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

 
About the Anarcholibertarians
Posted by: Dale Franks on Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Well, it seems my post on jury duty last week ruffled a few feathers among the "real" libertarians. They proceeded to do what "real" libertarians always do, which was excoriate me for everything from intellectual inconsistency, to "chust followink orders" like a Nazi concentration camp guard. In other words, their usual style of argument—one which, by the way, has made the Libertarian Party so beloved of voters.

The trouble with their analyses is that, as usual, they leave holes in their arguments big enough to drive a truck through.

Their starting point—and it is a useful starting point, is the natural rights argument. I think I covered that pretty well a while ago in this post, so if you're unaware of those arguments, you can review it. For the anarcholibertarians those arguments are not only the beginning point, they are the end as well. Having proven to their own satisfaction that Natural Rights are their preferred framework through which to view the world, no further consideration is necessary.

I disagree.

Human nature is not, in fact, summed up on Natural Rights theory, because humans are not individualistic animals. Quite the contrary, humans are social animals. Moreover, as Carl Sagan once wrote, humans, being primates, are prone to dominance hierarchies. You simply cannot assert that a portion of human nature—natural rights—is inherent in human nature, and them blithely ignore the other, less pleasant things that also inhere there. So, just as natural rights inhere in persons simply because they are persons, so to does the native impulse to organize into societies, and for those societies to choose leaders in some manner.

Historically, the social and dominance hierarchy elements of human nature, which is to say, the social behaviors that humans automatically exhibit, have been problematic. In practice, humans have tended to build societies based on a strongman—tribal chief, king, dictator—who has exhibited an acceptable combination of strength, ruthlessness, charisma, and stability that helped to ensure their survival and security; first against nature, then against other strongmen.

During classical Greek antiquity, the Epicurians, noting this apparent fixed impulse in human nature, broached the idea of a social contract. Briefly, the social contract was the sum total of the expectations that the members of society had of their government, and the responsibilities they owed it.

In the Enlightenment period, a number of philosophers raised the idea again, among whom was John Locke, whose ideas underpinned the essentials of the American struggle for self-government. Locke posited that the only legitimate government was one that exercised its powers with the explicit consent of the populace. With these ideas in mind, the Founders wrote up an explicit social contract for the United States, which we call the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Under our system, the government ultimately answers to the electorate. It exercises only those powers the electorate chooses to allow it to exercise. We can amend that social contract through constitutional amendment, and we can express our disapproval of policy, and the officials who create it, through frequent and fair elections. In return for this grant of power, the government itself is empowered to provide for the defense of the nation, to ensure that all citizens receive equal justice under the law, provide neutral forums for the resolution of disputes, etc., all of which are done for the purpose of securing the liberties of the citizenry.

That's the deal, and if the government breaks it, then we get to break the government.

Now, many of the anarcholibertarians hate the idea of a social contract. They argue that they never signed it, and they want their liberty now, dammit! The only valid obligation, they argue, is one which they voluntarily entered into themselves.

Unfortunately for them, they implicitly enter into the contract by living here, driving on our public roads, using our courts to resolve disputes, calling the cops when a burglar break into their home, or any of the hundreds of other ways in which they involve themselves in our society. If they were born here, their parents essentially signed the contract for them as their guardians. If they immigrated here, they specifically "signed" the contract when they took the oath of citizenship. And, of course, if they served in the military, they also explicitly "signed" as well, through the oaths they gave.

Think about it this way. Let us say your parents live in a neighborhood with a fairly stringent set of rules adopted by the homeowner's association. When they die, they leave the home to you. That doesn't mean you can kite in and paint the house pink and purple. By accepting ownership of the home, you accept the additional restrictions placed on your ownership by the homeowner's association, even though your parent, and not you, accepted the onerous rules. If you don't like the contract, you can sell the home.

If you don't like the country's social contract, there are a number of other nations you can emigrate to. The United States, on the other hand, cannot unilaterally force you to leave, or to strip you of their citizenship. The individual himself has complete control over that. The individual—and only the individual—can act to revoke his part of the social contract.

In a somewhat humorous contravention of their dismissal of the social contract, however, there is a libertarian "free state" movement, which is an attempt to move enough libertarians to New Hampshire to create a libertarian government there. In other words, their rejection of the social contract is to be exhibited by…creating a new libertarian social contract in New Hampshire.

The next argument they trot out, is actually one that I made in my post on Natural Rights:
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.
From this, they argue that it is illegitimate to have an "election to vote on my rights!" To take the drug laws as an example, they argue that the drug laws violate their right to own property, or to sell drugs as a peaceful trader.

The thing is, though, the electorate is not voting to take away your rights. They are voting on whether or not they wish to cede a portion of their rights. They are not selecting a certain class of people and denying them a right that they reserve for themselves. Instead, they are deciding whether or not to change the social contract the voluntarily forego a specific right in order accomplish a desired societal goal.

And that is fundamentally the difference between justice and injustice. It is an alteration of the social contract desired by a majority of the society. It is equitable, in that it operates universally, without favoring some politically favored class, or providing unequal treatment under the law.

Moreover, it also ignores the plain fact that no right is an absolute. Take freedom of speech, for example. It is a crime to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie house. It is a crime to discuss murdering your wife with a contract killer. It's a crime to exhort an angry crowd to break into jail and lynch an accused rapist. All you are doing is having a conversation, but it certainly isn't covered by freedom of speech.

There is no reason to suppose, therefore, that your right to own property encompasses your right to acquire nerve gas, drugs, or other similarly dangerous substances, for prudential reasons, if nothing else.

Moreover, it is inconsistent to argue that you cannot trust a group of citizens in a free election to make rational decisions about rights, while also arguing that "Rational people can evaluate these risks intelligently, and that is the society we would like to see." You can't have it both ways. Either people are rational, and can be trusted to make rational decisions, or they cannot. If they cannot, then they won't be able to make any more rational decisions in the absence of government than they do with it.

Indeed, even with fairly high levels of government coercion, people daily make irrational decisions to rob liquor stores, drive while intoxicated, or blaze through school zones at 60MPH, even with the threat of serious jail time, financial loss, or even death associated with those risks. Moreover, if we see such bad behavior even with the high negative incentive of government coercion, how, pray, do you expect that we will see fewer if that coercion is removed? Have you discovered some magical process by which the removal of negative incentive reduces the incidence of an activity?

I'd like to see your peer-reviewed work on that.

To believe that people are rational and will, in the absence of some form of societal coercion—whether we're using coercion to talk about the use of force, or shunning, or extreme social disapproval—it is manifestly evident that people don't make reliably rational decisions. They make reliably self-interested decisions, but that is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing.

To the extent we've seen a society operate without government, with each individual making free choices, it tends to look like Somalia on the early 1990s. That was a country in which, as P.J. O'Rourke put it, "everything that could possibly be accomplished by men with guns had been accomplished." Except, of course, a stable, safe, and free society.

For the anarcholibertarians to believe in that fundamental rationality, they must take a positive view of human nature. But, not, of course, one that extends that positive view of human nature to consensual government. But when government is swept away, that rationality will appear as if by the grant of God, and all men will live in peace. Then, the New Soviet Man will sweep away the chains of the proletariat...

Oops. Sorry. I'm getting different utopias mixed up.

Anarcholibertarians hate when you use the "U word", too. "It's not Utopian! It's rational!"

Well, I'll agree that it's at least as rational as Scientific Socialism.

Sadly, however, this wonderful libertopia has never existed in any society at any time in human history. Nor, I confidently predict, will it. It is a Utopian pipe-dream because, like every other utopian scheme, it ignores fundamental facts about human nature, and posits a perfection of society through political means. It's pretty. It's seductive. And it's unworkable.

The sad fact is that government is a necessary evil, and will be until all men become angels. A number of propositions arise from that reality. The best government is that which governs least. The legitimacy of a government derives solely from the consent of the governed, and lasts only as long as there is equal justice under the law. Free citizens operating a consensual government is, ultimately, the only effective guarantor of the rights of the citizenry.

Yes, this means that the slippery slope always has to be guarded. We have to think carefully about consenting to voluntary restrictions of our liberties. It requires vigilance—eternal vigilance as one of our forefathers put it—against government depredations, or a loss of citizen control over the organs of our government.

But until we transcend our own nature, it's the best we're going to be able to do.

Now, in the proximate case, we, as a self-governing society, have voted to forego the importation and possession of marijuana. Outside of the untouchable perfection of the anarcholibertarian ideal, i.e., in the actual world in which we live, that's a perfectly legitimate decision. It's a consensual limitation to our property rights, in much the same way as incitement to riot or "fighting words" is a limitation of our free speech rights.

We all know it's the law. It applies equally to all of us. We have a democratic means for changing it. Mr. Rhett knew the risks, so I have no sympathy for him.

UPDATE:

So, now that we've gone over that, let's take a look at the comments section of the previous post.
You did, however, have a moral obligation to make your "policy" view clear to the judge and prosecutors, letting them know, in no uncertain terms, that if they put you on the jury, then it’s an automatic non-guilty unless they can show that Mr. Rhett actually objectively harmed somebody.
And why, pray, would I do that? Had I felt that the law was unjust, I would have done so. Mr. Rhett might have been stopped for going 100 miles over the speed limit, and been indicted for reckless driving. If the evidence was there, I'd've convicted him on that, too, despite the intolerable burden it puts on his self-determination.
What is clearly implied by the quote, however, is that policy set in some fashion by what you term "the public" can’t rise to the level of "injustice." So, presumably, it would have been "Unjust" had, for instance, the prosecutors misapplied one of the charges against him, or, say, demanded a lesser or greater penalty than "the book" called for.

So you’ve just redeemed Jim Crow laws, institutionalized slavery...hell even the Nuremberg Laws. All "public policy."
Or this:
1840-
"I’m obliged to turn Frederick Douglass over to federal marshals, he’s contraband."

1944-
"I’m obliged to turn Anne Frank over to the Gestapo, she’s contraband."
Wow. Nothing like reading for comprehension, huh?

Both the Jim Crow laws and the Nuremberg Laws eliminated rights for a specific class of the citizenry. Do you really not see the difference between equal and unequal treatment under the law, or are you just being intentionally obtuse?
Just try to act surprised when the Public comes for more of your money and what’s left of your rights.


As I indicated above, guarding the slippery slope is a necessary burden.

Again, if you presume people will make rational decisions about their rights in your libertarian paradise, why don't you also assume that, in a democratic society, people will not also make rational decisions about the limits they are willing to give the government? Are people rational or not? If they aren't, your preferred society won't last either.
Once in a position to actually affect someone’s life based on your supposed principles, without cost or risk, and you chose to support public policy on the principle that it is public policy.
No. 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.
What Franks did, in practice, certainly doesn’t rise to the level of evil of a WWII German soldier loading Jews into boxcars under order, but the principle of morality and justice that indicts both is precisely the same.
I don't think that's true. Or rather, I only think it's true if your premise is that no limitation of any right, for any reason, is intolerable.
Right and wrong is not a function of what you, Franks, or I believe. It is a function of the nature of man qua man.
Well, actually, I don't think that's true either. Philosphers have been arguing that point for centuries. I'm sure you beleive it, just as I personally know people who believe that it is a function of God's commandments in the Bible.

Interestingly, you are just as convinced and fervent in your beliefs as they are in theirs.
You’re OBLIGED to leave other people alone if their behavior doesn’t rob you of wealth or harm you physically. In exchange, they are obliged to do the same for you.
In general, sure, that's true. On the other hand, if you're selling heroin to my kid at college, I might feel "obliged" to do something completely different. Even if my kid really, really wants it.
Work from principles and draw the lines, Mr. Franks. You’re willing to convict a man for importing something that harmed absolutely no one, save the people voluntarily buying it. What boundaries remain on a state that CAN imprison someone for that?
The same boundaries of rationality that you are so keen to promote when it comes to your philosophy.

Because we don't live in a dictatorship, but a consensual society where we, on the whole, determine the laws that we want to apply to ourselves. You speak as if, in the United States, the "state" is a completely uncontrollable entity, over whom we have no say at all.
The fact that he did not tell the judge about his erstwhile political/moral views with the above example before him tells me all that I need to know about his character, or lack of same.
That might be true for you, but it certainly isn't for me. My view, as I've expressed repeatedly, is that a) drug laws do not, in fact violate a core right, and b) the law itself is applied equitably.
Pay attention while I borrow the crayon and write my animating premise out in big blocky letters.

I WANT TO BE LEFT ALONE.
This is unintentionally funny, because red crayon and construction paper are the perfect mediums for such a childish sentiment.

Because, really, you don't want to be left alone. If you did, you'd be sending in your screed by carrier pigeon from your remote mountain cabin.

What you really want, though, is the benefits you derive from living in an affluent society, without bearing any responsibility for it, except for those that you magnanimously consent to undertake.
That’s why their podcast last night pretended to address it (where they were both safe from me and others)...
All you had to do was call, Rich. I'd've taken that call. Block out half an hour on Sunday, and we'll talk live on the air. Block out more time if you want to.

I don't feel the need to be "safe" from you.
Sorry, not all of us will trade our pleasures in life because Helen Lovejoy tells us to think of the children. Address his point about school zones or pack it in: the potential for harm doesn’t really enter into it for us, except the HARM of killing someone else’s child. Rational people can evaluate these risks intelligently, and that is the society we would like to see.
But as soon as democratic government is involved, rationality goes right out the window. Right. Got it.
This isn’t about trying to change the law, this is about the concrete application of the law in one single case, a case that Franks accepted direct responsibility for judging. He dodges that responsibility every time he changes the context to how to get laws changed, to unintended consequences of removing the law in question altogether, or to the general right of the public to make certain laws.

This wasn’t about any of that, this was about one man facing twelve, and Franks as one of those twelve looking him in the eye (did you at least have the guts to look him in the eye, Dale?) and telling him that the next ten years of his life was gone, on Franks’ own authority.
Yep. I looked him in the eye when the Clerk read the verdict, and I did it again when the Jury was polled.
You didn’t invent the automobile or the microchip. You didn’t put any of your labor or talent into developing Nikokey’s business, or the Beck farm, so who the bloody f*** do you think you are to deprive them of their freedom, demanding that they hole up in isolation?
I'm not demanding that they do anything. If they really believed what they believed, they would either quit the country, and find a more congenial location, or openly work to ensure that the country changed in the direction they desire.

With all their complaints about oppression, one notes that they aren't quite discomfited enough to find somewhere else to live. Presumably, then, they derive important benefits from hanging around, and those benefits outweigh their philosophical complaints, or else, out of the 200 or so countries in the world, they understand that this is the country that allows them the greatest range of freedom.
If you know of something that it’s reasonable to think will be effective at ending our current "peculiar institutions", or, more importantly, protecting *me* from them, I’ll do it.

Voting cannot be effective, political organizing cannot be effective, and armed assault cannot be effective. You have other alternatives that I haven’t thought of?
Moving somewhere else?

Oh, and as far as armed assault goes, it worked out pretty well for us in 1776, against the most powerful nation in the world. For that matter, it worked for the Irish, too, in the Republic, at least.

And if voting and political organizing can't be effective, then what does that say about the rationality of people in your libertarian paradise? How will that be effective?
You’re right on that, but it’s different now in that there is no such place (leaving aside extraterrestrial colonization, which, while a tantalizing possibility, won’t be feasible nearly soon enough for my taste). A new "place" would have to be created, and geography is no longer viable as it’s distinguishing feature. Still, in general terms, this is the most plausible of the alternatives I can come up with, as difficult as it is to imagine a way to accomplish it.
How is it difficult? I mean, in reality, you woudn't even have to leave this country. You don't have to pick even a state, like the Free State Project. You could move a whole bunch of people to a town, or county, and begin your grand libertarian experiment there.

If it worked out, it could be a model for the rest of the country.

what you really mean is, it's just a harder task than you're interested in taking on, because you have other, more important concerns.
Anyone else you’d like to command to "leave it." on your conditions?
My conditions have nothing to do with it. I just wonder why, if things are so oppressive here, you haven't decided to do it on your own.
If you’d done it with your own guns, instead of the State’s, would it have been a moral act?
Come on, Dale. Think about what Jeffrey’s asking you here. I’m begging you. How do you get around the thing that he just pointed out, and then stand on the whole pretext of this weblog, from which could be — and has been already — cited out chapter & verse?

Please don’t leave it more horrible than it already is, and please forget about the yelping crowd for a minute. Please tell me where the right comes from, to do this to this man.
Because we are a society of laws. We consent to live by those laws. We have legal and extralegal means with which to change those laws.

Because, once we consent to live in a particular society, we accept certain responsibilities, one of which is to enforce the laws of that society, absent arbitrariness, injustice, or the defenestration of a core right.
You’re obligated to obey laws you think correct, and not obligated to obey laws you think wrong. That’s your obligation, and it’s primarily to yourself.
So, your personal views are controlling, and if everyone else thinks you should be jailed, then you are still justified.

Too bad you don't live in a society of one.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"Instead, they are deciding whether or not to change the social contract the voluntarily forego a specific right in order accomplish a desired societal goal."
If you don’t care about the right, are you foregoing anything? I don’t think so. Since, for example, I have no personal interest in homosexuality, I’m not giving anything up if the majority decides to make homosexuality illegal. I doubt very many homosexuals would voluntarily cede this right, so in fact it would be a case of a majority voting to take away a minorities right.


 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
If you don’t care about the right, are you foregoing anything?
I don’t think that’s the question. The question is, are rights not limitable?

In any event, I would think that a law that prohibits homosexuals from having intimate relations, while reserving that right for everyone else, would be unjust. It apportions rights based on membership in a politically favored class.

Why is that so hard for some of you to understand?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Absolute rubbish, Franks.

You colluded with the state to take away ten years of that man’s life. None of your bloviating above changes that.
 
Written By: MikeSoja
URL: http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/
In any event, I would think that a law that prohibits homosexuals from having intimate relations, while reserving that right for everyone else, would be unjust. It apportions rights based on membership in a politically favored class.
Not at all; gay people would be equally able to have legally approved intimate relations with members of the opposite sex as heterosexual folks. Of course, the gay folks couldn’t have intimate relations with their preferred lovers, but that’s just a matter of taste.

It would be nothing more than the majority deciding for themselves the limits on approved intimate activity; "[t]hey are not selecting a certain class of people and denying them a right that they reserve for themselves".
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
Well, you answered Billy Beck’s question about what gives you the right to imprison Scott Rhett, so there is that.
Instead, they are deciding whether or not to change the social contract the voluntarily forego a specific right in order accomplish a desired societal goal.
Well. I guess that kills most of the argument against socialism at QandO, then. Good to know.

Sadly, however, this wonderful libertopia has never existed in any society at any time in human history. Nor, I confidently predict, will it. It is a Utopian pipe-dream because, like every other utopian scheme, it ignores fundamental facts about human nature, and posits a perfection of society through political means.
Facts such as the drive of man to lord over their fellows in the name of their own good, no doubt.

You have little understanding of what "utopia" I desire. By no means would everything be perfect- there would still be crime, poverty, etc. But you would be free to not subsume your identity in "societal goals," like handing over a third of your income, or in being restricted in the pursuit of your happiness when no one else would even be inconvenienced.

One thing is quite clear, however. Your friends are foolish to hope for the slightest show of contrition on your part, and Scott Rhett WILL rot in jail.

Pity.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Mike, how about you try and make a ratinal argument, eh?

You know, try and actually persuade peole, instead of acting like the southern end of a north-bound horse...

Exchange some ideas, Mike, not insults like I do.

But for the sake of fairness, I shall attempt a comparison, different only in it’s extremes.

Suppose my neighbor keyed my car. Knowing that he did it (he told me he did it), I take out a gun and shoot him three times in the head.

Does the government have the right/duty/obligation to, at the very least, put me in prison for any length of time?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Paleolibs is a misnomer. Anarchists is much more correct.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Ron

Sadly, rational people will make poor choices. What would stop that same majority, in your world, from using iolence to ensure the same outcome as a law would here (though they would likely have better luck, as beatig the crap out of me or killing someone would likely be a far better deterant than locking them up for a while).
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
You colluded with the state to take away ten years of that man’s life.
I’ll say it again....absolutely NOWHERE among the anarcho-libs rantings do I hear word one about personal responsibility as pertains to Mr. Rhett, who chose to break the law and put himself at risk. I sure do see a LOT of gnashing teeth about Mr. Franks personal responsibility to act in the way the anarcho-libs feel he should act. Personal responsibility it seems, only flows one way.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
absolutely NOWHERE among the anarcho-libs rantings do I hear word one about personal responsibility
It’s the same reason we don’t blame Ezra Levant for being dragged before the HRC. I don’t imagine I should have to spell it out for you.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
We all know it’s the law.
Actually some of us know it’s not the law.

And amendment hasn’t been passed making it constitutional.

But from your argument should we suppose you have no principles but that might makes right?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com
I don’t imagine I should have to spell it out for you.
Oh I imagine you will. People who think there should be "personal responsibility" for no harm done are stupid that way.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com
I am reminded of Franks trying to convince us that market failures exist with a conclusory hypothetical, another time he beclowned himself.

YOurs, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com
Well all I can say is, and this is the most vile epithet I know, is that Dale Franks is...
A COLLECTIVIST.

Good Day Sir, I shall never post here as long as you remain on the staff of this site!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Instead, they are deciding whether or not to change the social contract the voluntarily forego a specific right in order accomplish a desired societal goal.
Which effectively takes a super-majority, which has not been obtained or even sought.

Knocks your whole, "it’s the law" argument into a cocked hat.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com
Fine, Franks. You get your rights from the herd.

I hope you bloody enjoy them as they vote them down to you, fool.

You’re no more "libertarian" than Scott Erb is.

 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Mike, how about you try and make a ratinal argument, eh?

Ok. But only if you quit trying to change the subject.

Franks’ time down at the courthouse was his chance to quit bloviating and act like a man. It was his chance to actually make a difference, as opposed to writing about making one. Instead he had a party on ten years of a man’s life.

All the side malarky is just that: Franks had the chance to at least register a protest on the matter, but did absolutely the opposite, and none of his or your cuteness changes that.

No matter where you place the legitimacy of government as a principle, in this instance, Franks would have been well within his rights to speak on behalf of Steven Rhett, but instead chose to align himself against the man who was hurting no one.

 
Written By: MikeSoja
URL: http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/
It’s the same reason we don’t blame Ezra Levant for being dragged before the HRC. I don’t imagine I should have to spell it out for you.
See, I totally miss the logical leap where you equate smuggling a truckload of pot with being grilled for thoughtcrimes.
Oh I imagine you will. People who think there should be "personal responsibility" for no harm done are stupid that way.
People who think that there is no personal responsibility for knowingly deciding to violate a drug smuggling law are also pretty stupid...

PS- as for "no harm done", I refuse to accept that premise. The amount of "harm" that could’ve been done by this act is not an open and shut matter and I refuse to allow you to establish that fallacy.


 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Paleolibertarian" is a term specifically used to refer to the Lew Rockwell-style of racism and Confederacy-worship disguised as libertarianism. Franks, I think, knows this and his deliberate confusion is in the service of a deliberate lie.

That man you helped throw in a cage for ten years ought to be free, Franks, and you should be - well, I can’t say what I think would be your just fate.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
That man you helped throw in a cage for ten years ought to be free
,

John Sabotta-

Are there ANY circumstances where it would be appropriate to throw Mr. Rhett in jail for 10 years?

If so, how does the principle differ from locking him up for smuggling a truckload of pot, which we have established that you think is deeply unjust?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Billy.

You get your rights from the herd too. It is your great fortune they thus far decide that you have the right to not be shot. Once you remove the constraints that are in place, good luck with that.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Actually some of us know it’s not the law.

And amendment hasn’t been passed making it constitutional.
SInce the powers used to ban the import of certain goods in actually listed as a power held by the legislature, there needs be no ammendment, unless you purpose that power be taken away.

So it is constitutional, it IS legal, and knowing that, if you attempt to smuggle pot into the US, you should at least be willing to take the punishment that is handed down, since it is handed down due to the results of your willing, informed decision.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
The same muslims that want to shut up Ezra Levant want to prohibit marijuana, too, and I doubt you can argue that their moral imperative isn’t exactly the one that gave us the anti-drug laws we all ready have. According to Franks, Ezra Levant should be shut up, because the blessings of Democracy have been bestowed upon existence of the HRC.

It’s crap. It’s all crap, and Rhett shouldn’t be spending the next ten years of his life in jail for hauling a load of weeds around.
 
Written By: MikeSoja
URL: http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/
It’s crap. It’s all crap, and Rhett shouldn’t be spending the next ten years of his life in jail for hauling a load of weeds around
Then go bust him out of jail. Be my guest.

Be sure to yell "Die pigs die!!" when you do.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"See, I totally miss the logical leap where you equate smuggling a truckload of pot with being grilled for thoughtcrimes."
You have a legal and natural right to speak your mind. By virtue of there being no amendment to make the drug war constitutional you have a legal and a natural right to have a truck full of pot.

During Prohibition, you still had a natural right to have a beer. Denying that right legally got us a wealthy Al Capone (wasn’t that a bright thing to do?) and the drug war isn’t even legal.
PS- as for "no harm done", I refuse to accept that premise. The amount of "harm" that could’ve been done by this act is not an open and shut matter and I refuse to allow you to establish that fallacy.
Then name the unwilling victim’s of this man’s pot.

Hell name one.

Then if you can, then you still have one bridge to go, and a bridge too far at that—say why the existence of that "victim" makes it okay for the government to ignore our rules and enforce these laws without benefit of an amendment to make it kosher.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com
See, I totally miss the logical leap where you equate smuggling a truckload of pot with being grilled for thoughtcrimes.
The amount of "harm" that could’ve been done by this act is not an open and shut matter and I refuse to allow you to establish that fallacy.
Go ahead. Try it. Make sure the poor widdle children don’t get their hands on the grass, right? The product is not addictive, and there is never a gun to YOUR head to buy it. The fallacy is firmly yours to disprove.

You get your rights from the herd too. It is your great fortune they thus far decide that you have the right to not be shot. Once you remove the constraints that are in place, good luck with that.
Well, put on a big smiley face, Mr. Billy Beck! The state is your protector against the shambling hordes in the dark! I’m sure Mr. Kathryn Johnston will be very pleased to hear that. Her, and many others.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
[I]f you attempt to smuggle pot into the US, you should at least be willing to take the punishment that is handed down, since it is handed down due to the results of your willing, informed decision.

Does not follow. Or circular, take your pick.

In any event, you admit that Franks performed his job as a tool of the state. He validated the war on drugs.
 
Written By: MikeSoja
URL: http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/
What amazes me is the attitude of Mr. Frank’s colleagues on this blog.

I would have read that post, pulled it the very next second, and informed Mr. Franks that his writings were no longer welcome.

If that was not an option, I would simply resign and explain why I was resigning. This is shameful, disgraceful, a grotesque mockery of the word "libertarian." How dare that filth get up there and boast in our faces about throwing someone in the slammer for ten years on such a charge? How can McQ accept sharing blog space one minute with that swine?

You know what? Franks enjoyed doing it. He enjoyed sitting on that jury. He loved every detail, including the poor guy crapping his pants. Franks identified with the cops every moment and he was proud to be their little jury helper.

And he posted that unspeakable post to keep the thrill alive. Franks knew damned well exactly the reaction he’d get, and how he could just sit back and get off on the absolute powerlessness of the people who he knew would be repelled and outraged by his actions. Giving him the opportunity to pontificate about "dominance hierarchies" and "extremism" - all the time with a secret, smug little smile.

Franks gets off on it. He gets off on flaunting his shabby, second-hand "power"
in front of people who have no appeal or recourse to stop him and his kind. He gets off on identifying with the State. People like Franks are no great mystery. The mystery lies in why he is allowed to indulge his creepy fetishism on a supposedly "libertarian blog."
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
You know what Franks? I sincerely hope you end up as the Bob Black of libertarianism.

Except even Bob Black had more excuse than you did.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
Franks knew damned well exactly the reaction he’d get
And you gave it to him. That makes you a tool.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
As for Mr. Shark, I have no time for someone who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, legal and moral, just and unjust. Mr. Shark’s sneers at the very notion of right or wrong separate from the diktats of the State brand him as the usual kind of second-rate moral idiot. In relation to Franks, though, he’s no shark - he’s a remora. Mr. Anonymous Shark is so pathetic he can’t even get on a jury and get off on voting away ten years of a man’s life for nothing at all - he instead has to get off on thinking about Franks doing it.

Hope you enjoyed it, you little bitch. Better wash your hands afterwards, though.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
Scott: It’s not the best tactic to support a majoritarian view with the proviso: "Sadly, rational people will make poor choices". If that’s the case, how do they become so competent as a group to elect a legitimate government?
What would stop that same majority, in your world, from using violence to ensure the same outcome as a law would here (though they would likely have better luck, as beating the crap out of me or killing someone would likely be a far better deterant than locking them up for a while).
I expect organized gangs of thugs wishing to control others will always be somewhat of a problem. I just choose not to legitimize them by calling them government. So if some "majority" decided to use violence rather than "a court system" to ensure the same outcome (which is, in this case: a wrong done to an individual accused), I’d have to do what I could, when I wished, to get in their way—same as I do when the government/court system oppresses folks.

But again: is this about right or wrong, or are we just quibbling about procedure? Like, if we hit the nail we intend with the hammer we choose, would you suggest that it somehow doesn’t matter primarily whether or not the nail should be struck?
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
I just choose not to legitimize them by calling them government.
No, you choose to remove any restraints that might have existed. At least the government is answerable to the majority.

Gangs are answerable to... Well... Whoever it is, it likely won’t be a group in which you are a member.

That you fail to see that saddens me.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"Paleolibertarian" is a term specifically used to refer to the Lew Rockwell-style of racism and Confederacy-worship disguised as libertarianism. Franks, I think, knows this and his deliberate confusion is in the service of a deliberate lie.
Actually, I didn’t know that, but I’ve edited the post.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
My blog for yesterday (still the first blog on my page) "Wanting an Answer Key" makes a less detailed argument, but with some similar conclusions. Namely, the great enlightenment error is to think there is a "right" answer for how people should be governed and how the system should run. That is due to a fundamental mistake: they take the cultural construct of the West — very materialistic and individualistic — and move to an argument that it is a set of universal truths, neglecting its cultural context of being "western," very much affected by our Christian ethical roots (even atheists) along with enlightenment materialist rationality. I sum up:
Guess what: there probably is no answer key, only different perspectives and different cultures. There isn’t a right way to live, but we are free to choose to define a way that’s right for ourselves. And, unless one wants to separate oneself from society, that means we have to engage in compromise and politics to choose how to deal with differences of perspective. Sure, you’ll always have the whiney types who will complain that they have it all figured out and that any social limitation is somehow a pox on them because they haven’t chosen it — these range from anarchist libertarians to committed Marxist revolutionaries. But the reality is that we are by nature social and create communities, from families to virtual worlds. And there is no secret answer key on how to create these communities or what we should value. We’re free to choose, limited by the fact that we’re in a world where others have similar freedom — and can act on their views. So when we think about Iraq, Iran’s young Islamic democracy, Russia’s style of authoritarian reform, China’s balancing of markets and order, or African efforts to build cultures destroyed by colonialism, we have to take very seriously the fact that our history is not theirs, and we can’t expect them to want to have the same kind of system or values that we have. If the population of the most powerful country on the planet can learn that lesson, life will be much easier for everyone.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Oh, and by the way, this isn’t a "libertarian" blog. It’s "neolibertarian". We did that to avoid being lumped in with crackpots like...well...you know.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Oh. Well, it’s good to know that when you’re caught trying to muddy the waters, you’ll back off if it’s too obvious.

As for this -

Yep. I looked him in the eye when the Clerk read the verdict, and I did it again when the Jury was polled.

I bet you did, Franks. I absolutely believe you did. How much satisfaction could you get out of taking away ten years of a man’s life, after all, if you didn’t get to watch his reaction?

You have the exact cop psychology, Franks - smug, self-righteous, legalistic sadism.

Of course you looked him in the eye.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
Oh, and by the way, this isn’t a "libertarian" blog. It’s "neolibertarian". We did that to avoid being lumped in with crackpots like...well...you know
I’ll say it if Dale won’t.

So they aren’t lumped in with the crackpots like Ron Paul and you nutters...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Franks. Erb is on your side.

Think about that.
 
Written By: MikeSoja
URL: http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/
What you really want, though, is the benefits you derive from living in an affluent society, without bearing any responsibility for it, except for those that you magnanimously consent to undertake.
And for a second, there were some people thinking you recognized libertarian principles at all.

Society’s affluence, Mr. Franks, has jack all to do with the pervasive government control over our lives. Government SHOULD have even less to do with my social relationships. I’m quite happy to interact with people and pay for services, but not at gunpoint. It’s no surprise to me that you claim government is the wellspring of our society, though.
And, unless one wants to separate oneself from society, that means we have to engage in compromise and politics to choose how to deal with differences of perspective.
"And they looked from man to pig and pig to man and man to pig again, and soon it became impossible to tell the difference."
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Sanity, of course, defined as vigourous boot-licking and subservience to authority.

As for Dr. Paul, he’s too friendly with Nazis to be considered any more libertarian than Dale Franks is. But it is instructive to note that if Dr. Paul were in power, he’d no longer qualify as a "nutter" in Scott Jacob’s eyes, since Scott Jacob worships power and success.

Mr. Jacobs would be urging us all to obey President Paul’s every whim - it’d be legal, after all.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
Note to Soja.

Scott Erb will somehow contrive to be on everyone’s side.

A fungus is among us. Best to ignore it.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
The single biggest problem with hammering Dale here is that the law is in fact Constitutional. The regulation and banning of some drugs is explicitly grounded in in the Commerce Clause. And in this case is there any doubt that the federal government has the Constitutional power to control what is and is not imported into the country?

I don’t agree with it, and find the entire set of laws to be abominable to the principles of individual freedom, but we don’t live in a nation of individuals unbound to one another (hence the term "Nation"). As Dale made clear, this is a nation of laws, which laws were propounded by our duly elected representatives, again under the auspices of the Constitution.

When those laws are broken, even the ones we don’t like, there are consequences for that. Provided that the laws are of equal application to all citizens and residents (and not singling out blacks, or women, or Wal-Mart, for example), then we truly do have a duty to uphold those laws.

In Rhett’s case, Dale even said that he looked for some reason to let the guy off, but he hadn’t been presented with enough evidence to overcome the pretty damning facts. It sucks that the guy had to go to jail for 10 years, but that was just as much his decision as is the guy who blows all his money and savings on pipe dream after pipe dream and then goes looking to te government for free health care. Rhett knew what he was getting into (which is why he soiled himself when the srewdriver came out) and took the risk.

The people have decided (poorly IMHO) to allow the government to regulate and enforce these drug laws with draconian force and consequences, all with the full backing of the U.S. Constitution. Dale’s obligation was not to save this idiot from himself, but instead to honor the Constitutional laws of this nation, however imprudent and irrational they may be.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Trevalyan


"Society’s affluence, Mr. Franks, has jack all to do with the pervasive government control over our lives. Government SHOULD have even less to do with my social relationships. I’m quite happy to interact with people and pay for services, but not at gunpoint. It’s no surprise to me that you claim government is the wellspring of our society, though."

All "neo," no libertarian, that’s for sure. What we have here is pure fascistic corporatism. "Society" has the right to alienate any form of freedom in pursuit of its goals.


(Franks)
"Unfortunately for them, they implicitly enter into the contract by living here, driving on our public roads, using our courts to resolve disputes, calling the cops when a burglar break into their home, or any of the hundreds of other ways in which they involve themselves in our society. If they were born here, their parents essentially signed the contract for them as their guardians. If they immigrated here, they specifically "signed" the contract when they took the oath of citizenship. And, of course, if they served in the military, they also explicitly "signed" as well, through the oaths they gave."


This was correctly refuted by Hume in "Of the Original Contract."


"Should it be said, that, by living under the dominion of a prince which one might leave, every individual has given a tacit consent to his authority, and promised him obedience; it may be answered, that such an implied consent can only have place where a man imagines that the matter depends on his choice. But where he thinks (as all mankind do who are born under established governments) that, by his birth, he owes allegiance to a certain prince or certain form of government; it would be absurd to infer a consent or choice, which he expressly, in this case, renounces and disclaims.

Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her."

The notion of a "social contract" is an utter fallacy of false analogy. Taken at face value, it falls to a reductio ad absurdum.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
MichaelW,

"When those laws are broken, even the ones we don’t like, there are consequences for that."

My "likes" and "dislikes" don’t matter a tinker’s dam. No one has the right to alienate the freedom of another on the simple grounds of "disliking" their lifestyle choices.

Fetishizing the Constitution is an utter abortion of the principles and practices of classical liberalism. Right political action is not based on a magic hemp roll.

 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
Scott: You asked me a question, and I answered (albeit in a way you didn’t find sufficient, but still...). However, I asked you one as well: But again: is this about right or wrong, or are we just quibbling about procedure? Like, if we hit the nail we intend with the hammer we choose, would you suggest that it somehow doesn’t matter primarily whether or not the nail should be struck?
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
Well, there it is, the collective trumps the individual, our instincts are on equal moral footing with our reason, whatever this country does is right because it’s not as bad as the others, love it or leave it.

Again, if you presume people will make rational decisions about their rights in your libertarian paradise, why don’t you also assume that, in a democratic society, people will not also make rational decisions about the limits they are willing to give the government?

Because in a democratic society cost and responsibility are divorced from benefit. The incentives are perverted such that the rational decision from inside the voting booth (or the jury box) is plainly irrational from outside it.

We have to think carefully about consenting to voluntary restrictions of our liberties. It requires vigilance—eternal vigilance as one of our forefathers put it—against government depredations, or a loss of citizen control over the organs of our government.

And you’ve undermined or repudiated all the tools for doing that.

what you really mean is, it’s just a harder task than you’re interested in taking on,

You wouldn’t have a clue about that, so you can just fvck off.

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Scott: It’s not the best tactic to support a majoritarian view with the proviso: "Sadly, rational people will make poor choices". If that’s the case, how do they become so competent as a group to elect a legitimate government?
I shall answer with a question: How is it you think they will do better all alone without any framework?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
My "likes" and "dislikes" don’t matter a tinker’s dam. No one has the right to alienate the freedom of another on the simple grounds of "disliking" their lifestyle choices.
Which doesn’t have anything to do with my comment. We have agreed to limit our freedoms in some ways "for a more perfect union." Amongst those limits are that we have handed over some of our ability to regulate commercial affairs to the federal government (via the Commerce Clause). What has been done with that particular clause is reprehnsible IMHO, but it doesn’t change the fact that the laws are valid.
Fetishizing the Constitution is an utter abortion of the principles and practices of classical liberalism. Right political action is not based on a magic hemp roll.
Oh, I see. But fetishizing the writings of an 18th Century philosopher is okey-dokey.

The fact is that the Constitution is the agreement we have as to how our nation will be ordered. Laws passed in compliance with that, and not abominable to it, deserve to be enforced. If you have an argument as to why the WOD is unconstitutional I’m all ears. But sanctmonious piety for the philosphical maunderings of John Locke without any basis or mechanism for application is pure codswallop.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
How is it you think they will do better all alone without any framework?
That’s a false argument; it suggests that the only alternative to some overall statist plan/framework is an absence of plans or frameworks. But, if the government disappeared tomorrow and you wanted your car fixed, my guess is you’d look for a mechanic. In other words, you’d still have a goal (fixing the car) and you’d have a plan, some steps you would logically take to find a mechanic).

Seriously, Scott, I don’t think we have to worry about any absence of plans or frameworks.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
Well that settles it then… You had no choice but to collaborate in putting this man behind bars for ten years.

Oh wait… No, that’s wrong. You did have a choice. And you chose to be an assh()le.

Of the first order.

Did Rhett violate Federal law? Of course. That doesn’t mean that your willful participation in this sad and embarrassing tale is a moral participation. And that is the crux of the matter. That is what has “ruffled some feathers” in some “paleolibertarians”.
You know what? Franks enjoyed doing it. He enjoyed sitting on that jury. He loved every detail, including the poor guy crapping his pants. Franks identified with the cops every moment and he was proud to be their little jury helper.

And he posted that unspeakable post to keep the thrill alive. Franks knew damned well exactly the reaction he’d get, and how he could just sit back and get off on the absolute powerlessness of the people who he knew would be repelled and outraged by his actions. Giving him the opportunity to pontificate about "dominance hierarchies" and "extremism" - all the time with a secret, smug little smile.

Franks gets off on it. He gets off on flaunting his shabby, second-hand "power"
in front of people who have no appeal or recourse to stop him and his kind. He gets off on identifying with the State. People like Franks are no great mystery.
Sadly, I tend to agree with Mr. Sabotta.
Everybody knows a Dale Franks, don’t they? Someone who thinks that they are smarter and holier than thou and pissed off at just about everybody because they don’t recognize their brilliance.
Yeah, we know that guy. He’s usually sitting at the same table with the guy with the little man’s complex.

I understand a large majority of these types pursue a career in law enforcement. Yeah, he’s that peckerwood that smirks with sadistic satisfaction while looming over your car window writing out traffic tickets.
Yeah, we’ve met.

Having read many of Dale’s thick, dull, smug, blockhead arguments, that conclusion is an easy one.


The only other conclusion is that Dale is a megalomaniacal fool.

Which works too, of course.

Both, maybe?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://

"What we have here is pure fascistic corporatism"

Correction, for "corporatism" read "collectivism."

Franks’s little piece takes the classic view of Society as an organic body justifying the state, which goes back from Mussolini to Rousseau to Hobbes.

There’s not much "libertarianism" in that tradition.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
MichaelW,


"We"


Do you have a mouse in your pocket? I just rejected the fallacious notion of a "social contract" above, which also means that I don’t fetishize Locke either.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
Having read many of Dale’s thick, dull, smug, blockhead arguments, that conclusion is an easy one.
Not dull enough to stop you from reading them, apparently.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
...absolutely NOWHERE among the anarcho-libs rantings do I hear word one about personal responsibility
It’s the same reason we don’t blame Ezra Levant for being dragged before the HRC. I don’t imagine I should have to spell it out for you.
But, wait just a sec. Isn’t freedom of political speech a core right? Doesn’t that make a difference? Would you object to Mr. Levant being hauled before a court for conspiring to murder his wife? If so, then should we automatically acquit in cases of conspiracy charges, in order to defend freedom of speech.

 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Dale:

I wrote: "You’re obligated to obey laws you think correct, and not obligated to obey laws you think wrong. That’s your obligation, and it’s primarily to yourself."

You responded:
So, your personal views are controlling, and if everyone else thinks you should be jailed, then you are still justified.
If I still thought I was correct, even if everyone else thought I should be jailed, I would still consider myself justified, yes. Right and wrong isn’t a numbers game. So, yes, my personal views are controlling: *me*.
Too bad you don’t live in a society of one.
But I do, it is a society of one *me*, and a bunch of other *ones*. Every larger "society" I encounter seems to have a similar makeup, some buncha ones.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
If you don’t care about the right, are you foregoing anything?
I don’t think that’s the question. The question is, are rights not limitable?

In any event, I would think that a law that prohibits homosexuals from having intimate relations, while reserving that right for everyone else, would be unjust. It apportions rights based on membership in a politically favored class.

Why is that so hard for some of you to understand?
Dale,

Certainly rights are limitable. I’m not questioning that at all. I am questioning your idea that if a law is applied equally to everyone - if everyone is giving up the same right - it is just. I’m not confident that is sufficient.

One can argue that a law against sodomy for everyone is just, but if the majority which passed the law has no interest in sodomy then that majority isn’t really giving up anything of value. Thus the law is really targeted at homosexuals, despite outward appearances. I’d consider that unjust and I think this happens all the time.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"...absolutely NOWHERE among the anarcho-libs rantings do I hear word one about personal responsibility"


That, my friends, is a classic example of un(?)intentional irony.
 
Written By: Ernest Brown
URL: http://
Dale:

I wrote: "You’re obligated to obey laws you think correct, and not obligated to obey laws you think wrong. That’s your obligation, and it’s primarily to yourself."

You responded:
So, your personal views are controlling, and if everyone else thinks you should be jailed, then you are still justified.
If I still thought I was correct, even if everyone else thought I should be jailed, I would still consider myself justified, yes. Right and wrong isn’t a numbers game. So, yes, my personal views are controlling: *me*.
Too bad you don’t live in a society of one.
But I do, it is a society of one *me*, and a bunch of other *ones*. Every larger "society" I encounter seems to have a similar makeup, some buncha ones.

In a following post you wrote: Would you object to Mr. Levant being hauled before a court for conspiring to murder his wife? Probably not; his talking about the intended murder isn’t the point. The point is that he is taking concrete, tangible steps to initiate aggression—he is demonstrating intent and motive to do so, and is actively searching opportunity.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
But I do, it is a society of one *me*, and a bunch of other *ones*. Every larger "society" I encounter seems to have a similar makeup, some buncha ones
.

And that bunch of ones has to set up some system of rules whereby they will all live together. The framework that was set up here is the Constitution, and the laws passed under its aegis.

What you’re saying is that you can reject those laws if you don’t like them. I don’t think that’s true, except in the sense that to make that rejection, you have to remove yourself from that community, if you can’t persuade the community that should adopt a different set of rules.
Certainly rights are limitable. I’m not questioning that at all. I am questioning your idea that if a law is applied equally to everyone - if everyone is giving up the same right - it is just. I’m not confident that is sufficient.
But I don’t argue that it is, either. I argue that we do, in fact, agree to withdraw certain rights claims to promote a degree of societal tranquility. Having done so, then we have to guard the slippery slope against intrusions on the core of our rights.

there is always a point at which we have to say—no matter how much societal damage it may cause—this far and no farther. At that point, we have no choice but to reject the law, and if necessary the government, through whatever means are necessary.

Is the prohibition against importing marijuana such a core violation? I say it is not. And, if you grant that rights are limitable, then all we’re arguing about now is where, exactly those limits lie.
One can argue that a law against sodomy for everyone is just, but if the majority which passed the law has no interest in sodomy then that majority isn’t really giving up anything of value. Thus the law is really targeted at homosexuals, despite outward appearances. I’d consider that unjust and I think this happens all the time.
But, of course, one cannot argue that honestly, since we know that, even though it is even-handed on th surface, its real purpose is to deprive a class of people if their right to their own intimate conduct. Moreover, I’d argue that, even if that wasn’t the case, it not only interferes directly in the intimate conduct of all people, the enforcement of such a law would require intrusive surveillance to enforce with anything like equity.

And yet, we still have laws that do interfere with out liberty of intimate conduct. You cannot, for example, copulate in the streets, despite the fact that there is no doubt some small portion of th citizenry that would love to do so.

By your reasoning, why shouldn’t thy be allowed to do so, since their conduct neither harms another person, nor their property?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
That’s a false argument; it suggests that the only alternative to some overall statist plan/framework is an absence of plans or frameworks. But, if the government disappeared tomorrow and you wanted your car fixed, my guess is you’d look for a mechanic.
And "if the government disappeared tomorrow", what would I do if the Red Chinese landed an invasion army in Oregon next Tuesday?

Other than brush up on my Cantonese?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
What you really want, though, is the benefits you derive from living in an affluent society, without bearing any responsibility for it, except for those that you magnanimously consent to undertake.
There’s some irony in the same problem being the cause of the collapse of communism.
 
Written By: Ryan
URL: http://
Because in a democratic society cost and responsibility are divorced from benefit.
That’s certainly true in some things. But is it true if the electorate gets together and decides to repeal the 4th Amendment? Wouldn’t everyone realize that voting "yes" would subject them, as well as everyone else to intrusive police searches, carried out at the whim of the constabulary?

How are the costs and benefits diluted then?

How then, also, would you explain how the specter of gun control has caused the electorate in 40 of the 50 states to implement "shall-issue" concealed carry laws over the last decade or so?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
"By your reasoning, why shouldn’t thy be allowed to do so, since their conduct neither harms another person, nor their property? "
I’m really not discussing that at all (though I think a clear case can be made that copulating in the street can cause harm - not the best example). I was merely inquiring into your specific line of thought regarding the justness of a law in relationship to its equal application. Your elaboration makes sense to me.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
WOW! Dale Franks gets taken to task for failure to live up to the libertarian principle of jury nullification and sends a guy to the brig for 10 years. For this John Sabotta says:
What amazes me is the attitude of Mr. Frank’s colleagues on this blog.
I would have read that post, pulled it the very next second, and informed Mr. Franks that his writings were no longer welcome.
If that was not an option, I would simply resign and explain why I was resigning. This is shameful, disgraceful, a grotesque mockery of the word "libertarian." How dare that filth get up there and boast in our faces about throwing someone in the slammer for ten years on such a charge? How can McQ accept sharing blog space one minute with that swine?
Hey John, that’s nearly as severe as 10 years in the brig. Merely for expressing an opinion.
We read in WaPo how the military recruited their pawns from the poor, rural areas. John Kerry told them if they didn’t didn’t study hard they would end up in Iraq. This week we’re reading in the NYTimes that the troops are murderers. Pretty broad bush you say. That is until you read this:
(John Sabotta:You have the exact cop psychology, Franks - smug, self-righteous, legalistic sadism.
(PogueMahone)Sadly, I tend to agree with Mr. Sabotta.
Everybody knows a Dale Franks, don’t they? Someone who thinks that they are smarter and holier than thou and pissed off at just about everybody because they don’t recognize their brilliance.
Yeah, we know that guy. He’s usually sitting at the same table with the guy with the little man’s complex.
I understand a large majority of these types pursue a career in law enforcement. Yeah, he’s that peckerwood that smirks with sadistic satisfaction while looming over your car window writing out traffic tickets.
Yeah, we’ve met.
Do you wonder who subscribes to the broad brush generalizations of WaPo, Kerry, and the NYTimes?

It’s an unfortunate outlook but I think Ron Good exposed it when he said:
But I do, it is a society of one *me*, and a bunch of other *ones*.
Yup, for the Paulians it’s "ME, ME, ME."
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
And "if the government disappeared tomorrow", what would I do if the Red Chinese landed an invasion army in Oregon next Tuesday?
I don’t know.

Wolverines?

(I’d hope your answer wouldn’t be: "work to ensure they apply their rules rigorously, adhering closely and dispassionately to their precisely stated regulations."

But, since even a minarchist argument in support of The State’s existence and involvement in military matters hinges on the individual right of self-defence against aggression, undertaken in proxy by the State—maybe you could explain the defensive (anti-aggression) aspect of this case. Otherwise, your question is a red herring.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
It is you collectivists who are the utopians, and to the max. You think you can achieve your idea of it through a glorious Constitution (that’s been trampled upon since the Civil War and before), through elections, through federalism, through statehouses, through referendums and every sort of other political power competition. In short, you all think your idea of utopis is just around the corner, if you can just get enough of your team in power.
Actually, quite the reverse is true.

I don’t beleive that there will ever be a Utopia of any sort. I beleive, in fact, that all societies will tend towards dictatorship, eventually. The Constitution is merely a bulwark, however temporary, against that eventuality. I beleive that "political power competition" is an unalterable aspect of human nature. Since that is so, I believe that the only way to prevent that political power competition from erupting into young men running around in the hills shooting at each other is "through elections, through federalism, through statehouses, through referendums".

So the point of the Constitution is not to create Utopia, but to define the limits of government power and lawful behavior in order to postpone Dystopia.

You, on the other hand, are asking me to believe a number of unlikely things, such as that a form of social organization that has never existed will be workable, and that evil men will not make constant attempts to fill a perceived power vacuum. That doesn’t comport with I beleive about human nature.
We hold natural rights and derivative moral claims as absolute, and we’re all just willing to take our chances. That’s freedom, and responsibility.
The trouble is that there is a significant portion of the population that either doesn’t believe that, or doesn’t care, if they see a chance for personal or financial aggrandizement through coercion.

In Libertaria, you will presumably have a private police or security force, with whom you contract for protection. What do you do when the local police company CEO gets the bright idea that he can expand his territory be demanding that new customers sign up with his police company, before something unpleasant happens to them.

Who watches your watchers?

Who defends Libertaria from, as I mentioned before, an invasion from the Red Chinese, who most certainly don’t care about natural rights?
The issue is: whether the law right or wrong in the context of natural rights. If it’s wrong, then his "responsibility" to obey it is impertinent. It has to first be shown that it’s right, and then the "responsibility" issue becomes superflous. You lose both ways.
With all due respect, that simply can’t be the question, at least, not the only one. Can I, or can I not, consent to limit my own rights to some degree in order to cooperate with others? If I can, then, mustn’t I also ask if I have in fact agreed to that limitation? And if I have, then dont I have the responsibility to fulfill that agreement.

This goes to the heart of why the anarchist rejects the very idea of a social contract. They don’t want to fulfill an agreement that’s onerous to them.

Which is fine, as far as it goes, but if so, then why would they remain a part of that community? Why not create a community of their own?

Because let’s not kid ourselves. A libertarian society would not be a rejection of the social contract. It would be the voluntary creation of a different social contract, that is, a different set of rules with which everyone in Libertaria would agree to live by.

The rejection of the social contract seems to be a rejection of the very idea that groups of humans create a mutually acceptable set of rules to live with each other peacefully by, when it is self-evident that they do precisely that, in every society that has ever existed in human history.

Societies that cannot ultimately agree to those rules break up in civil war, or through decadence followed by conquest.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
And "if the government disappeared tomorrow", what would I do if the Red Chinese landed an invasion army in Oregon next Tuesday?
I don’t know.

Wolverines?
Seriously?

OK. Good luck with that.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Dale: regarding laws against sodomy, you wrote:
But, of course, one cannot argue that honestly, since we know that, even though it is even-handed on th surface, its real purpose is to deprive a class of people of their right to their own intimate conduct.
What about intimate conduct regarding smoking dope? The "real purpose [of those laws] is to deprive a class of people of their right to their own intimate conduct."

Are you suggesting that sodomy is somehow more...uh...right or essential or something than, say, smoking dope? Or that "protected intimacy" ought to be limited to just sexual activity between people of like mind?
Moreover, I’d argue that...the enforcement of such a law would require intrusive surveillance to enforce with anything like equity
Yeah, anti-dope laws don’t result in anything like that.
even if that wasn’t the case, it not only interferes directly in the intimate conduct of all people
Such a law would make no difference to people who didn’t want to engage in sodomy, gay or straight.

You’re not sounding too consistent right now, Dale.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
Wolverines was just a suggestion. I certainly acknowledge you wouldn’t be up for that.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
"We have agreed to limit our freedoms in some ways "for a more perfect union."

Oh, I see. Speaking for 300 million now.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.honestylog.com
If the Reds landed, Dale Franks would be right there helping them make up their lists of who was to be imprisoned and who to be shot.

It’d be a new "social contract", and Mr. Franks gets a kick out of enforcing those.

For that matter, if a Hillary Clinton administration decided that libertarian blogging was "hate speech", Mr. Franks would turn us all in, as long as there was a law written down on a piece of paper somewhere.

"I was a policeman under the Kaiser, I was a policeman under the Republic and I’ll be a policeman under Thaelmann (the Communist Party leader) if he comes to power." - Heinrich "Gestapo" Muller, attrib. to Walter Schellenburg.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
This [the social contract] was correctly refuted by Hume in "Of the Original Contract."
This, then, would be the same David Hume who wrote in that same essay:
As it is impossible for the human race to subsist, at least in any comfortable or secure state, without the protection of government, this institution must certainly have been intended by that beneficent Being, who means the good of all his creatures: and as it has universally, in fact, taken place, in all countries, and all ages, we may conclude, with still greater certainty, that it was intended by that omniscient Being who can never be deceived by any event or operation.


and
The people, if we trace government to its first origin in the woods and deserts, are the source of all power and jurisdiction, and voluntarily, for the sake of peace and order, abandoned their native liberty, and received laws from their equal and companion. The conditions upon which they were willing to submit, were either expressed, or were so clear and obvious, that it might well be esteemed superfluous to express them. If this, then, be meant by the original contract, it cannot be denied, that all government is, at first, founded on a contract, and that the most ancient rude combinations of mankind were formed chiefly by that principle.
and
My intention here is not to exclude the consent of the people from being one just foundation of government where it has place. It is surely the best and most sacred of any.
and
If the reason be asked of that obedience, which we are bound to pay to government, I readily answer, Because society could not otherwise subsist; and this answer is clear and intelligible to all mankind.
Are you really sure that you want Hume to be your go-to guy for this?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Wolverines was just a suggestion. I certainly acknowledge you wouldn’t be up for that.
Wow. You really don’t know anything about me, do you?
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
In other words, enslave blacks: unjust. You must enslave everyone and it’s A-OK. Perfect justice. But wait! Not to worry. We have democracy, and the consent of the governed. As soon as 50% or more find themselves intolerably enslaved, they’ll be able to set themselves free if they can manage to get together on it. Oh, yipee!
Wow. Things really are a binary result-set with you, aren’t they? Either I agree to perfect and complete freedom, or I support slavery.

No compromise, ever. All or nothing. Got it.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
And yet, we still have laws that do interfere with out liberty of intimate conduct. You cannot, for example, copulate in the streets, despite the fact that there is no doubt some small portion of th citizenry that would love to do so.

By your reasoning, why shouldn’t thy be allowed to do so, since their conduct neither harms another person, nor their property?
The proper question is: by what right you or anyone has to stop them. Whomever’s property they’re on has a say, of course. "Public" property is owned by no one (i.e., discreet entity), so no one has a say.

I should point out that you are under no obligation to watch, in any case. If you can’t help it, that’s your problem, not theirs. Moreover, I can’t imagine anyone is going to be harmed in the slightest by watching. Now go ahead: "the children..."

It might not make for the "society" or "community" you prefer or desire, but that is in the purview of no one to do anything about.
Gotcha.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
tom scott:
It’s an unfortunate outlook but I think Ron Good exposed it when he said:

But I do, it is a society of one *me*, and a bunch of other *ones*.
Yup, for the Paulians it’s "ME, ME, ME."
For starters, I’m not a Paulian.

As for the rest, *my* moral decisions are *my* responsibility, and it’s also right that I respect those around me by acknowledging their individuality as well. What’s "unfortunate" about that?
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
Wolverines was just a suggestion. I certainly acknowledge you wouldn’t be up for that.


Wow. You really don’t know anything about me, do you?
Well, y’see, "OK. Good luck with that" just didn’t strike me as any sort of real endorsement.

Still, although you and I have disagreement, I had no good reason to question your courage. And now that I’ve done some background checking, please accept my sincere thanks for your military service and my apologies for my error.
 
Written By: Ron Good
URL: http://northernsubverbia.blogspot.com
Richard;
Two questions
Do you and your wife own anything jointly? Or do you allow her to live on your land and use your property (and she allow you to use hers)?

Do you own any real estate that is "justly acquired"?
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
MichaelW wrote:
The single biggest problem with hammering Dale here is that the law is in fact Constitutional. The regulation and banning of some drugs is explicitly grounded in in the Commerce Clause.
You are flat wrong, and this is why. The interpretation of the commerce clause is generally acknowledged to bear little current relationship to the original purpose of that grant of power, which was to ensure a free trade zone within the United States by mandating only Congress could set import/export duties, and that they would be regular amongst all point of entry.

Purposes other than that cannot have been debated or approved at the Founding, because they were not thought of at the time, neither have they been approved of by process of amendment since, and a purpose very like the one Franks endorsed in his little atrocity required an amendment to make it constitutional.

Merely to acknowledge the national government is not bounded by the constitution is not to approve of it, neither does acknowledging it is not properly bound impose any obligation to endorse that it is not bound.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com
Do you and your wife own anything jointly? Or do you allow her to live on your land and use your property (and she allow you to use hers)?
I can’t possibly see how that’s any of your business, but if they did own something jointly, it would be a voluntary social arrangement between two consenting adults. Quite a different matter from government.
Who watches your watchers?
You withdraw your funding from that private police force, and place it in one that subscribes to actual moral values. If they show up at your house to "enforce" their law, you fight back.
And "if the government disappeared tomorrow", what would I do if the Red Chinese landed an invasion army in Oregon next Tuesday?
The Red Chinese are about as likely to invade the United States as the Martians due to the logistics of the thing, but a few hundred privately owned ICBM’s would act as a major deterrent to state actors invading the United States. At any rate, such feeble worries did not scare the Founders, who explicitly repudiated funding a military for more than two years. There was a small era in history where any nation state that wished to be free needed a permanent, technologically advanced army, but America has transcended that goal. It’s the same reason people are fools for hero-worshipping Reagan: America was never under threat of a Soviet invasion once they had nuclear tipped missiles, except in Red Alert 2.
But, wait just a sec. Isn’t freedom of political speech a core right? Doesn’t that make a difference? Would you object to Mr. Levant being hauled before a court for conspiring to murder his wife? If so, then should we automatically acquit in cases of conspiracy charges, in order to defend freedom of speech.
The fact you’re morally crippled is already well-established, so I don’t imagine that the idea of violating the rights of OTHERS as deserving punishment has occurred to you. At least, not if the government fails to sanction such punishment, which it could not if it didn’t exist. Suffice it to say that the wife would be free to visit any retribution she felt like upon Mr. Levant upon detecting a conspiracy to violate her rights so grievously.
Because let’s not kid ourselves. A libertarian society would not be a rejection of the social contract. It would be the voluntary creation of a different social contract, that is, a different set of rules with which everyone in Libertaria would agree to live by.
Yes. The one standard rule is that you don’t interfere with the consensual dealings of others, that don’t violate the rights of others. I don’t see what’s so hard about this.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"No compromise, ever. All or nothing. Got it."
If there were a compromise to the effect of the law you upheld which had the benefit of an amendment, it would at least be a genuine law.

Your decision was contemptible Franks, and it had nothing to do with your upholding law and order, what you upheld wasn’t a law.

Government has to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, or we don’t have the rule of law, we have the rule of the mob—or worse, what the mob will tolerate.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com
Fine, Franks. You get your rights from the herd.

I hope you bloody enjoy them as they vote them down to you, fool.


Well, no, but you do get the meaningful exercise of them from the herd.

That’s why you recognize that this battle is one mind at a time.

Also, good on Dale for pointing out that things "tend towards Dystopia" rather than Utopia.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
At least there’s this to be said for the post at the top; it contains a non-stop barrage of fallacies. If anyone wants to see the errors of ’social contract theory’ wrapped up neatly, it’s harder to find a better place. The moral bankruptcy of it is just icing on the cake.
 
Written By: Brian N.
URL: http://
But is it true if the electorate gets together and decides to repeal the 4th Amendment? Wouldn’t everyone realize that voting "yes" would subject them, as well as everyone else to intrusive police searches, carried out at the whim of the constabulary?

Ever heard the phrase "...if you have nothing to hide". Naive decent people don’t think they will ever be the ones searched, because they don’t break the law.

How are the costs and benefits diluted then?

I didn’t say diluted, though they are that as well. I said divorced from benefit. When you collectivize the costs, some individuals bear the cost with no benefit, and some get the benefit with no cost. And despite your utopian invocation of "we" all over the place, regular people know that it’s individual considerations that matter.

How then, also, would you explain how the specter of gun control has caused the electorate in 40 of the 50 states to implement "shall-issue" concealed carry laws over the last decade or so?

Ebb and flow. Even oppression is not 100% efficient. Occasionally, reason does prevail, in limited contexts. It’s also reasonable to look how the benefits to some of having guns registered and permitted outweighs the negative (to them) of having people carry concealed.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Written By: Ayn_Randian

Well, look what crawled out from under his rock.

Enjoy your new constituency, Dale, you deserve them.

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Franks. Erb is on your side.

Think about that.
 
Written By: MikeSoja
URL: http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/
I can’t possibly see how that’s any of your business, but if they did own something jointly, it would be a voluntary social arrangement between two consenting adults. Quite a different matter from government.
You’re right, he’s under no obligation to answer. But it would provide some insight into his beleifs, and how he really feels about collectivism. If any of their property is joint (house, checking account etc) It would show that he believes consenting adults can enter into arrangements to have property together. If two people can own property jointly, so can ten. Or two hundred million. The principle is the same.

The other question is whether(according to natural rights)any real estate in this country can be said to be justly acquired to begin with without acknowledging the government. If you are in the United Sates, there is a 99% chance that at some time in history the land you are currently on was at one time public land controlled by a government. At some point in time, the government in charge of the land made a decision to allow it to become private. The government did this without first getting the approval of every single citizen.

For instance, there were virtually no private land owners in California before it was claimed by the Spanish. If you trace the deed history of any property in California, the original private landowner was allowed to settle there at the consent of the Spanish, Mexican or U.S. governments. In case where the land was bought from the natives, you’re acknowledging their tribal government. Either the government had the authority to decide the fate of public property (without the joint consent of all) or the property claim is void. Much like someone that purchases a stolen watch from a pawn shop, someone buying (or being given) land from a government that doesn’t have the authority to transfer it does not have a valid claim.

The other possibility (if you feel the government can’t control land) is the first settler to claim land has the natural right to it. In that case, I’m fully within my natural rights to find a chunk of open public forest, build a house and call it my property. In principle, it doesn’t matter where the land is, so long as no other individual owns it.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Look, there are two mutually exclusive premises here...

  1. One side believes that government is an inevitable product of human nature, and to some extent may even be a necessary social organization due to the evolutionary human tendency to organize in hierarchal systems.


  2. The other side believes government is unnecessary and intrinsically immoral.


Unless you resolve those utterly divergent premises, you’re not arguing about the same thing. Nobody is being persuaded and I suspect that everybody involves knows they’re shouting, not persuading. So what, beyond cathartic self-gratification, is the point?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Well Jon I believe the An-Cap’s, like the Nutroots posse, get to show their "moral superiority" and that’s no small thing. They may have scant REAL progress to show for their posturing, but at least they can show they think the right way and call people names. I mean when all you’ve got is the Ludwig Van Mises Institute, some philosophic tomes, and .01% of the vote, you take what you can get, I guess.

An-Cap’s are the anti-Marxist of life. Just like the positron, is the anti-electron. In all respects the positron is EXACTLY like the electron, except it’s charge. An-Cap’s are exactly like Marxists, millenial, theoretical, a view point founded on the logical extension of the European Enlightenment. But unlike Marxists, they focus exclusively on the individual, not classes.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Dale, everything else aside, it is not a crime to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie house when there actually is a fire. It is the fraudulence of the claim that makes it immoral and illegal.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
It looks like the double comment "bug" that Franks "addressed" two years ago still hasn’t been squashed.

And eight hours on from where I left it last night, I still don’t see Franks or anyone else justifying the war on drugs, or their participation in helping the state along with it.

And I’ve yet to see what differentiates a Q&O neolibertarian from a run of the mill Republican.
Having read many of Dale’s thick, dull, smug, blockhead arguments, that conclusion is an easy one.
Not dull enough to stop you from reading them, apparently. — Franks
I’m only here because other people pointed to your disgrace, Franks. I check in on McQ from time to time, but always thought you were here to maintain the software. Maybe you should get to it.
 
Written By: MikeSoja
URL: http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/
Note to Soja.

Scott Erb will somehow contrive to be on everyone’s side.

A fungus is among us. Best to ignore it.
This is still the best and funniest post among this whole topic.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Erb:
My blog for yesterday (still the first blog on my page) "Wanting an Answer Key" makes a less detailed argument, but with some similar conclusions. Namely, the great enlightenment error is to think there is a "right" answer for how people should be governed and how the system should run.
And so, true to form, Erb pops up with the usual "There is no right or wrong" meme. Pardon me if I yawn.

As to the rest... I’ll bounce off Dale’s point, here:
Wow. Things really are a binary result-set with you, aren’t they? Either I agree to perfect and complete freedom, or I support slavery.
I strikes me that at least some of the disconnect, here is the part where the rule of law is held to be the ultimate driver... Legal, illegal, these do seem to me rather binary in nature. Then again, wrong and wrong are, as well. If I’m not mistaken, I partially addressed that here, last week. (Week before?)

So much of this argument surrounds contextual application of principle... and most of the context goes missing, in these discussions, so much so that it reminds me of the old saw about a lot of blind men giving their perceptions of an elephant, and each coming to thir own conclusions, all of them both wildly different and wildly inaccurate in the whole, yet each observation holding truth within the context of each speaker’s realm of understanding.

I offer no solutions, here. Merely observations.




 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
The problem, for every single one of you, is that you are absolutely incapable of thinking as discreet individuals. To a man, you are focussed on what "your" society is going to be like, as if you owned it. And since you know you don’t, you pretend as though your claim is legitimate and then you all self-organize into gangs, vying for the biggest gang so as to force everyone else to provide you the society that best tickles your fancy.
When one says everyone else is wrong and he is right, that often is a sign that the person is mistaken. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, what does it mean to think as a discreet individual? Does that mean one does not think at all about ones’ social environment and how it impacts not only ones’ life but also how one thinks. Is anyone’s thinking not in part shaped by their cultural heritage and environmental factors? If you as a biological entity were born in Cairo, you’d have a very different world view. I don’t know what you mean by your statement.

Also, if someone doesn’t agree with your view on natural rights, why should they limit their behavior? That said, I think there is a strong case to be made that huge polities like the US or even most states in the world today work against freedom not because of some "collectivism" (again, I see "isms" and ideology in general as misguided) but because they are too large, centralizing too much power.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
When one says everyone else is wrong and he is right, that often is a sign that the person is mistaken
You do know how often you’re going to see this gem used against you next time you opine on Iraq, yes?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
When one says everyone else is wrong and he is right, that often is a sign that the person is mistaken
You do know how often you’re going to see this gem used against you next time you opine on Iraq, yes?
1) That is DIFFERENT; and/or
2) "Everyone" knows Iraq is a failure, so it is YOU who is out-of-step and therefore wrong, Shark...you see it’s you versus "everyone."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Nobody is being persuaded and I suspect that everybody involves knows they’re shouting, not persuading. So what, beyond cathartic self-gratification, is the point?

Sorting.

"The more people you reach the more likely it is that you’re reaching the wrong people. Who vs. how many." — Seth Godin
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Also, if someone doesn’t agree with your view on natural rights, why should they limit their behavior?
I actually agree with Dr. Erb. That might be a first. In my opinion, so-called "natural rights" are nothing more than imaginary philosophical constructs. They are only given reality by a political system that enshrines and protects them (or at least some of them). Take away the state system that recognizes those rights, and they disappear.
The problem, for every single one of you, is that you are absolutely incapable of thinking as discreet individuals.
Arrogant nonsense. Just because someone has an opinion different from your preconceived notions, doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking for themselves.
you all self-organize into gangs, vying for the biggest gang so as to force everyone else to provide you the society that best tickles your fancy.
Thanks for describing what would happen if there was no state. You wouldn’t be free to enjoy your rights, and there would soon be another form of state, most likely more oppressive than the last. The state is a necessary evil, not pure evil.
 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
Also, if someone doesn’t agree with your view on natural rights, why should they limit their behavior?
They can go worship a turnip if they feel like it. Just as long as they don’t make turnip-worshipping mandatory.
But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, what does it mean to think as a discreet individual? Does that mean one does not think at all about ones’ social environment and how it impacts not only ones’ life but also how one thinks. Is anyone’s thinking not in part shaped by their cultural heritage and environmental factors? If you as a biological entity were born in Cairo, you’d have a very different world view. I don’t know what you mean by your statement.
"Biological entity?" Dude, take a breath and listen to yourself. While you’re at it, I’m quite sure environment shapes people’s opinions. Still more I’m sure that their behavior will adapt to the environment as they choose.

But YOU know, Professor, that an individual is more than his environment. And you ought to know what it means to think as a discreet individual, if people have decided you’re fit to teach at a university.
When one says everyone else is wrong and he is right, that often is a sign that the person is mistaken.
If everyone wanted to jump off a bridge, rob a bank, rub their tummies, or think Pepsi is the only thing worth drinking, would you do it too?
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
You’re an abomination, Franks.

This is worse than watching bloody Scott Erb squish all over the ’net for more than a decade. This goes past theory, at which you’ve never been worth a damn in any case, although I hadn’t plumbed the real depth of your rock-headed stupidity.

I think I get it, now, and I have to say that it is matched only by your sheer burglar’s nerve at calling yourself a "libertarian".

Is there anything that you wouldn’t steal?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I don’t think you guys are understanding the fundamental issue here: whether or not you believe it is right or not, the fact of the matter remains that this man willingly and knowingly broke a law, a law which, as Dale has explained ad nauseum, exists for whatever reason. As a citizen in a lawful society, it was his duty to determine what the law says and whether or not the man broke said law. Period. There exist mechanisms within the system to change said laws.

However, whenever you choose to live in a society, sociatal laws are going to govern the masses. You give up, by definition, the right to live exactly as you want to the nth degree (stress on that point) by deciding to live with society.

Any time a group of people get together and form a community, there have to be a set of guiding principles, or laws, that govern how the group is going to function. It’s a give and take scenario. In order to ’take’ the advantages of living in a community you must ’give’ something, either dedication to the protection of the community, some property or ’taxes’, etc. The differences we argue here every day is nothing but shades of grey within that system. Most of us here believe we should ’give’ only little because we’re not ’taking’ much, or that it isn’t the right of the community as an entity to ’take’ from us to ’give’ to others. In our society we’ve taken it a further step of drafting up a contract which explains how the society is going to be broken down and function and also establish a list of rights to be protected, specifically because we are wary against a strong collective ’community’. Again: Dale went over this ad nauseum, but the argument I’m reading from his detractors is more emotional than anything else, hence all the ad hominem comments. However, as a society, we have decided on certain rules which we all agree, as citizens, to be governed by. And yes, you DO agree to these terms because not ONE of you have renounced your American Citizenship and moved somewhere else.

But when it comes to sociatal, ethical standards, it is not only natural but necessary to create some kinds of constraints by which everyone is equally bound without discrimination. Drug laws, rightly or wrongly, are such laws. Again, if this gentleman REALLY wants dope, I hear Armsterdam is a lovely place. But you cannot simply

If you wish to own/do whatever you want, there are hundreds of thousands of acres all across this country in which you can sit quite peacefuly, in the middle of nowhere, to do whatever it is you want to do without any fear of ever being caught, noticed, or cared about. In all effects you will be ’left alone’, as you will. What you guys are arguing is, basically, to be left alone on your little island. Reality check, no man is an island unless he chooses to live that way. But no one here is going to do that. So before you begin calling Dale a hypocrite, I would counsel against throwing stones in glass houses.

 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://
I must protest...I DO protest...Ott Scerb can not be allowed to post like this! Unless my irony and satire metet is badly broken, this was a SERIOUS post! Have we no rules..Oh OK, it’s about An-Cap’s that’s the debate can there be rules? Ok, never mind.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe, The Drunk At The End Of The Bar, Burped:
"They may have scant REAL progress to show for their posturing,..."
As if I’m responsible for moral reptiles who send a harmless man to prison and then brag about it to net.cretins. Look: the "progress" to which you refer is your responsibility and no one else’s. You don’t get to cheerlead for everything but freedom and then blame me when Franks acts like a Commissar For A Day. That’s on him. Not me.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Someone who thinks that they are smarter and holier than thou and pissed off at just about everybody because they don’t recognize their brilliance.
Sounds like a description of a lot of people on this thread...

I’m suprised that Mona hasn’t reared her head in here.

This is a fight by the believers for the one true path to libertarian idealism.

Whatever that is.

And then there is the rest of us, just trying to make our way in an imperfect society.

Some people fight against this by trying to change the rules by which society runs. Others decide the rules don’t apply to them.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
David C.:
"I actually agree with Dr. Erb. That might be a first. In my opinion, so-called "natural rights" are nothing more than imaginary philosophical constructs. They are only given reality by a political system that enshrines and protects them (or at least some of them). Take away the state system that recognizes those rights, and they disappear."
I have a news flash for you, boy-O: you don’t even have to "take away the state system" before they can disappear. Naturally, you’re insinuating that rights disappear when the state does. Guess what: all the evidence of history says that you’re an ignoramus.

Stop being an ignoramus. It’s unnecessary and very unbecoming.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Wow. I guess I showed up late to the party. Anyway, nicely written, Mr. Franks. I was just about to say all those things myself (really!), but not quite as nicely or thoroughly. I tend to the short and pungent.
Now I guess I will wade through all the comments.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"And then there is the rest of us, just trying to make our way in an imperfect society."
Yeah, well, sending a harmless man to prison for ten years oughta do it. Why don’t you go try it?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I must protest...I DO protest...Ott Scerb can not be allowed to post like this!
My wrong...it was saved on my pc the last time I parodied the good Professor.
Some people fight against this by trying to change the rules by which society runs. Others decide the rules don’t apply to them.
and that’s the crux of Dale’s argument.
As if I’m responsible for moral reptiles who send a harmless man to prison and then brag about it to net.cretins.
except prison is for those who place themselves above the law and, as such, AREN’T harmless. Using your own slippery slope falla...err...’argument’, a man who decides a certain law doesn’t apply to him can quickly decide that OTHER laws don’t apply to him, either. If left unpunished, that creates anarchy and other very harmful problems.

Also, you can’t accuse Erb of being a hypocrite Billy if you also employ ad hominem attacks against people you disagree with politically. That’s called ’hypocrisy’.
Guess what: all the evidence of history says that you’re an ignoramus.
Is that so? So when the Roman Empire fell to the Barbarian Hordes, what followed it was an enlightened society of civil...no, wait, nevermind. It was followed by chaos, murder, and a period of time we fondly call The Dark Ages.

Sorry, Billy, but I’m calling BS. Give me a citation.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://
And it did it again...

This should fix it.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://
No, it didn’t.

This is Joel C. posting, btw. lol
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://
Joe, The Drunk At The End Of The Bar, Burped:
"They may have scant REAL progress to show for their posturing,..."
Well beyond hurling insults would you care to tell me of the Progress you’ve made in reforming society into anything that even approxiamtes your "Good and Just" society? The Quakers could point to Pennsylvania, various groups could point to communes like New Harmony Indiana, or Shakertown Kentucky, of the Mormons to Utah, or the Boers to The Orange Free State or the Transvaal Republic and you guyz you’ve got some words on a screen on the Internet? I mean Rothbard’s dead and all you’ve got left is Lew Rockwell and some websites? Heck the Daily Kos can claim as much success and they’ve got more supporters! I guess you’re answer is "’No,’ we really don’t have any markers of success beyond our feeble presence on the Internet, but our ability to hurl insults is second to none!"
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joel C. I think you have to "dump" the Cookies from your system before the system let’s you reset your name....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
it worked, thanks Joe
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Actually, even as someone who heavily favors jury nullification for drug charges, I don’t have a problem with your ruling. This was smuggling, and a country has a right to sovereignty and secure borders. It doesn’t matter if he was smuggling contraband fruit, he took a risk and the risk was borne out.

Now if he had decided to grow all those drugs here...
 
Written By: Phelps
URL: http://phelps.donotremove.net
Is that so? So when the Roman Empire fell to the Barbarian Hordes, what followed it was an enlightened society of civil...no, wait, nevermind. It was followed by chaos, murder, and a period of time we fondly call The Dark Ages.
Ah yes, because the only thing required for a libertarian society is a lack of rules. One thing the barbarian hordes were certainly known for is their stalwart refusal to terrorize others.

More than a hundred years ago, America, and even Victorian England, didn’t require massive amounts of government regulations and taxes. What little government was permitted to exist didn’t interfere with American businesses or citizens to the extent you defend. By contrast, it’s easy to point to state organizations that always ruled by brute tyranny- in fact, it’s quite obvious that just pointing out that history lesson makes you wholly unqualified to pretend your scraps of knowledge in any way prepare you for this discussion.
Now if he had decided to grow all those drugs here...
Franks would have convicted him on that count just as surely, if that was the case. Have zero doubt about that. Doing the wrong thing for supposedly "right reasons" ends up in a lot more wrong things being done.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Now if he had decided to grow all those drugs here...
and was found guilty by a jury of his peers who didn’t use nullification, he’d be just as guilty as he is for smuggling.

Again: see ’anarchy’
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
I wonder how many "let me use ’X’, it only potentially harms me" would also agree for foreswear any social safety net and obligations for medical treatment I end up paying if it does happen to harm you.

Agree to that and I think we can cut a deal.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
"So when the Roman Empire fell to the Barbarian Hordes, what followed it was an enlightened society of civil...no, wait, nevermind. It was followed by chaos, murder, and a period of time we fondly call The Dark Ages.

Sorry, Billy, but I’m calling BS. Give me a citation."
Here’s a citation for you, Broward, you goddamned idiot: you don’t get to cite the barbarians’ scavenging of a rotten slave culture as a prop under your blubber-ass.

Shut up.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Ah yes, because the only thing required for a libertarian society is a lack of rules. One thing the barbarian hordes were certainly known for is their stalwart refusal to terrorize others.
It is you and others like you who are making that kind of ridiculous assertions, and I was merely pointing out how absurd it is.
More than a hundred years ago, America, and even Victorian England, didn’t require massive amounts of government regulations and taxes. What little government was permitted to exist didn’t interfere with American businesses or citizens to the extent you defend. By contrast, it’s easy to point to state organizations that always ruled by brute tyranny- in fact, it’s quite obvious that just pointing out that history lesson makes you wholly unqualified to pretend your scraps of knowledge in any way prepare you for this discussion.
More than a hundred years ago in America we had an establishment of slavery which ended because of a massive Civil War during which the writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended and private property was taken by the government en masse.

More than a hundred years ago the Victorian Empire was cracking down on dissidents and taking away property from people, not to mention getting an entire populace hooked on opiates to steal their lands.

And you say I am ill equipped or prepared for this discussion? Go read a book before you take such a flippant, unsulting tone with someone you know nothing about, trev. You, apparantly, are the one lacking in any historical knowledge.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Agree to that and I think we can cut a deal.
Jesus, of course. No one, including and especially the government, should have to give me a dime of their money if they didn’t want to. I wouldn’t want them to take money away from me, so do unto others.

Of course, if you’re saying we have an obligation to hand over a third of our income in exchange for the privilege, nothing doing.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Here’s a citation for you, Broward, you goddamned idiot: you don’t get to cite the barbarians’ scavenging of a rotten slave culture as a prop under your blubber-ass.

Shut up.
wow, Ad Hominum rears it’s ugly head yet again.

I hope you realize you’ve just lost any and all rights to EVER criticise someone like Erb again, Billy.

Which is sad, because you usually make good points when you aren’t being a schmuck.

if you read the context of the statement, Billy, it was a direct response to ’freedom comes after the collapse of the State.’ As such, the Roman analogy/example was an accurate one.

Now, if you’d like to have a conversation, not a third grade pissing contest, I’d like for this to continue. If not, I’m sure there are some grade schoolers you can find to have a shouting match with.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
"This was correctly refuted by Hume in "Of the Original Contract.""

Hume is wrong, there.

"Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires?"

Like millions of illegal Mexicans we have here in this country?


"We hold natural rights and derivative moral claims as absolute,"

Well, good on ya, mate. You can hold whatever you want, and I will hold whatever I want. To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions do natural rights have?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
More than a hundred years ago, America, and even Victorian England, didn’t require massive amounts of government regulations and taxes. What little government was permitted to exist didn’t interfere with American businesses or citizens to the extent you defend.
Congress first banned the importation of certain drugs in 1848. That’s 160 years ago.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
,em>I wonder how many "let me use ’X’, it only potentially harms me" would also agree for foreswear any social safety net and obligations for medical treatment I end up paying if it does happen to harm you.

Agree to that and I think we can cut a deal.

Throw in my not having to give 15% of my paycheck to pay for everyone else’s safety net and medical care, and I’ll take the deal in a heartbeat. Make Social Security opt-out, and I’ll be first in line even without the drug legalization.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"Well beyond hurling insults would you care to tell me of the Progress you’ve made in reforming society into anything that even approxiamtes your ’Good and Just’ society?"
If I had ever actually claimed something like that, then you might be on your way to making a point.

Pay attention, dummy: I’m the one who’s been pointing out the Endarkenment. With people like you and Franks running your stupid frauds, it’s a going concern.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
actually, looking back, I misread what you wrote. I thought you were making the argument that the only way to maintain rights is by dissolving the state.

I apologize for that.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
But i do ask you this, Billy

So far the most you’ve contributed to the debate is ’I’m right, you’re wrong AND stupid and unethical’ and have yet to make an actual, factual argument.

Instead, you make emotional sweeping gestures coupled with personal attacks.

So, again, how does this make you any different than a child throwing a tantrum?
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
"wow, Ad Hominum rears it’s ugly head yet again."
Now that you actually know who you are and sign your posts correctly...
"I hope you realize you’ve just lost any and all rights to EVER criticise someone like Erb again, Billy."
Listen, kid: the day that I ever take that sort of coaching from someone who just called 5th century Rome "an enlightened society", that’ll be the day that you’ll see me completely disappear from the internet. You wrote something idiotic, and I’ll point that out every time. Go snivel to someone else.
"if you read the context of the statement, Billy, it was a direct response to ’freedom comes after the collapse of the State.’"
Are you lying or are you stupid as a rock? Let me clue you: you’re not actually quoting anyone in that. Why are you trying to make it look like you are?

 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Perhaps a basic needs covering, here.
Define ’harm’ and ’harmless’ in context.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
It is you and others like you who are making that kind of ridiculous assertions, and I was merely pointing out how absurd it is.
Clearly some Americans would be completely unable to handle such freedom due to their complete amorality and lack of sense. I’d certainly wish to see their victims retaliate against them, and firearms would be an excellent solution to that. An option that the victims of barbarians never had.
More than a hundred years ago in America we had an establishment of slavery which ended because of a massive Civil War during which the writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended and private property was taken by the government en masse.
Because the Civil War was started to free the slaves! It’s be a funny assertion, if it wasn’t quite so pathetic.

At any rate, government and society alike were disobeying the Golden Rule in both the barbarian takeover and in the antebellum South. These factors in society are not correlated with a libertarian attitude. You make believe it is, because you can’t handle the concept of a libertarian philosophy having been beneficial for the vast majority of Americans, even in the days when horrible perversions like slavery existed.

Unless, of course, you’re claiming that only a government can protect the interests of women and minorities. Funnily enough, that’s the favorite tack of Democrats, as well.

Man to pig, and pig to man.
More than a hundred years ago the Victorian Empire was cracking down on dissidents and taking away property from people, not to mention getting an entire populace hooked on opiates to steal their lands.
Well, THAT story’s got me persuaded about how very necessary government is to prevent abuse. Good show.
I thought you were making the argument that the only way to maintain rights is by dissolving the state.
An understanding and multiple factors are required to maintain a society without state oppression. America is one of the few societies presumed capable of reaching that understanding.
Well, good on ya, mate. You can hold whatever you want, and I will hold whatever I want. To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions do natural rights have?
So a neo-libertarian basically has all their morality removed. A useful way to define the term.

I’m heartily glad firearms level the playing field against "might makes right" for this reason.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Define ’harm’ and ’harmless’ in context.
I neither pick your pocket, nor break your leg. A brilliant turn of the phrase by Thomas Jefferson. As long as I’m not doing that to ANYONE, unless they give express consent for me to do so, or violate my own rights in that statement first, it’s harmless. Everything else is harmful.

Simple. Effective.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Not at all; gay people would be equally able to have legally approved intimate relations with members of the opposite sex as heterosexual folks. Of course, the gay folks couldn’t have intimate relations with their preferred lovers, but that’s just a matter of taste.
Yes, and it is also wrong to assume that gay and strait sex are equal unions.

Hetro sex does often result in procreation, and it also often aids the bond between the resulting child’s father and mother. In short, hetro sex provides social values gay sex does not.

Gay sex, particularly gay male sex, arguably distracts from procreation.

This is perhaps a small point for a culture of 300 million people that is effectively dominate, but it is wrong to assume that gay and hetro unions are equivelent.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"So far the most you’ve contributed to the debate is..."
You’re presuming. This is not a debate, and I am not here to "contribute". These are your standards, and they mean nothing to me in this.

Now, here’s a pop quiz: when was the last time you met a "child" who was able and willing to look matters that clearly in the eye?

Get this straight: it doesn’t matter whether you like me.

Start thinking matters through. That’s the first thing.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Now that you actually know who you are and sign your posts correctly...
a modern day ’I know what you are but what am I?’

wow... REAL mature, there.

Also, i challenge you to show me where in this entire thread I have resorted to Ad Hominum, and I’ll concede the point.

Again: you don’t HAVE to be a schmuck, Bill.
Listen, kid: the day that I ever take that sort of coaching from someone who just called 5th century Rome "an enlightened society"
can you show me where I called Rome ’an enlightened society’ ?

And who the hell is sniveling?

Look, I’m sure you think you’re some big bad a@@ behind your computer screen, but you’re really coming off as childish, petulant and blatantly stupid.

Again, how can you on the one hand criticise people and on the other act like an idiot? Unless you are so arrogant as to believe yourself superior and therefore not bound by basic civility or immune to being a hypocrite
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Are federal laws restricting drugs constitutional? If so, why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?

In a case like this, I think that the feds have power to restrict importation, but I don’t think they have the constitutional power to ban drugs outright. Or, to put it another way, I think it reasonable that they place a tarrif on weed, and that the smuggler should face time for violating that, but the outright ban is a constitutional violation.

In other words, I think the paleos are wrong that the perp should necessarly be off free, but that Dale is defending an unconstitutional law.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Ummmm....

Duck.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
[Billy], I’m sure you think you’re some big bad a@@ behind your computer screen

Haha. I swear, next time one of these kinds of threads pops off, I’m going to start a betting pool on how many comments it takes for this canard to get vomited up, and on which of the peanut gallery is first to offer it.

I mentioned "sorting" earlier, and I think it’s past time to codify the idea with the term "Beck’s Razor"
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
I neither pick your pocket, nor break your leg. A brilliant turn of the phrase by Thomas Jefferson. As long as I’m not doing that to ANYONE, unless they give express consent for me to do so, or violate my own rights in that statement first, it’s harmless. Everything else is harmful.

Simple. Effective.


So, where does drunk driving fall?

Or, say, providing kids alcohol?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"Well beyond hurling insults would you care to tell me of the Progress you’ve made in reforming society into anything that even approximates your ’Good and Just’ society?"
If I had ever actually claimed something like that, then you might be on your way to making a point.
So your goal is not to achieve ANYTHING?
Pay attention, dummy: I’m the one who’s been pointing out the Endarkenment. With people like you and Franks running your stupid frauds, it’s a going concern.
OK Billy you’re unhappy with today and you’d replace it with what?

Otherwise you’re simply a dishonest intellectual hack on par with the "Troofers". They don’t claim there was a conspiracy they just ask "questions?" You’re unhappy with today, but it’s not your job to propose a better tomorrow eh? Then why would anyone care to listen your complaints, you offer no alternative? Or do you and that’s my point, how’s that making an effective alternative going? Oh that’s right it’s not...or is hurling insults your alternative? If so you’re not an An-Cap you’re merely a nihilist Punk Rocker. Only rather than Po-Go’ing around the room in a drunken rage/daze you inflict yourself on us.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So, where does drunk driving fall?
If you don’t hurt anyone, I could care where it falls. If you cause someone to be hurt because you were stupid, however, you will deal with them to pay the penalty. What it is will depend on the harm, but if someone decides you need to die for killing their son because you were stupid, I would hardly object.
Or, say, providing kids alcohol?
If they’re your kids, do what you will. If they’re someone else’s kids and their parents are pissed off enough, then pay the penalty.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
No. 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, . . .
Where does the constitution provide the feds the power to ban drugs?

I’m OK with state bans, since the 10th Amendment does not apply to the states. In fact it explicitly puts this sorta power in the hands of the people or the states.

And I’m also OK with government controls on importation.

But it’s clear that what we really have here is more like Prohibition, without the benifit of an amendment. Neat trick, but not constitutional.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"Unless you are so arrogant as to believe yourself superior..."
I’m smarter than you.

And you know what? That’s a real shame.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I’m the one who’s been pointing out the Endarkenment.
The Eschaton! The Eschaton! Truly, truly, this is the end times.

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

FWIW, how did Dale Franks actually send anyone to jail again?

Guilt before, guilt now, guilt always...this is the Billy Beck way.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
This is not a debate, and I am not here to "contribute".
Why is it not a debate?

My understanding (and do correct me if I’m wrong) - a debate is a way for people holding different views on a matter to present the reasons for their views and evaluate them and examine them for flaws and to see which one holds up. Of course there is usually one position that is objectively correct, in terms of relating to reality - but that position isn’t necessarily one that the people involved can perceive right off. That’s why we have debates, to see what mistakes or wrong assumptions or incorrect interpretations of evidence are in play, to match up arguments for each side and see what position actually does relate to reality. Otherwise everyone would just see the truth instantly and there’d be no need to discuss anything ever.

If you’re not here to make clear what exactly the evidence is for your position, why are you here? What is the point of saying anything if you are not interested in convincing people?
 
Written By: Rollory
URL: http://
"OK Billy you’re unhappy with today and you’d replace it with what?"
People smart enough to understand the answer to that question on their own powers of reason.

That’s what.

And it counts you out. You’re just a floater.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Otherwise you’re simply a dishonest intellectual hack on par with the "Troofers"
Dishonest is one hell of a claim to back up. There are men who would pop out a tooth for calling them that regardless of anything else, and Billy Beck is one of them.
Then why would anyone care to listen your complaints, you offer no alternative? Or do you and that’s my point, how’s that making an effective alternative going?
One mind at a time. At least, for people who can be charitably considered as thinking people. That said, if you knew fvck-all, you’d know what we think of the chances to develop such an alternative, when we refuse to utilize the power to extort from some people and pay off others.
FWIW, how did Dale Franks actually send anyone to jail again?
He assented to it, with the force of law backing him up officially. He may as well have pronounced sentence himself.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"The Eschaton! The Eschaton! Truly, truly, this is the end times."
Those are your words, which is exactly why they’re not mine. I have never said that and it’s not what I have in mind. And you and I both know that you’re the one who has at least twice had to admit the importance of being more careful in your thinking when confronting what I have to say.

You should cop to it again.

In fact, you should be quiet and pay attention for a long time before you write another single word.

And you really should change that bloody lie of a net.moniker that you’ve stolen.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Drunk driving:
If you don’t hurt anyone, I could care where it falls. If you cause someone to be hurt because you were stupid, however, you will deal with them to pay the penalty. What it is will depend on the harm, but if someone decides you need to die for killing their son because you were stupid, I would hardly object.
Well then, what makes you pay the penalty? The last auto accident my wife had was caused by an illegal who was high on meth and PCP. The other hispanics in his van ran off when they realized the po po was on the way. It would have been nice if the po po had taken these characters in before the accident. Since mexico is ~40 miles from the accident scene, it isn’t exactly a streach that these guys, including the driver, could have left the scene and got off free of charges.

What you are essentially saying is that we have to sit back and wait for something bad to happen before taking action. Doesn’t sound like a very grounded real world approach.


Giving kids alcohol:
If they’re your kids, do what you will. If they’re someone else’s kids and their parents are pissed off enough, then pay the penalty.
Do what you will? So, does that mean pediphiles can adopt, ply "their" kids with alcohol and then have sex with them? Where is the limit?

How are parents going to apply a penalty? Sue the store that sold the alcohol? Can we burn it down and hang the owner?

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"If you’re not here to make clear what exactly the evidence is for your position, why are you here?"
I’m here to point out that Dale Franks is a goddamned crumb, and so is everyone who stands with him on this.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Because the Civil War was started to free the slaves! It’s be a funny assertion, if it wasn’t quite so pathetic.
I never said that. I said it ENDED because of the Civil War. Learn to read.
At any rate, government and society alike were disobeying the Golden Rule in both the barbarian takeover and in the antebellum South. These factors in society are not correlated with a libertarian attitude. You make believe it is, because you can’t handle the concept of a libertarian philosophy having been beneficial for the vast majority of Americans, even in the days when horrible perversions like slavery existed.
Again, no.

You made a ridiculous assertion that somehow, magically, 100 years ago America and Britain were these bastion of libertarian ideals when nothing could have been further from the truth. I then called you on it.

go ahead. spin away.
Well, THAT story’s got me persuaded about how very necessary government is to prevent abuse. Good show
.
...which is an argument I never made.

I’m sorry, but i have to ask: What the HELL are you on about? You’re all over the road here.
You’re presuming. This is not a debate, and I am not here to "contribute". These are your standards, and they mean nothing to me in this.
Very well then, so what IS your purpose here? If it’s to insult people without contributing anything even remotely useful, then why waste your time and ours?

Instead, you condescend in a way that can only be considered Erbian.

So, again, what allows you to do it AND criticise others for the same behavior?
Start thinking matters through. That’s the first thing.
actually, that’s precisely what I was going to tell you.

but I’ll ask you this, instead: how aren’t I thinking things through, exactly?
Are federal laws restricting drugs constitutional? If so, why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?
According to the Supreme Court? Yes, yes it is. Though the question on Prohibition is an interesting one. I’m gonna look that up.
but that Dale is defending an unconstitutional law.
only it isn’t, not according to SCOTUS (which I take many issues with and even consider as an usurping power, but, in our system, rightly or wrongly, is the final say on whether something is or isn’t constitutional). What Dale was doing, and as was his charge as a juror, was to judge as to whether a person broke a certain law.

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
a debate is a way for people holding different views on a matter to present the reasons for their views and evaluate them and examine them for flaws and to see which one holds up.

This discussion does not qualify by that definition, re: "reason(s)", "evaluate", "examine", "see".

What is the point of saying anything if you are not interested in convincing people?

You really can’t conceive of any other non-dysfunctional purpose? I offered one possibility earlier that has nothing to do with persuasion.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Well then, what makes you pay the penalty?
If a dude gets high on meth, runs into your car, then tries to run off- you really think people will just sit still for that? That the only reason they don’t just drive away is because the police will come when they get around to it?
Do what you will? So, does that mean pediphiles can adopt, ply "their" kids with alcohol and then have sex with them? Where is the limit?
It’s almost like you have no moral center to make judgements about unethical behavior without written law. Without one, would you really have no idea what to do about a neighbor who was up to this?
How are parents going to apply a penalty? Sue the store that sold the alcohol? Can we burn it down and hang the owner?
... maybe you really don’t have any idea, if you ask a question like this about a wholly innocent party.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Dale:
Moreover, it is inconsistent to argue that you cannot trust a group of citizens in a free election to make rational decisions about rights, while also arguing that "Rational people can evaluate these risks intelligently, and that is the society we would like to see." You can’t have it both ways.
I don’t fully agree.

I know people who make fairly good decisions in their private life who vote like morons. For example, they are quite good at grasping the basics of property rights as it applies in their daily lives (particularly when it benifits them), but they vote for laws and politicians that are hostile to basic concepts of property rights.

The key factors, I think, are that it’s easier to make good decisions about concrete facts (as opposed to abstractions), and people are typically better at dealing with things of significant importance to them (as opposed to things mostly of importance to others).
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"Instead, you condescend in a way that can only be considered Erbian."
Bullsh|t. No flubber-spine like him could ever reach high enough to even dream about condescending to anything.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I completely disagree with your arguments, Dale, even though I’m sympathetic to you tactical conclusions.

Reason isn’t guaranteed but it’s recommended if one wants to apprehend and deal with reality. Rights are natural and important to protect the individual’s freedom to cultivate & use his rational faculty and act to further his life while respecting the rights of others to do the same.

However, we need broad buy-in from the general population. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It’s securing these rights that one appeals to one’s fellow citizens in the hope that they realize our common nature as human beings. It won’t be possible to secure one’s rights in a culture that is hostile to the very notion. And our culture is becoming more hostile to liberty with every passing year.

In the process of fighting for greater respect for our rights, we have to have priorities. Which violations are most egregious? Which liberties are most important and empowering? Generally, I would consider restrictions on production (economic regulation) as a weightier matter than freedom for hedonistic indulgence (recreational drugs) if the unintended consequences of prohibition weren’t so onerous. Most important, however, are intellectual freedoms; they are required for advancing, defending, and protecting liberty in general.

I find the priorities of QandO to be generally sane and at least have a chance at advancing liberty. By the way, New Years Greetings to the gang!
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
You made a ridiculous assertion that somehow, magically, 100 years ago America and Britain were these bastion of libertarian ideals when nothing could have been further from the truth. I then called you on it.
No, I pointed out that libertarian ideals in those nations permitted many people to thrive in unprecedented fashion. I made no claim that slavery or government repression played any role but a detrimental one.

This failure of understanding of simple concepts rests squarely with you.
Well, THAT story’s got me persuaded about how very necessary government is to prevent abuse. Good show
Pay attention. I said this not because Victorian England was doing a perfect job- they weren’t- but because I regarded the Victorian attitude towards businesses (re: no violent coercion) as a good thing. By contrast, those are the examples you brought up to disprove my point against government oppression, and it doesn’t work out very well.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
And you and I both know that you’re the one who has at least twice had to admit the importance of being more careful in your thinking when confronting what I have to say.

Past performance is not indicative of future results.

I only remember once, but it’s inconsequential to the discussion.

I’ll ask again: What did Dale Franks do wrong?

And our culture is becoming more hostile to liberty with every passing year.

What metric did you use to arrive at that conclusion?
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
only it isn’t, not according to SCOTUS (which I take many issues with and even consider as an usurping power, but, in our system, rightly or wrongly, is the final say on whether something is or isn’t constitutional). What Dale was doing, and as was his charge as a juror, was to judge as to whether a person broke a certain law.
Actually, I’d say that the people have the final say, either by voting or resorting to arms.

I don’t see the SCOTUS as having the definitive answer on this. It is our process to use the SCOTUS to provide an answer, but their answer could be wrong.

Consider, for example, if SCOTUS provided an answer at odds with the will of the majority of Americans on a key issue of significant importance. Let’s assume that it is significant enough that Americans are willing to use force to determine the outcome. Who’s right?

With respect to Dale, I think that it would be reasonable for him to judge the law as well. My understanding is that jury nullification was an accepted practice only 100 years ago, give or take a decade. To put it another way, we (we the people) can make federal legesation / SCOTUS decision irrelevent if we all decide to not convict if we think the law is simply wrong. This does happen, and it is right in some cases.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"OK Billy you’re unhappy with today and you’d replace it with what?"
People smart enough to understand the answer to that question on their own powers of reason.

That’s what.

And it counts you out. You’re just a floater.
Well I’ll just bow down to the almighty self-proclaimed and self-imposed Omnipotence that is Billy beck, then...Oh this is a variant of the "True Scotsman" argument right? True Scotsmen understand you, right?
Otherwise you’re simply a dishonest intellectual hack on par with the "Troofers"
Dishonest is one hell of a claim to back up. There are men who would pop out a tooth for calling them that regardless of anything else, and Billy Beck is one of them.
I’m terrified that Billy or you is going to show up at my IP address and further chastise me...oooooh I’m scared Ott Scerb HOLD me! Your repsonse is pretty laughable/lame...Pop a tooth out, good I’ve got one that needs some work, mayahp you or Billy can take of that and it won’t cost me a trip to the Dentist. You’re more like Smellie Hippies, but as I said, An-Caps are the Anti-Marxists, and how many Marxists wander around America decrying the "Fascism" but soaking up the Freedom? So I guess it’s not too unusual for you and Beck to sound like a bunch of Leftists, in that regard.
Then why would anyone care to listen your complaints, you offer no alternative? Or do you and that’s my point, how’s that making an effective alternative going?
One mind at a time. At least, for people who can be charitably considered as thinking people. That said, if you knew fvck-all, you’d know what we think of the chances to develop such an alternative, when we refuse to utilize the power to extort from some people and pay off others.
More True Scotmen argumentation! Are you and Billy a club of True Scotsmen? Your plan is to insult one mind at a time to convince others that you are arrogant @rses with no real plan for change, but who are perfectly willing to soak up any bennies our society offers you, whilst proclaiming your disdain for it and hoping for it’s demise?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"Oh, and by the way, this isn’t a "libertarian" blog. It’s "neolibertarian". We did that to avoid being lumped in with crackpots like...well...you know. "

Thanks for clarifying that. Is "neolibertarian" like "neoconservative"...you know, "not"conservative with a typo?

"FWIW, how did Dale Franks actually send anyone to jail again? "

On a jury requiring a unanimous verdict, he voted "guilty" to three mala prohibita crimes. What’s so difficult to understand here?
 
Written By: Jeffrey Quick
URL: http://
This discussion does not qualify by that definition, re: "reason(s)", "evaluate", "examine", "see".
Seems to me the issue is that basic premises are being rejected as "obviously silly" - specifically, those that take Franks’ side in this tend to be convinced that government is an inevitable consequence of human nature, while you and Nikoley &co are convinced (if I’m reading this right) government is alien to human nature.

Is it possible to clearly state what human nature is, in totality?

Now you may be right that there is no reasoning going on - that people are simply ignoring points and premises they don’t agree with - but that doesn’t mean debate is impossible, it just means people are choosing not to.
I offered one possibility earlier that has nothing to do with persuasion.
Sorting? I guess you mean clarifying who agrees with you and who doesn’t. Ok. I don’t see much point in that, one question and answer would’ve accomplished the same without all the heat. And honestly such clarification wasn’t needed to anybody who pays the least bit of attention to these sorts of discussions. So things are left looking like yelling was the point.
 
Written By: Rollory
URL: http://
’Generally, I would consider restrictions on production (economic regulation) as a weightier matter than freedom for hedonistic indulgence (recreational drugs) if the unintended consequences of prohibition weren’t so onerous."
Completely aside, Jason, from the very serious point implicit in the final clause of that paragraph (which itself carries enormous implications, like the practical, de facto, demise of the Fourth Amendment, a single fact of many which ought to get the Constitution-worshippers’ attention), I would point out to you that a disdain for "hedonistic indulgence" is no qualification for comment on this case. Try to understand: freedom means that individuals do not require anyone’s approval for the peaceful conduct of their private affairs.

I am pointing out a prevalent bigotry in all this: what you think — or don’t think — about "recreational drugs" has nothing to do with any of it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Actually, I’d say that the people have the final say, either by voting or resorting to arms.
In a lot of ways, the Civil War resolved the second half of this question. No they can’t, short of absolutely massive violent resistance in all fifty states. And certainly not in the nuclear era.

Now, as for the moral cripple...
I’m terrified that Billy or you is going to show up at my IP address and further chastise me.
Cry some more. It wasn’t a threat, it was a notice that your absolute cawkheadery would never be tolerated by a real adult with half a spine. Actual men take insulting their honesty very poorly.
Your plan is to insult one mind at a time to convince others that you are arrogant @rses with no real plan for change, but who are perfectly willing to soak up any bennies our society offers you, whilst proclaiming your disdain for it and hoping for it’s demise?
Considering how completely you’ve failed to understand we have no interest in just about any of your "bennies" besides the ones government currently holds a complete monopoly on (roads, etc.), I’m astonished anyone could possibly consider the rest of your bizarre statement accurate.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
So, where does drunk driving fall?
If you don’t hurt anyone, I could care where it falls. If you cause someone to be hurt because you were stupid, however, you will deal with them to pay the penalty. What it is will depend on the harm, but if someone decides you need to die for killing their son because you were stupid, I would hardly object.
Here’s where I deviate from the purity of the live and let live credo. I am not content to wait around until my child is killed by a drunk driver to seek retribution (as if that would even be possible). You apparently don’t care if someone is driving drunk unless he actually causes harm. You apparently aren’t thinking about the significantly increased possibility for harm simply by driving drunk.

Is there any point where you concur that the risk of harm to others is high enough to warrant punishing or deterring the behavior, even though no actual harm has occurred? I’m reading a lot of declarations from the purists to think. Same to you.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
If a dude gets high on meth, runs into your car, then tries to run off- you really think people will just sit still for that? That the only reason they don’t just drive away is because the police will come when they get around to it?
Oh. Who’s gonna stop it?

In my wife’s case the dude’s van and my wife’s car were stuck. He wanted he to move the car so he could drive his vehicle, but she refused. If he could have driven away, he would have.
It’s almost like you have no moral center to make judgements about unethical behavior without written law. Without one, would you really have no idea what to do about a neighbor who was up to this?
No, what I trying to figure out is your moral center. You seem to think it’s Ok for me to take unilateral action, but government laws are wrong.
... maybe you really don’t have any idea, if you ask a question like this about a wholly innocent party.


Why do you think the store owner was innocent? I’m asking you what actions are appropriate for me to take if the store owner sells Jack Danials to my 12 year old.



 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"I am not content to wait around until my child is killed by a drunk driver to seek retribution (as if that would even be possible)."
You’d better not leave your house then, because it happens every day, and your government cannot stop it.

Face facts.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
On a jury requiring a unanimous verdict, he voted "guilty" to three mala prohibita crimes. What’s so difficult to understand here?

Well, I guess I’m asking where the fault lies.

Certainly, you’re prepared to judge the other 11 jurors morally wrong as well, correct?

And the judge?

And the DoC people who actually dragged the convicted away?

How about the DoC people who processed the man’s paperwork?

What about the legislators who enacted these laws?

What about those who voted for those legislators?

How about the people who pay the jury, judge, bailiffs, the Department of Corrections, etc.? That is, where does the buck actually stop?

 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
@ Billy -

Stop it, no. Significantly reduce it, yes.

You didn’t address anything I said, however.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"I’m asking you what actions are appropriate for me to take if the store owner sells Jack Danials to my 12 year old."
You sit your twelve year-old down and do your best to instill in him the values that you know are important, displacing what he thinks is important in all his ignorance of the world.

Do you understand?

You take responsibility for yourself and your child. You don’t off-load that on anyone else.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Billy Beck,
I have a news flash for you, boy-O: you don’t even have to "take away the state system" before they can disappear.
No kidding.
Naturally, you’re insinuating that rights disappear when the state does.
I’m insinuating no such thing. I stated quite clearly that in my opinion "natural rights" are imaginary philosophical concepts that only take reality when supported by a politcal system that enshrines them." I’ll spell it out more clearly so you may be able to grasp it this time. You have no actual rights in the absence of a state. Instead, you have whatever you are able to maintain by virture of your own resources. And that won’t be much when a superior force decides you don’t have the rights you claim.
Guess what: all the evidence of history says that you’re an ignoramus.
Laughable. The evidence on this blog suggests you have reading comprehension problems.
Stop being an ignoramus. It’s unnecessary and very unbecoming.
Please take your own advice. And stop acting like spoiled child when your cherished beliefs are challenged.
 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
"Certainly, you’re prepared to judge the other 11 jurors morally wrong as well, correct?"
As far as is now known, none of them were posing a blog headed "Free Markets, Free People".

The issue here is fraud.

I have given you good advice. You should act on it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Try to understand: freedom means that individuals do not require anyone’s approval for the peaceful conduct of their private affairs. - Billy Beck

I fully understand what a right is, including the right to own one’s life and act without the constraints of coercion. My point is that understanding the rationale for rights helps prioritize the areas where their establishment is most important. Here, of course, judgment is required.

Ultimately, liberty, which is needed for flourishing, allows floundering. I have absolutely no problem with someone floundering. It just wouldn’t be the first freedom that I’d fight for. But when the finishing touches are added, I have no problem including the most libertine of indulgences. This, of course, is anathema to the libertarian purists.
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
You take responsibility for yourself and your child. You don’t off-load that on anyone else
Oh, so NOW it’s "take responsibility for yourself"?

Yet not a single one of your anarcholibs have expressed the sentiment that Mr. Rhett assumed responsibility for the consequences of deciding to violate drug smuggling laws. Instead you’re offloading that responsibility to the jurors to nullify it.

Funny, funny stuff.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I offered one possibility earlier that has nothing to do with persuasion.
Translation-
**We’ve clearly stated our position (Dale did wrong - the great and mighty Oz has spoken), and we’re trying to find anyone that agrees with us. Any further talk on the subject might run into reality, and that’s the last thing you’d want when screaming Utopian generalities. You might get this:
What it is will depend on the harm, but if someone decides you need to die for killing their son because you were stupid, I would hardly object.
If they’re someone else’s kids and their parents are pissed off enough, then pay the penalty.

Which would be fine, if the family of the person you beat down or killed whatever didn’t think you were overreacting to his crime. Then they’d have the natural right to come hunt you down. At best you’d get the Hatfield and McCoys, which only claimed about one life a year. At worst, you can get the Middle East method where the violence rises from immediate families to tribes on up to where one section of the population wins, the other loses and is dominated.

Of course, in a setting where everyone beleived in natural rights, reasonable people would generally agree on what the reasonable reaction is. Maybe the best thinkers could get together and come up with a list of appropriate reactions. Then once everyone agreed to it, we could write it down for posterity. Crap -that sounds like laws. See-I knew we weren’t debating for a reason**

 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
You apparently aren’t thinking about the significantly increased possibility for harm simply by driving drunk.
I assure you, I am. Firearms and cars themselves would cause substantial possibility for harm, drunk or not. As a practical matter, a man visibly driving drunk will interfere with the smooth driving of others, and thusly be forced to stop. If they can drink substantially, yet show no effects behind the wheel- then that is their concern, with the caveat that harming anyone will result in loss of their property, reputation, and quite possibly their lives. Put another way, a man who doesn’t consider these things will not be considering the possibility of getting caught by the police.

I strongly discourage drunk driving. That doesn’t mean I think the state should be the organization responsible for enforcing it, but that it should rest in the judgement of the man responsible. I’m given to understand that not only can the state NOT prevent drunk drivers from causing innocent people to die, but that they actually made one a Senator.
No, what I trying to figure out is your moral center. You seem to think it’s Ok for me to take unilateral action, but government laws are wrong.
I’ve said it before in a different way, let me try and say it again. If it harms none, do what you will.
Why do you think the store owner was innocent? I’m asking you what actions are appropriate for me to take if the store owner sells Jack Danials to my 12 year old.
Ah, if that’s the case, it depends on why your child was buying it and why the store owner sold it. If the child bought some liquor and a bottle of Coke because you asked him to go to the store and grab it for you, then I hope you would take no action. If the child took advantage of the store owner’s trust, I would hope you’d discipline the child for his bad behavior, and properly instruct him as befits a parent. If the cashier connived to get your child drunk for his own sick pleasure, against the child’s will, then you would be well within your rights to describe the one who sold the liquor as a moral leper, and encourage all your friends to refuse to shop at that store. They would promptly be replaced by someone with a functioning conscience. And when that happens, you could proceed to punch him in the head for violating your child’s personal autonomy, if it took you that long to get to that point.

I hope this hypothesis has proven edifying?
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
On a jury requiring a unanimous verdict, he voted "guilty" to three mala prohibita crimes. What’s so difficult to understand here?
So, because you disagree with the law, or the current reading of it, you’re calling for the same kind of "jury nulification" that released OJ Simpson?



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Cry some more. It wasn’t a threat, it was a notice that your absolute cawkheadery would never be tolerated by a real adult with half a spine. Actual men take insulting their honesty very poorly.
So, then Actual men would, what, look at you sternly? Or would they...TAKE ACTION!
See, I just wondered if physical harm is a prescribed or proscribed libertarian approach to dealing with someone who questions your integrity or insults your honesty.
I can take it then that ’actual men’ aren’t practicing Libertarians because clearly ’actual men’ might harm Joe for using words they don’t like, and that would be contrary to the fundamental principles of NO HARM.

I mean, what with all the railing about doing things that don’t harm anyone being okay, carry on with the macho stuff while you argue about the principles of enlightened self restraint that are the to be practiced under the banners of true Libertarianism.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
"I stated quite clearly that in my opinion ’natural rights’ are imaginary philosophical concepts that only take reality when supported by a politcal system that enshrines them." I’ll spell it out more clearly..."
Shut up. I’ve seen this crap enough that I could recite it if I were in the same sort of coma it takes to post it in the first place. Your "opinion" is rubbish: it’s just wrong. Now, you can stand on it because it’s yours if you want to, but that won’t make it any more right. If what you said were actually true, then there would be no rational reason in the world to indict a criminal who had succeeded in violated the rights of his victim. What you’re saying is nothing more or less than "might makes right". A marginally educated child would reject this for the nonsense that it is, and there is no value in entertaining it in a forum full of ostensibly intelligent adults, which is exactly why I don’t. All it deserves is a stiff boot in the ass, which is the very limit of my interest in it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
"That doesn’t mean I think the state should be the organization responsible for enforcing it, but that it should rest in the judgement of the man responsible"
With all due respect, that’s preposterous. A drunk man is hardly able to judge his ability to drive safely.

No where have I suggested that the state can prevent all deaths from drunk driving. That would be preposterous as well. Can it, however, prevent significant deaths by arresting drunk drivers who have not yet caused harm? I think the answer is clearly yes. Would the state only be useful if it prevented ALL deaths? That’s a silly hook to hang your hat on.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
You seem to think it’s Ok for me to take unilateral action, but government laws are wrong.

It’s at least preferable, because then the responsibility is unilateral as well, as opposed to an infinite circle of finger pointing leaving no-one but "the system" ultimately responsible.

Yet not a single one of your anarcholibs have expressed the sentiment that Mr. Rhett assumed responsibility for the consequences of deciding to violate drug smuggling laws.

There were no consequences, until Dale (among others) chose to make some up.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"It just wouldn’t be the first freedom that I’d fight for."
Freedom is not a fungible concept.

No polylogists allowed.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
As far as is now known, none of them were posing a blog headed "Free Markets, Free People".

Hm, well, that sounds slightly subjective. Because they don’t claim to be libertarians, you won’t judge the morality of their actions.

I’m curious to know why anyone thinks a State wouldn’t just come after fallen State. Anarchy does not last.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
You sit your twelve year-old down and do your best to instill in him the values that you know are important, displacing what he thinks is important in all his ignorance of the world.

Do you understand?

You take responsibility for yourself and your child. You don’t off-load that on anyone else.
Fine. Let’s say I did that and my 12 y.o. bought Jack Danials and got blasted anyway. What’s the appropriate response?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Translation-
**We’ve clearly stated our position, and we’re trying to find anyone that agrees with us.


I don’t speak for any "we". Agreement is not the criteria and a position is not the test.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"Yet not a single one of your anarcholibs have expressed the sentiment that Mr. Rhett assumed responsibility for the consequences of deciding to violate drug smuggling laws."
Rhett had no such responsibility to anyone in his affair, and the insinuation that he did carry a responsibility commensurate to the one necessarily implicit in Don’s question about his twelve year-old is delusional.
"Funny, funny stuff."
Only fools laugh like you are. They laugh at all kinds of things that they don’t understand.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Which would be fine, if the family of the person you beat down or killed whatever didn’t think you were overreacting to his crime. Then they’d have the natural right to come hunt you down. At best you’d get the Hatfield and McCoys, which only claimed about one life a year. At worst, you can get the Middle East method where the violence rises from immediate families to tribes on up to where one section of the population wins, the other loses and is dominated.
Which is why reason is a critical necessity behind libertarian philosophy. A family would have to understand that the drunk driver had deprived someone of life due to his callous stupidity, and should therefore be punished. Protecting a killer would not be worth a feud, unless spiteful behavior somehow started to INCREASE fitness while I wasn’t looking. And the people around them could make sure the situation did not escalate, because harming others is the one good reason to get involved with someone else’s problems.

And bear in mind that the Hatfields and McCoys eventually solved their differences, in the era before monster government.
Of course, in a setting where everyone beleived in natural rights, reasonable people would generally agree on what the reasonable reaction is. Maybe the best thinkers could get together and come up with a list of appropriate reactions. Then once everyone agreed to it, we could write it down for posterity. Crap -that sounds like laws.
Right up to the point people are imprisoned for decades in response to growing certain herbs. It shouldn’t be regarded as an appropriate reaction, but there we are.
Fine. Let’s say I did that and my 12 y.o. bought Jack Danials and got blasted anyway. What’s the appropriate response?
That is for you to decide with your child. MY father, among others, would have methods in making certain his disapproval was keenly felt. You should have similar ones.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
“Freedom is not a fungible concept. No polylogists allowed.” – Billy Beck

Cute! But I’m not advocating multiple freedoms anymore than I’m arguing for multiple logics.

Liberty has never been established in a day. It usually takes centuries. One has to have priorities in the course of the struggle.
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
There were no consequences, until Dale (among others) chose to make some up
Hey Dale, I didn’t know you spontaneously wrote and ratified the laws in the 5 minutes prior to Mr. Rhetts escapade! That’s VERRRY impressive!

Gimme a break. The consequences were established and well known. Dale didn’t spring out from behind a bush and tell Mr. Rhett that he just got punk’d and was going to jail.

See, even before Dale "made up" these previously non-existant consequences, I was under the impression that if I got caught smuggling drugs, I could be subject to arrest, a trial by jury, and possible jail time if convicted.

So either Mr. Rhett knew about these well publicized and known consequences, or I’m a precognative who has knowledge of the future. And I don’t think that’s the case, since I figured the Colts wee gonna beat San Diego.

So I’m gonna have to say Mr. Rhett knew the risks, which means he assumes full responsibility for the consequences
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If what you said were actually true, then there would be no rational reason in the world to indict a criminal who had succeeded in violated the rights of his victim.

I guess someone doesn’t want to address the utilitarian arguments for this.

I think "because it doesn’t ’work’ any other way" is a perfectly rational reason.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
"Fine. Let’s say I did that and my 12 y.o. bought Jack Danials and got blasted anyway. What’s the appropriate response?"
How the hell should I know? He’s your brat, and I’m not interested. It’s none of my business.

Now, extend the logic, Don: it’s nobody else’s business, which is exactly why it’s absurd and politically abhorrent to attempt to force everyone else in the culture — through the device of government — to help you take care of your kid.

Can you see this?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
With all due respect, that’s preposterous. A drunk man is hardly able to judge his ability to drive safely.

Nowhere have I suggested that the state can prevent all deaths from drunk driving. That would be preposterous as well. Can it, however, prevent significant deaths by arresting drunk drivers who have not yet caused harm? I think the answer is clearly yes. Would the state only be useful if it prevented ALL deaths? That’s a silly hook to hang your hat on.
Could a man who had one beer be able to judge his condition to drive with any kind of accuracy? If you say yes, I’ll point out that there are people who would not. And when a blood alcohol level of 0.00% is rigidly enforced for driving a car, I just want everyone to know that I called it.

As for when the state’s useful, I wouldn’t regard it as a worthwhile trade if arresting anyone who owned a gun would stop every drop of gun violence. Would you?
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"Liberty has never been established in a day. It usually takes centuries. One has to have priorities in the course of the struggle."
They’re called principles, Jason.

"First things."

Those are the "priorities".
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Well at least this thread made mcQ and Jon’s life easier...they haven’t had to post anything all day, and the comments are going to top 200.

A good day for QandO.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"I guess someone doesn’t want to address the utilitarian arguments for this."
Step right up and try it. I dare you.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
A good day for QandO.....
If a good day can be measured in post counts, yes.

If measured in principles and lost respect, it’s actually been a ruinous time for QandO.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Yet not a single one of your anarcholibs have expressed the sentiment that Mr. Rhett assumed responsibility for the consequences of deciding to violate drug smuggling laws."
Rhett had no such responsibility to anyone in his affair, and the insinuation that he did carry a responsibility commensurate to the one necessarily implicit in Don’s question about his twelve year-old is delusional.
Rhett had no responsibility to anyone? Huh. I guess people aren’t responsible for their actions anymore. How refreshing!

I don’t know about you, but I feel I have a responsibility to myself and my family to not put myself in a position where I may have to be locked up for 10 years. I guess your opinion may vary.
"Funny, funny stuff."
Only fools laugh like you are. They laugh at all kinds of things that they don’t understand.
Yeah, like why anyone takes you seriously!


Didn’t you make the cover of Internet Tough Guy Magazine?
Don’t worry Billy, I still get a laugh out of your act.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Could a man who had one beer be able to judge his condition to drive with any kind of accuracy? If you say yes, I’ll point out that there are people who would not. And when a blood alcohol level of 0.00% is rigidly enforced for driving a car, I just want everyone to know that I called it."
Some men may be able to do so. Others clearly not. There are a lot of variables. What, then, are you arguing?

"As for when the state’s useful, I wouldn’t regard it as a worthwhile trade if arresting anyone who owned a gun would stop every drop of gun violence. Would you?"
No, I wouldn’t. First of all, because it won’t. Second of all, because the risk of harm (owning a gun vs. driving drunk) is different. Recognition of that is why we have stricter laws against driving drunk than owning a gun.



 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
It usually takes centuries.

I don’t have that long.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
I see no difference between the impossible fantasy of communism and the impossible fantasy of the society these libertarians would impose.

The only difference would be the title of the entities violating your rights.

I guess it’s just philosophically better if it’s a private interest shooting you in the head to take your property.

Power exists, and there can never be an absence of coercive power for long, the mere absence of coercive power would be the catalyst for it’s creation, and in the absence of government with coercive power, it would be private interest that would take on this mantle, and then, armed with coercive power, it would proceed to do all those things that libertarians despise government for doing, and then of course, it would be a government, giving libertarians the opening to complain about governments and how much better it would be if they did not have coercive power.

We all want to be left alone, until we don’t.

Libertarian is what someone is until someone sells drugs to their 13 year old daughter.





 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
They’re called principles, Jason. "First things." Those are the "priorities".

Of course, rights are principles. And, of course, we have such rights by our nature. The problem is securing these rights. Haven’t you noticed?

Virtue isn’t achieved in a day. Just as it takes time to develop character, so does it take time to change a culture—-the character of a society. Never in the course of human events have a people become virtuous in an instant or even in every degree. It’s a step by step process and one has to have priorities.

This is why libertarians are so trying. Like the Stoics (who essentially invented the concept of rights) you either have virtue completely or you are a slob. The only thing libertarians have to offer is "you’re not perfect yet so you’re fascist slob." I get the message.
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
Some men may be able to do so. Others clearly not. There are a lot of variables. What, then, are you arguing?
Mainly that a man who is drinking is not necessarily too drunk to drive. An absurdly risky activity I wouldn’t indulge in, but then I feel the same way about BASE jumping and smoking cigarettes. Government shouldn’t ban those either.
No, I wouldn’t. First of all, because it won’t. Second of all, because the risk of harm (owning a gun vs. driving drunk) is different. Recognition of that is why we have stricter laws against driving drunk than owning a gun.
Some people are ready to state than any risk of harm is enough to ban things, including owning a gun. Which is why liberals get so much traction on the issue.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
“It usually takes centuries.” – Jason “I don’t have that long.” – Kyle

I feel your pain. And share it!
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
To stick with the example, I doubt there were drunk driving laws before someone was injured in a drunk driving incident.
If you’ll reflect, laws are generally passed AFTER an incident has caused harm, not before. Generally.
This applies to building codes, etc, etc, etc.

And sometimes that’s when we get the biggest stinkers for legislation because of the over-reaching in trying to secure us from ’harm’, even if the only harm is to ourselves.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
And sometimes that’s when we get the biggest stinkers for legislation because of the over-reaching in trying to secure us from ’harm’, even if the only harm is to ourselves.
Exactly so. And now it happens all the time. Even the point self-professed libertarians will brag about it.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"Mainly that a man who is drinking is not necessarily too drunk to drive. An absurdly risky activity I wouldn’t indulge in, but then I feel the same way about BASE jumping and smoking cigarettes. Government shouldn’t ban those either."
So here is where an assessment of risk is required, rather than simply fall back on the idea that if no harm to someone else has actually occurred, no action need be taken. That was the original point I was making and you don’t seem to want to engage it. Probabilities matter. Is the risk of harm to others equal between drunk driving and BASE jumping? I trust the answer to that is obvious.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"Rhett had no responsibility to anyone?"
I know why you elided what I wrote the way you just did.

If anyone else here does not understand why this "shark" person did that, ask me, and I’ll explain it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
If measured in principles and lost respect, it’s actually been a ruinous time for QandO.
Well I’d just leave and not come back...I mean after I’ve slept with her and lost ALL respect for her, I leave and don’t call her again...Unless I can raid her ’fridge, then I get some toast and OJ, PROMISE to call her and then don’t....but since you can’t get at Dale’s ’fridge mayhap you just ought to leave, and not call Dale any more.

The Intarwebs worry about "hits" I’m led to believe, so it was a good day at QandO, and for you...you got to trot out your best An-Cap arguments, prove your moral superiority and sling some insults, I mean how isn’t that a great day, for you?

It’s not like you were actually goiong to produce any more liberty or make any more converts today, any way so you might as well come here and impress with your profound intellect. It’s not like you were Ron Paul actually running for something and trying to be POTUS to change anything....instead you were "Right" and shwoed your inherent "Rightness" to the rest of us. And isn’t that the ESSENCE of being an An-Cap, at least at QandO?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’m smarter than you.

And you know what? That’s a real shame.
Based on what, exactly?
Dishonest is one hell of a claim to back up.
coming from you? That’s rich.

You’re a hypocrite, and a dishonest one at that.

No better than Erb.
No, I pointed out that libertarian ideals in those nations permitted many people to thrive in unprecedented fashion. I made no claim that slavery or government repression played any role but a detrimental one.
Which is utter nonsense.

The US has prospered even moreso in the intervening years than could have EVER been conceived in the 19th Century.

Again, you’re simply incorrect.
My understanding is that jury nullification was an accepted practice only 100 years ago, give or take a decade.
actually, it still goes on today. It’s just really rare.
Try to understand: freedom means that individuals do not require anyone’s approval for the peaceful conduct of their private affairs.
Finally, an actual argument.

I completely agree with you. However, Government being a social endevor/contract, there are limitiations we place on it, either willingly or not.

The bottom line is this: you either revolt, move, acquiess, or try to change from within. Anarchy isn’t a solution, and even revolting has a goal in mind. But that’s what happens when you live with more than just yourself. The ideal you long for is incompatable with people living together in anything resembling a society.
The issue here is fraud.

I have given you good advice. You should act on it.
It’s a damned shame you’re head is so far stuck up your own @rse you can’t see straight, because you make good arguments when you aren’t acting all high and mighty, being condescending or just being a general D!ck.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
“It usually takes centuries.” – Jason “I don’t have that long.” – Kyle

I feel your pain. And share it!


The pain goes away when you decide to drop the idea of taking everyone else with you. That wasn’t pain I was expressing, it was goodbye.


 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
It’s none of my business.

That’s a healthy way to look at things. It really is.

Unfortunately, not everybody thinks this way.

It’s in our best interest to get others to think this way. And marketing is important.

They’re called principles, Jason. "First things." Those are the "priorities".

Well, you certainly didn’t form those principles a priori. You needed some data or evidence that these principles work. If you adhere to them in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary, that’d make your principles religion.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Shut up. I’ve seen this crap enough that I could recite it if I were in the same sort of coma it takes to post it in the first place. Your "opinion" is rubbish: it’s just wrong.
Sorry, I don’t find some angry clown shouting me down to be a convincing counter-argument. You are acting like a religious fanatic when confronted with someone who doesn’t believe in your mystical concepts.
If what you said were actually true, then there would be no rational reason in the world to indict a criminal who had succeeded in violated the rights of his victim.
That’s just pure nonsense right there. For someone who reveres reason, you aren’t demonstrating much of it.
What you’re saying is nothing more or less than "might makes right".
You can’t possibly be this clueless. What I am saying is that a state system that recognizes and enshrines "rights" as part of its makeup is what prevents "might makes right" from being the general rule. Again, without the political structure to support them, rights are merely empty concepts.



 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
"...these libertarians would impose."
That’s such a rotten little lie. It’s just ghastly that anyone has the nerve to actually post it, but it happens all the time.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Well I’d just leave and not come back...I mean after I’ve slept with her and lost ALL respect for her, I leave and don’t call her again.

Yeah, but her roommate is kinda hot, and maybe doesn’t realize that the b1tch has been pocketing the rent money and their both about to get put out on the street.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"The only thing libertarians have to offer is "you’re not perfect yet so you’re fascist slob."
Look, Jason: when a man who poses as a libertarian walks into a federal court and does his part to throw another man who has harmed no one to the mercies of a federal prison, it’s something categorically different from "not perfect".

This conceptual infirmity of yours is not doing you or Franks any favors.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
If anyone else here does not understand why this "shark" person did that, ask me, and I’ll explain it.
Do tell "Billy" (if that is your real name!)

But kudos to that superior intellect of yours for realizing that "Shark" isn’t my birth name.

Maybe you really are as smart as you act!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Power exists, and there can never be an absence of coercive power for long, the mere absence of coercive power would be the catalyst for it’s creation, and in the absence of government with coercive power, it would be private interest that would take on this mantle, and then, armed with coercive power, it would proceed to do all those things that libertarians despise government for doing, and then of course, it would be a government, giving libertarians the opening to complain about governments and how much better it would be if they did not have coercive power.
Exactly
 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
"However, Government being a social endevor/contract,..."
Show me my name on the "contract", or else stop stealing the concept.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
So here is where an assessment of risk is required, rather than simply fall back on the idea that if no harm to someone else has actually occurred, no action need be taken. That was the original point I was making and you don’t seem to want to engage it. Probabilities matter. Is the risk of harm to others equal between drunk driving and BASE jumping? I trust the answer to that is obvious.
I maintain that someone who can be noticed driving erratically should be stopped, regardless of whether they’ve been drinking or not. The risk is clearly greater with drunk driving: what I need you to acknowledge is that the current popular trend among a lot of people, especially gun-grabbing liberals, is that ANY risk ought to be banned.

Perhaps my perception on the issue is clouded by the knowledge that in Canada, police recently set up checkpoints in the street to catch drunk drivers, by screening EVERYONE driving through particular areas. It can happen here, and sooner rather than later.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"...these libertarians would impose."
That’s such a rotten little lie. It’s just ghastly that anyone has the nerve to actually post it, but it happens all the time.
No, it’s not a lie, your society would not change anything except who had the power to violate your rights, you would eliminate government’s coercive power, and what you ignore or fail to consider, is that this act would have consequences, namely, the replacement of who wields coercive power. I suspect you are keenly aware of this, but because in your mind it is philosophically better to have your head bashed in by private interests, you prefer that option.

Meet the new boss

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Show me my name on the "contract"

You don’t even get to see the "contract" until after you’ve torn open the box. No refunds, no returns.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Suppose there’s no law against Base Jumping, and I happen to live at the bottom of the cliff the jumpers keep leaping off of, and their chutes, bought from various non-regulated chute making companies, keep failing.

I don’t own the top of the mountain, just the bottom of the cliff - what, exactly, am I supposed to do, because they’re harming me with their ’free’ behavior. Suppose they keep wrecking my Jacuzzi and splattering all over my patio?
I maintain that someone who can be noticed driving erratically should be stopped, regardless of whether they’ve been drinking or not. The risk is clearly greater with drunk driving: what I need you to acknowledge is that the current popular trend among a lot of people, especially gun-grabbing liberals, is that ANY risk ought to be banned.

Perhaps my perception on the issue is clouded by the knowledge that in Canada, police recently set up checkpoints in the street to catch drunk drivers, by screening EVERYONE driving through particular areas. It can happen here, and sooner rather than later.
So, who, is going to stop them? - concerned fellow freedom lovers? By what right? What harm have they caused so far, erratic or not if they haven’t actually done anyone or anything any actual damage?
I maintain that someone who can be noticed driving erratically should be stopped
presumably then, there will be a, I’ll call it a ’rule’, that fellow freedom lovers can stop anyone who they notice driving erratically. Let’s call that, um, rule #1.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
when a man who poses as a libertarian walks into a federal court and does his part to throw another man who has harmed no one to the mercies of a federal prison, it’s something categorically different from "not perfect".

I suppose this is true in some sense.

Although, sans withdrawing from society, I am failing to see a single case of a "perfect" libertarian, by your standards.

what I need you to acknowledge is that the current popular trend among a lot of people, especially gun-grabbing liberals, is that ANY risk ought to be banned.

Acknowledged.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
I mean how isn’t that a great day, for you?
I am completely confident that you wouldn’t understand how every sorry bit of this mess is profoundly tragic, no matter how much time I took to explain it.

In a perfect world, Dale Franks would be haunted to the ends of the Earth by Scott Rhett’s spirit, for his complete abandoning of libertarian principles to condemn a morally innocent man.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"what I need you to acknowledge is that the current popular trend among a lot of people, especially gun-grabbing liberals, is that ANY risk ought to be banned."
Of course not. I thought I was quite clear on that. Not all risks are equal. But agreeing that stopping someone’s action before harm is caused to another is different than the idea that you and others (not that you are required to answer for anyone else) have been expressing here today, namely that harm must first occur for action to be taken.
"Perhaps my perception on the issue is clouded by the knowledge that in Canada, police recently set up checkpoints in the street to catch drunk drivers, by screening EVERYONE driving through particular areas. It can happen here, and sooner rather than later."
It happens in the USA too. I’m not sure how I feel about it. Drunk driving has great potential for harm to others. It’s not like smoking or BASE jumping.

Looker, I would assume that they are violating your property rights by jumping onto your property.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
I’m sure Mr. Rhett would really enjoy this stimulating debate as he looks at spending the next decade in grim misery. This is a human life, not some abstract hypothetical to play with. As far as we know the guy wasn’t hurting anyone, and now he’s going to live in a cage and try to avoid beatings and rape.

You can talk about philosiphers, social contracts, voting, and whatever else gets dragged in here, but the morality of the thing is obvious.
 
Written By: Shamus Young
URL: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale
"However, Government being a social endevor/contract,..."
Show me my name on the "contract", or else stop stealing the concept.
You got a social security card?




 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"You can’t possibly be this clueless."
That’s the truth. I’m deviating from your own written words in very small percentage points. You think rights don’t or can’t exist without government. This is a wholesale overthrow of nearly three hundred years of political thought that put to the grave all the oppression of prior millennia. I almost never see anything more ridiculous than this whole strain of "thought", although I see it often. It’s very common. And so are you. These days, that’s a serious indictment.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I don’t own the top of the mountain, just the bottom of the cliff - what, exactly, am I supposed to do, because they’re harming me with their ’free’ behavior. Suppose they keep wrecking my Jacuzzi and splattering all over my patio?
Now you’re just being a sophist, but feel free to seek redress from their estate if they keep dying around your property. If they can’t respect your property rights, they have no right to be going near it.
So, who, is going to stop them? - concerned fellow freedom lovers? By what right? What harm have they caused so far, erratic or not if they haven’t actually done anyone or anything any actual damage?
They’re interfering with your enjoyment of the road you’re driving on. Isn’t that enough?
presumably then, there will be a, I’ll call it a ’rule’, that fellow freedom lovers can stop anyone who they notice driving erratically. Let’s call that, um, rule #1.
They were already violating THE #1 rule when they drove in a manner that impeded other people’s use of the road. Therefore, penalties are appropriate. Not to mention the owner of the road can set whatever rules they like about what can and cannot be done on it.

I think about these principles from the ground up.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"You got a social security card?"
Well, the government says I do. 430-21-4093. You can have it. I don’t use it. The government does. And every thinking person knows that it takes more than the unilateral assertion of one side to make a "contract".

Stop being dumb.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
You got a social security card?

You must be new here.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Are you fvcking serious? Shamus Bloody Young reads QandO? I’ll be.

I loved DM of the Rings. :D Even happier to know you’re on the side of the angels in this.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"or his complete abandoning of libertarian principles to condemn a morally innocent man. "
To connect the dots, is the drunk driver who has not yet harmed anyone morally innocent? Either way, where do you draw the line? To what extent does the probability to commit harm (to others) matter? And no, I’m not necessarily equating drunk driving with smuggling pot.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
for his complete abandoning of libertarian principles to condemn a morally innocent man.

I’m failing to see how he’s more guilty than any of us, who paid for the judge and the prisons in the first place.

guilt now, guilt forever.

You think rights don’t or can’t exist without government.

Well, Billy, the crucial distinction is that I believe that the meaningful exercise of said rights does not exist without a government.

As an example, if you have the desire to buy something, but no money, well, that desire still exists, you just can’t meaningfully exercise it. If you have the money but no desire, what’s the purpose in having the cash?
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
I’m failing to see how he’s more guilty than any of us, who paid for the judge and the prisons in the first place.

He had a choice of alternative actions. Is it really that hard?
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
It happens in the USA too. I’m not sure how I feel about it. Drunk driving has great potential for harm to others. It’s not like smoking or BASE jumping.
Agreed, which is why I’d prefer people arrest others based on erratic driving more than drunk driving. It’s possible, as I’ve stated, to be sober and endanger others, while it’s quite possible to only have one beer yet be as sober as a priest.
Either way, where do you draw the line?
The line being where it is- that’s a severe indictment of everyone involved, which has been our point for some time. A drunk driver’s ability to cause harm is in some doubt, which is why I’d be much less vociferous about his punishment. But a man who hasn’t morally harmed anyoned?
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
I have a news flash for you, boy-O: you don’t even have to "take away the state system" before they can disappear. Naturally, you’re insinuating that rights disappear when the state does. Guess what: all the evidence of history says that you’re an ignoramus.
The notion of natural rights is a relatively recent creation. The evidence of history suggests that rights are not natural because, at least since humans have been organizing in clans and tribes, natural individual rights have not been recognized and very often and easily broken (slavery was for a long time the preferred way of getting work done). So I’m not sure what you mean by ’all the evidence of history.’

Locke essentially argued that you’re not a human if you’re not alive, so you have a right to life. You can’t persist as a human if you don’t have the chance to go out and produce and take care of yourself so you have a right to liberty. You can’t survive and have shelter if you don’t have property, so you have a right for property. He claimed these were "natural" because if you take them away, the human can’t survive. Alas, they are poorly defined — Locke recognized limits on the rights of property and freedom, so he certainly didn’t see them as absolute. Hayek and others also recognized that these can’t be seen as abstract absolutes, their meaning is too vague. Burke recognized the cultural component of rights in his masterful critique of the French revolution.

If anyone has a good, cogent argument about why natural rights should be seen to exist (rather than asserting so), that would be nice to see.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Christ, you’re stupid. You: the one with the stolen net.nick.

I’m about to run out the door to give a kid a guitar lesson. I’ll be back to beat your ass later.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I am completely confident that you wouldn’t understand how every sorry bit of this mess is profoundly tragic, no matter how much time I took to explain it.
Well No of course not, but thankfully you’e here to show me how tragically wrong this is...and so it’s a great day for you! Yuo get to demonstrate your profound moral superiority to us what can’t unner’stan...See it’s good day and not like you were doing anything else to promote liberty.
In a perfect world, Dale Franks would be haunted to the ends of the Earth by Scott Rhett’s spirit, for his complete abandoning of libertarian principles to condemn a morally innocent man.


Scott’s not dead, yet...the man has only taken his freedom, but not yet his Life...or is this kind of astral projection?

So in the perfect, An-Cap world, transcental metaphsysical acts occur? Hey I’m kinding of liking this "perfect world". You mean like your spirit could show up and knock some teeth out of my spirits mouth for quesioning your honesty? Or my spirit could move out and have sex with oh say Pam Anderson’s spirit, as long as she consented? Would that be adultery or just adultery in the noumenal world? Could my partner sue for alimony or just virtual alimony? Wow thanks for coming Trevelyan, you’ve opened up a WHOLE new realm of An-Cap philosphy I never knew existed!
Yeah, but her roommate is kinda hot, and maybe doesn’t realize that the b1tch has been pocketing the rent money and their both about to get put out on the street.


Mayhap you could take the room mate in as an act of "charity." Mayhap both of them for a little..well...you know....get it on film put it on the Internet.




 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Now you’re just being a sophist, but feel free to seek redress from their estate if they keep dying around your property. If they can’t respect your property rights, they have no right to be going near it.
No, I’m presenting an actual possible scenario based on an inherent danger in base jumping. The danger is NOT just to the jumper, there are dangers to things under the jumper as well, not so?
You just don’t like the scenario because it presents a very real world situation that doesn’t get comfortably covered by answers you have on hand without resorting to the current structures we have for dealing with this sort of thing.
They were already violating THE #1 rule when they drove in a manner that impeded other people’s use of the road. Therefore, penalties are appropriate. Not to mention the owner of the road can set whatever rules they like about what can and cannot be done on it.

I think about these principles from the ground up.
Great, who is going to determine the penalty? The road owner? Okay.
Who will enforce stopping the driver so we can determine and enforce the penalty? Men hired by the owner, presumably?

So, if a collective of people own the road, the ’owners’, and they empower men to stop and enforce penalties, that’s okay, right?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Well, the government says I do. 430-21-4093. You can have it. I don’t use it. The government does. And every thinking person knows that it takes more than the unilateral assertion of one side to make a "contract".
Unilateral?

You vote? You pay any taxes? Maybe you have a drivers license or ID?

You give consent by your presence here.



But thanks for the SSN. You have enough credit line for me to use it to get a plasma tv?
Now you’re just being a sophist, but feel free to seek redress from their estate if they keep dying around your property. If they can’t respect your property rights, they have no right to be going near it.
And what if the estate tells you to go pound sand? Then I suppose you exercise your natural right and take appropriate redress?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Wow, what a thread. And Joel C. is winning because he’s slamming both Billy and me by comparing us to each other. Ouch.

Yet it seems like a lot of angels dancing on the head of the pin argument. Reality: we are all completely free to do whatever we want, limited only by the circumstances we find ourselves in (including our capacities), and the consequences of our actions (including other others react). With that freedom we’ve created, through cooperation and conflict, governments, states, businesses, and a variety of social organizations. Reflecting on human social creations, we can find fault with them, we can posit rights as "ought" statements (it seems impossible to posit them as an "is" statement since they are so easily thrown aside) and convince others to work towards them, but grand theories of the "right" way things should be don’t work — it’s opinion, nothing anyone can prove.

Yet that’s OK, we don’t need to find the "right" system, we bring our ideas to the world and interact with others in a way that allows reflective criticism (I’m thinking of Popper’s book here). We can choose to pursue that not because it’s the one right way, but because we believe it’s a good path to take. We can work together to overthrow tyrants or work to limit government power not because there is some proof out there that the government is bad or violating some divine/natural right, but because we believe it’s best to change. That’s reality. Or we can simply get our fun by debating about this over and over, or making self-righteous pontifications. It doesn’t add much, but if someone feels better about himself or has fun sparring with others that way, that’s OK too.

Because, after all, true freedom means the freedom to hold diverse ideas and principles. And, since each individual acts on his or her ideals and principles in whatever context one finds oneself, then the question is whether one is an idealist (sticks to those principles and ideals no matter what) or a realist (makes compromises to try to get something at least a bit closer to ones’ ideals). And that kind of idealist-realist debate has been going on for millenia.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
And every thinking person knows that it takes more than the unilateral assertion of one side to make a "contract".

Sure.

Billy, do you have a car that you have registered and licensed with your local governmental apparatus?

He had a choice of alternative actions. Is it really that hard?

So does the taxpayer. The consequences just suck a lot harder.

The option still exists. Why do you give the guy funding the State a pass?

Christ, you’re stupid. You: the one with the stolen net.nick....I’ll be back to beat your ass later.

You always knew how to butter a guy up, Billy. I think deep down you love me.

As for the ass beating, well, we shall see. Though I have no doubt that whatever the real outcome, you shall declare victory, as you were wont to do over at Reason.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Randian, go back to H&R...your better off over there.
 
Written By: Cindy
URL: http://
The option still exists. The consequences just suck a lot harder.

And the imposition of entirely artificial consequences is the essence of coercion, which is generally taken to be morally identical to the negating of options.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
You give consent by your presence here.
Ding....give the man a cigar.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Well, y’see, "OK. Good luck with that" just didn’t strike me as any sort of real endorsement.
That’s because it was a stupid answer, and didn’t deserve any endorsement.
Still, although you and I have disagreement, I had no good reason to question your courage. And now that I’ve done some background checking, please accept my sincere thanks for your military service and my apologies for my error.
You come kiting in here, with no knowledge about me at all, decide I’m stupid and evil, and a coward to boot, and immediately lay in with ad hominem attacks and vitriol.

Even if I were inclined to anarcholibertarianism, direct experience with you guys would put me right off it.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
No, I’m presenting an actual possible scenario based on an inherent danger in base jumping. The danger is NOT just to the jumper, there are dangers to things under the jumper as well, not so?

You just don’t like the scenario because it presents a very real world situation that doesn’t get comfortably covered by answers you have on hand without resorting to the current structures we have for dealing with this sort of thing.
Well, I don’t like the question because people are violating your property rights in what appears to be a suicidal manner. BASE jumpers are generally thrill-seekers, not suicides: simply pointing out that anyone jumping down on your property is going to be treated like a trespasser should deal with the vast majority of people who wanted to try it. It shouldn’t be a problem for very long, if you put a sign at the top of the cliff.

Not to mention that if they will their property to anyone, you get first call at it due to the damage they first caused to your property.
So, if a collective of people own the road, the ’owners’, and they empower men to stop and enforce penalties, that’s okay, right?
The Constitution happens to explicitly provide for government to develop roads, so I wouldn’t be morally outraged about that clause. I’d PREFER private developers managing the roads, mind you, especially as it’s one less reason to need a government in the first place.

Fundamentally, the minor disagreement I have about erratic driving vs. having a beer before driving pales in comparison to the moral abomination which started this, which was an innocent man being sentenced to 10 years of prison.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
‘a man who poses as a libertarian walks into a federal court and does his part to throw another man who has harmed no one to the mercies of a federal prison, it’s something categorically different from "not perfect"’ – Billy

Damn right! It’s outrageous that Michael Milken, Leona Helmsley, and Martha Stewart were thrown into jail. Oh, that’s right you’re talking about the poor drug dealer. You’d start at the other end of the list of victims than I would.

Since you can’t help everyone at once (dream on!) you’d leave Michael, Leona, and Martha in prison while you try and spring some gang leader. You don’t do libertarians any favor by championing the worse examples of liberty’s abuse while productive citizens are languishing in jail. It gives a bad impression.
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
In a perfect world, Dale Franks would be haunted to the ends of the Earth by Scott Rhett’s spirit, for his complete abandoning of libertarian principles to condemn a morally innocent man.
Rhett is not morally innocent.

No matter if the prohibition of dope is right or wrong, it is known to exist and thousands of people have gone to prison for supply and trafficking. This imposes a supply restriction in the USA and has driven up the price. If Rhett had succeeded he would have profited from the state imprisoning his competitors, and in attempting to exploit the coercive power of the state for his own benefit he is morally guilty. He failled in his attempt.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
And the imposition of entirely artificial consequences...

Artificial? What in the world do you mean, "artificial"?

 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
BASE jumpers are generally thrill-seekers, not suicides: simply pointing out that anyone jumping down on your property is going to be treated like a trespasser should deal with the vast majority of people who wanted to try it. It shouldn’t be a problem for very long, if you put a sign at the top of the cliff.
Hey, I’m not calling these guys suicides, I’m saying an accident happened, but nevertheless, MY property was busted up by this, now dead, guy, and I want it repaired.
I said earlier, I don’t own the top of the mountain, just this part under the cliff. Been in the family for generations, so selling it is right out you see.
Not to mention that if they will their property to anyone, you get first call at it due to the damage they first caused to your property.
Fine - who enforces this?
We agree there are consequences for actions - who enforces these consequences, who determines what they shall be?



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
If Rhett had succeeded he would have profited from the state imprisoning his competitors, and in attempting to exploit the coercive power of the state for his own benefit he is morally guilty.

Erm...ahh...no.

Not unless you think that me "speeding" and not getting caught is because the State is too busy with my "competitors" on the road.

And, of course, just because he may or may not be "morally guilty" (whatever in the WORLD that means) doesn’t mean that 10 years in prison follows as a reasonable punishment.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
And the imposition of entirely artificial consequences...

Artificial? What in the world do you mean, "artificial"?


"If you drop this big rock on your head you will die." - Natural consequence.

"If you don’t pick up this big rock, I will kill you." - Artificial consequence.

See how easy this is with just a little brain power, Anti-Randian? Now you try it. Figure out the rest of what I said. No fair peeking, and you won’t get any more help from me.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Not unless you think that me "speeding" and not getting caught is because the State is too busy with my "competitors" on the road.
Are you saying people pay you extra to speed because the government manages to arrest other speeders but not you?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Hey, I’m not calling these guys suicides, I’m saying an accident happened, but nevertheless, MY property was busted up by this, now dead, guy, and I want it repaired.
I said earlier, I don’t own the top of the mountain, just this part under the cliff. Been in the family for generations, so selling it is right out you see.
Then talk to the guy who owns the top and explain you don’t want BASE jumpers killing themselves on your property. Putting up a sign shouldn’t be much of a problem. If it’s public land, then putting up a sign definitely isn’t a problem. Communicating that trespassing will be rewarded with a bullet to the head will solve your problems.

If the guy at the top is a total cawk, then inform him he’s responsible for letting people use his property to damage yours. Unless he jumps himself one day, there shouldn’t be a problem. If all else fails, you can take it to third-party arbitration, which doesn’t rely on government or courts.
We agree there are consequences for actions - who enforces these consequences, who determines what they shall be?
On your property, you or your authorized representative. Elsewhere, the owner of the property, or you if your natural rights are being violated.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Communicating that trespassing will be rewarded with a bullet to the head will solve your problems.
Yeah. Because killing a guy who simply trespasses on your property is both reasonable and proportional.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Anti-Randian

And the imposition of entirely artificial consequences...

Artificial? What in the world do you mean, "artificial"?

(me)you won’t get any more help from me.


What the heck, I’m feeling generous. One more example. But be careful, this one is a bit more abstract. It might go right past you if you’re not prepared, so put your little propeller-beanie on and get ready...

"If you attack me, I will defend myself (possibly resulting in your injury or death)" - Natural consequence.

"If you attack me, I will kill your family" - Artificial consequence.

Did you catch that one? Good boy.

And just for grins, here’s another.

"If you smoke pot, you may be incapable of holding a job" - natural consequence.

"If you smoke pot, you will go to jail" - artificial consequence.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Then talk to the guy who owns the top and explain you don’t want BASE jumpers killing themselves on your property.
Guy who owns the top: But, I make my living charging base jumpers a hefty fee for jumping from here. It’s how I feed my kids. So, f*ck off.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
On your property, you or your authorized representative. Elsewhere, the owner of the property, or you if your natural rights are being violated.
Who will ensure that when I enforce my natural rights I don’t go overboard?
What if I determine their cow is sufficent payment, and they determine their cow is all that is going to get what’s left of their family through the winter?
So I take the cow, presumably I bring friends, or I have guns, or something, and while I think it’s just payment, THEY think I’ve overenforced my rights.

If I ’overenforce’ my rights, I presume the jumper’s family may now come back and enforce their violated rights?
and so on
until one of us runs out of bodies perhaps?







 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Condescension aside, Kyle, you’re drawing an arbitrary line between natural and artificial.

Perhaps you should explain, in abstract terms rather than concrete ones, what "artificial" and "natural" mean to you, because your referents aren’t corresponding to a useful distinction that I can see.

Man and his artifacts are not outside of nature, and that includes the State. Unless you’re prepared to argue that all of human history is unnatural, because States existed.

Are you saying people pay you extra to speed because the government manages to arrest other speeders but not you?

In a sense, I benefit from the fact that government agents are distracted with the more "egregious" speeders, because the government has limited resources. Just because people don’t physically hand me dollar bills doesn’t mean my time is worth nothing, you know.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Communicating that trespassing will be rewarded with a bullet to the head will solve your problems.
Bullet to the head for tresspassing = acceptable

10 years for drug smuggling = moral abomination.


Gotcha.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Hey Dale,

You don’t have time to be debating abstract philosophical points - you’ve got soul-searching to do, remorse to express, and amends to make. It’s a lifetime of work you’ve cut out for yourself. Hop to it.

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
...your referents aren’t corresponding to a useful distinction that I can see

Lemme fix that for ya...

"...your referents aren’t corresponding to a useful distinction that I can am willing to see."

Sorry, can’t help you with that problem.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Communicating that trespassing will be rewarded with a bullet to the head will solve your problems.
Does sound a bit like harm doesn’t it?

So, it would be okay if I communicated that female trespassers will be raped, and children trespassers will be sold into slavery?
Right?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m about to run out the door to give a kid a guitar lesson. I’ll be back to beat your ass later.
If that’s an actual picture of Billy on his blog, I wouldn’t worry too much about the ass-kicking.

From the reactions of the "true libertarians" to Dale’s post, I think I can distill the essence of Libertarianism down to one sentence:

DON’T F*CK WITH MY POT YOU F*CKING FASCISTS!!!!111!!!11

Typical how THE hot-button issue for the most radical fundamental libertarians is always drugs and their right to grow, synthesize, sell, purchase or ingest them. All the other bullsh*t about "natural rights" is just a smoke screen.

And answer me this, Rugged Individualist: what good are your "natural rights" when I decide I want to take them away from you? You can safely assume that I am bigger, stronger, better trained, have bigger, better and more guns, and are willing to bushwhack you and all that stand with you with no warning, wiping you out to the last man, woman and child? Hmmmm?

Who is left to make me pay the consequences? After all, I didn’t harm THEM, now did I? And I’ve wiped you out and anyone that cares what happens to you.

So who’s gonna make me pay? And what right do they have, since it’s none of their f*cking business?

In the absence of government, Might Makes Right. And while you "true libertarians" are busy hitting the bong, I’ll be busy taking all your sh*t away from you, because I can.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Hey Dale,

You don’t have time to be debating abstract philosophical points - you’ve got soul-searching to do, remorse to express, and amends to make. It’s a lifetime of work you’ve cut out for yourself. Hop to it.
What right do you have to order Dale around? That’s not very libertarian.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
"Look, there are two mutually exclusive premises here..."

I don’t think they are entirely mutually exclusive. I think government is a necessary evil.



"This is still the best and funniest post among this whole topic."

True, but that is certainly not saying much. This is a notably humorless bunch.
Then there is Erb’s;

’When one says everyone else is wrong and he is right, that often is a sign that the person is mistaken’.

which, though hilarious, doesn’t count as it was unintentionally funny.


"Instead, you condescend in a way that can only be considered Erbian."

*GASP*
At long last, sir, have you no decency?!


" Actual men take insulting their honesty very poorly"

As opposed to insulting their morality?


"Rhett had no such responsibility to anyone in his affair,"

So if I walk in front of a speeding train I have no responsibility for the consequences to myself and my family? Sounds sort of like an argument John Edwards and his fellow attorneys make.

"If anyone else here does not understand why this "shark" person did that, ask me, and I’ll explain it."

I will even say please.


It seems to me I have read about this wonderful condition of having little if any government. The words feud and vendetta immediately come to mind. Sven steals my cow, I burn his barn, he rapes and kills my sister, I kill him, his brothers kill me, my kin.... Sounds delightful, but no thanks.
As I said before, it is irrational to expect people to act (or react) rationally. If your system relies on rational action, it is as much fantasy as the scientific socialism Joe mentioned. I might even concede that it is a very moral fantasy, more so than the present system, but it is still fantasy. No thanks, I prefer my fantasies to include things like eternal bliss in Heaven, or at least a few virgins.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"Fundamentally, the minor disagreement I have about erratic driving vs. having a beer before driving pales in comparison to the moral abomination which started this, which was an innocent man being sentenced to 10 years of prison."
Trevalyan, you have not clearly stated if and why the drunk (and let’s say somewhat erratic) driver is more or less morally innocent than the man who has smuggled drugs across the border. (I don’t believe anyone has addressed this; but I might have missed something.)

There is a lot of asserting that the smuggler is morally innocent because he hasn’t harmed anyone (if I’m following the argument correctly). Okay, I can accept that. But neither has the erratic drunk driver. Neither has the guy who happens to be selling plutonium to Al Qaeda. Or the guy browsing through his child porn collection. I’m sure we can all think of questionable (or maybe they aren’t questionable to you) activities that in and of themselves are not causing direct harm.

Is the reason the smuggler is morally innocent because he’s caused no harm to anyone else? Does that make everyone who has not caused any harm to anyone else (yet) equally innocent? Or does the probability of causing harm to someone else play any role? And no, I’m not claiming that the smuggler had a high probability of harming someone else. That’s hard to ascertain.

I’d appreciate it if one of you (Trevalyan, Beck, Richard, Kyle, Tom, etc.) could directly address this as I genuinely trying to understand how you differentiate. If your response is going to a smug piss don’t bother.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Kyle,

"If you attack me, I will kill your family" - Artificial consequence.

Please explain why this is (to you) an "artificial consequence" and in what sense you’re using the term "artificial".

 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
You can safely assume that I am bigger, stronger, better trained, have bigger, better and more guns, and are willing to bushwhack you and all that stand with you with no warning, wiping you out to the last man, woman and child? Hmmmm?

Well, then, Jethro, you can just as safely assume I have an army of cloned magical unicorns.

What right do you have to order Dale around?

Exactly the same right you have to demand an answer to that.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Not unless you think that me "speeding" and not getting caught is because the State is too busy with my "competitors" on the road.
The difference in profit between hauling 500 lb. of loose feed and 500 lb. of dope Mexico to America is due to coercion applied by the state. Mr Rhett imported dope to take advantage of this considerable profit.

He got a sentence he knew he was liable for if he got caught. He chose this undertake a risky enterprise made profitable by the risk of imprisonment, so yes the ten years he got were entirely justified.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
what sense you’re using the term "artificial"

Created by consciousness, as opposed to pre-existing it, Mr. Randian

Careful, my response to your next post is the one where I rightfully accuse you of engaging in social metaphysics, and we know where that leads, don’t we.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
You can safely assume that I am bigger, stronger, better trained, have bigger, better and more guns, and are willing to bushwhack you and all that stand with you with no warning, wiping you out to the last man, woman and child? Hmmmm?

Well, then, Jethro, you can just as safely assume I have an army of cloned magical unicorns.

What right do you have to order Dale around?

Exactly the same right you have to demand an answer to that.
You’re high right now, aren’t you? That’s exactly why the Empire of Jeff will be built on the bones of your "natural rights."

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
That’s the truth.
I had it right when I compared you to a religous fanatic. You know the TRUTH, and anyone who dares question your great truth is a fool who just can’t see the obvious.
You think rights don’t or can’t exist without government.
Exactly, in practical terms. Finally, some comprehension on your part. Rights are philosophical concepts with no meaning unless there is a political system in place that recognizes them. If you doubt this try moving to Cuba or Iran and see how much meaning your so-called "natural" rights retain. You can claim you have them all you want, but without a state that recognizes them, your supposed rights mean nothing.
This is a wholesale overthrow of nearly three hundred years of political thought that put to the grave all the oppression of prior millennia.
The practical application of that thought, in the form of constitutional representative government, is far more important than the mere thought itself.
I almost never see anything more ridiculous than this whole strain of "thought", although I see it often. It’s very common. And so are you. These days, that’s a serious indictment.
What’s ridiculous is someone who can barely grasp an argument, let alone give a reasoned response, pretending to have some sort of higher faculties than we commoners.
 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
"The Constitution happens to explicitly provide for government to develop roads,"

Article I, Section 8, Clause 7

"To establish Post Offices and post Roads".
That’s POST roads. I don’t think we need an interstate system of 4 lane divided highways and 8 lane beltways to deliver mail.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Dale,
based on your cordial response to my sign request, I’ll have to warn you I’m in negotiation to purchase a 40mm Bofors gun for the base jumpers who are violating my air space and I’ve as of this moment, declared it extends to the maximum effective ceiling of the Bofor’s, so, about 22,300 feet.

Cordially yours,
the guy at the base of your cliff.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Holy SH*T!!!

I just had the funniest thought - Billy Beck being in such a hurry to get back to his computer and "kick ass" that he is pulled over for speeding, refuses to obey the officer’s commands, and by tomorrow we’re watching his "natural rights" get Tasered on YouTube.

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
The difference in profit between hauling 500 lb. of loose feed and 500 lb. of dope Mexico to America is due to coercion applied by the state.

If I choose to go 75 mph in contravention to the 65 mph speed limit, and therefore get my feed across the country 18 hours faster, have I not profited from the State’s coercion of my competitors?

Created by consciousness, as opposed to pre-existing it

Heh. So is consciousness natural or artificial?








 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Dale,
based on your cordial response to my sign request, I’ll have to warn you I’m in negotiation to purchase a 40mm Bofors gun for the base jumpers who are violating my air space and I’ve as of this moment, declared it extends to the maximum effective ceiling of the Bofor’s, so, about 22,300 feet.
And the guy at the top of the mountain then picks up a surplus LW155 in response.

And that, my friend, is precisely why your "libertarian" society will descend into dog-eat-dog civil war in short order.

Thank you for illustrating exactly the point I was trying to make.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Who will ensure that when I enforce my natural rights I don’t go overboard?
What if I determine their cow is sufficent payment, and they determine their cow is all that is going to get what’s left of their family through the winter?
So I take the cow, presumably I bring friends, or I have guns, or something, and while I think it’s just payment, THEY think I’ve overenforced my rights.

If I ’overenforce’ my rights, I presume the jumper’s family may now come back and enforce their violated rights?
and so on
until one of us runs out of bodies perhaps?
If you’re saying you need the government because you’re incompetent to negotiate this stuff on your own, fine. Glad we cleared that up. I simply insist that people not do things to my property that their estate can’t pay for. It ain’t rocket science.
Yeah. Because killing a guy who simply trespasses on your property is both reasonable and proportional.

Thanks for clearing that up.
F*CK YOU and being proportional, Dale Franks. You’re absolutely the last man alive who can even discuss that. But because you’re terminally stupid , I’ll answer the implied question: the minute you mess with what is mine, it becomes a problem. When you start costing me repair bills due to your trespassing, I’m permitted to respond in kind. No one has a gun to your head to come to my house without permission: quite the opposite. But if you want to import a thousand pounds of marijuana, azaleas, Dutch tulips- if it isn’t through my house and you’re not hurting anyone else’s interests, I really don’t care.
Guy who owns the top: But, I make my living charging base jumpers a hefty fee for jumping from here. It’s how I feed my kids. So, f*ck off.
Then I have just about as much regard for him as for a burglar who wants to steal my VCR to feed HIS kids. We can go to arbitration, whatever