite populists?



 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Is anyone going to put this "extremism" rubbish in its place or am I going to have to do it?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Is anyone going to put this "extremism" rubbish in its place or am I going to have to do it?


Nah, your turn.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Is anyone going to put this "extremism" rubbish in its place or am I going to have to do it?
I’m your huckleberry.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

I forgot, some people think that’s passe and lame.

Ok, how about this? If a kid gets 100% on a math test, he isn’t an academic extremist. If someone doesn’t worship Satan, they aren’t an anti-devil extremist. Etc, ad nauseam.

I am a bit of an extremist on some issues, yes. The question is: can you say this type of moderation, the MODERATION of the right to conduct your business without infringing on the rights of others, is morally correct?
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
There is no common ground, moral or otherwise, with the likes of Dale Franks or anyone who supports him. There is no convincing such people, no discussion possible, no possibility - in the long run - of coexistence with them. They do not speak the same language we do and they no longer believe in judging right from wrong (and such judgement they call "extremism.")
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
"extremism" rubbish
Let’s see:

We have Nikoley calling for Franks to kill himself.
We have multiple associations with Nazis and slavery.
We have someone calling the people of Algeria and Burma "more idiotic, nearly pre-sentient, Homo Erectus-like humanoid[s]."
We have someone who views the framers of the Constitution as "powder-wigged imbeciles."
We have people who deem the Constitution and our form of government as illegitimate.
We have someone who views common citizens as "the enemy."
We have someone who views a drug smuggler as "a hero of American capitalism."

Yeah, there’s no reason why "extreme" would come to mind.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Why should anyone address you civilly, Mr. Shark?

You are scum
Yup, the guy who smuggles a truck of maryjane is a hero, but I’m the bad guy here. Amazing! Oh well, I suppose I’ll have to take solace in the fact that if I drop the soap, I don’t have to face what Mr. Rhett has to face!
Next time you address me, you keep it civilized pally.

Go fvck yourself.
I love you too.
"I’m done here."
Good. Get the fu*k out of my sight.
LOL glad to see the kids are back from school. You old-school libs really bring the level of discourse up!


 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Why are some of you law & orderers sneering at Rhett in the ways that you are?
Actually, I’m sneering at you jesters who are trying to raise Mr. Rhett to hero or martyr status because he’s a criminal who violated your pet cause.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Actually, I’m sneering at you jesters who are trying to raise Mr. Rhett to hero or martyr status because he’s a criminal who violated your pet cause."

Nah, you’re just a sneering and morally gutless liar who couldn’t reason his way out of a paper bag.

Enjoy "jury trials" for "freedom of speech," piglet.

 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
Nah, you’re just a sneering and morally gutless liar who couldn’t reason his way out of a paper bag.
Yet with all of that, I never smuggled a truckload of pot.

Go figure.
Enjoy "jury trials" for "freedom of speech," piglet.
Smuggling pot = freedom of speech? Ok......
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
couldn’t reason his way out of a paper bag
I’m fairly certain that shark wouldn’t resort to reason in that senario.

I’m also fairly certain that he has enough reason to recognize the moral difference between human beings and plants.

It takes a simplistic mind to keep morally equating the transportation of a slave to the transportation of a plant.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"I’m fairly certain that shark wouldn’t resort to reason in that senario."

Like you, he wouldn’t resort to reason in ANY scenario. Appeals to majoritarianism and tradition are logical fallacies.

"I’m also fairly certain that he has enough reason to recognize the moral difference between human beings and plants."


"It takes a simplistic mind to keep morally equating the transportation of a slave to the transportation of a plant."

It’s about the right of self-ownership in both cases. To answer your disingenuous question above, "drug dealers," along with African-Americans and Jews, are beings with moral worth and natural rights that cannot be abrogated by the will of any constituted majority on behalf of any document. The slavery case is worse because both the smuggler and the smuggled are humans and thus the violation of liberty is doubled, but the principle of self-owned liberty remains the same.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
"drug dealers," ...are beings with...natural rights
I agree.

We disagree that it is a natural right to transport a product across a border unregulated.

The only argument being made to convince anyone that there is such a natural right is to scream "Nazis!" and "Slavery!"
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
The only argument being made to convince anyone that there is such a natural right is to scream "Nazis!" and "Slavery!"

Well, that, and the arguments Dale has made in the past. And his strong implication in the original thread that he disagreed with the law he enforced. If you think he’s wrong, take it up with him.

By Dale’s own words, the law was wrong. That’s not what is in dispute here, your constant repetition of the claim is a strawman.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"The only argument being made to convince anyone that there is such a natural right is to scream ’Nazis!’ and ’Slavery!’"

Wrong, the argument is that is is a natural right to freely and honestly trade, and that any state who violates that right is, in principle, guilty of wrongs akin in kind, if not in degree, to the "Vampire State" and the antebellum South.

The only counter-argument you’ve mustered is a blind appeal to majoritarianism based on politically-incited prejudice and a document that has, at -best,- an equivocal record on its exposition of classical liberal principles.

 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
"By Dale’s own words, the law was wrong. That’s not what is in dispute here, your constant repetition of the claim is a strawman."


Exactly.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
By Dale’s own words, the law was wrong
Franks’ own words: "I chose to support it because it was a valid, Constitutional law, applied equally to all. I don’t think it’s a particularly effective law, because, I think prohibition creates undesirable secondary effects, but I’m not sold at all on the idea that my right to property automatically confers the right to own every single thing I can conceive of."

Since he’s added another post, I’m done here.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
We have someone calling the people of Algeria and Burma "more idiotic, nearly pre-sentient, Homo Erectus-like humanoid[s]."
Let’s not forget internet forums, which are filled to overflowing with ’em.

(AKA "Eloi".)
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
While there was an infamous thread where the libertarian crew and I went back and forth and I strongly object to their methods, but they’re on the side of Right here.

We disagree that it is a natural right to transport a product across a border unregulated.

Strange; why do you draw a distinction between one line (say, state borders) and others (national borders)?

FWIW, Arendt’s identification of the concept of the "banality of evil" was predicated on bad data. There’s no serious evidence that Eichmann was banal about what he was doing.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Why are you trying to ignore the matter of right in this thing, Franks?

How long do you think you’re going to get away with it?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Billy,

"Why are you trying to ignore the matter of right in this thing, Franks?

Because he thinks he can, of course


How long do you think you’re going to get away with it?"

As long as the herd validates his stance, he’ll take his chances with the mob in crushing any deviations that don’t involve force and fraud. Tis ever the fascist’s way.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Billy,

If you haven’t seen it yet, Franks’s apologia is over here:


http://www.qando.net/comments.aspx?Entry=7652
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
"Yes, I am evil because I believe the US Government should equally enforce laws that are enumerated in the Constitution."

OK, I’ll bite; what part of the Constitution permits the regulation of marijuana?
 
Written By: Jeffrey Quick
URL: http://
Jeffrey, what if the freakin’ wretched rag *did*?

Would that justify it?
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
"Franks is not a Nazi": JWG, paraphrased
"Jim Zumbo is not Sarah Brady."

Yes. We expect more of our own.
 
Written By: Jeffrey Quick
URL: http://
Franks:
OK. I think we’re just about done here.
Again with the lying "we".

"We" aren’t done here until you’re the one behind bars for ten years, and the non-violent man is free.

*Fvck* you, you grinning statist enforcer.
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
If it was homegrown, sold within the state and Franks was doing his Good German routine in a state court (as he undoubtedly would), you’d vomit-whine "Federalism & State’s Rights."
Actually, I wouldn’t. The constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. I’d’ve acquitted in that case, since the Feds have no Constitutional authority there.

But, please, carry on with your caricature.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Notice that Franks can’t read:

I wrote:

"If it was homegrown, sold within the state and Franks was doing his Good German routine -in a state court-..."

[emphasis on convicting in a state court, which should have been clear that I was referring to a state crime, especially with my reference to "State’s Rights"...]



Actually, I wouldn’t. The constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. I’d’ve acquitted in that case, since the Feds have no Constitutional authority there.

But, please, carry on with your caricature.



 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
Is it just me, or does Dick Nick there seem to have something permanently jammed up his backside?

I can’t stand people like Dick Nick; bellies so full of fire and balls completely empty. What have you done to change the drug laws Dick? You sound to me like some guy who got caught with pot repeatedly when he was a teenager because he was too stupid to not get caught - or you’re a guy who can’t stop getting caught with pot as an adult - and you’re bitter over it.

Instead of acknowledging the real problem, that you’re an inept stoner, you blame the Man.
 
Written By: Chaos
URL: blizzforums.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider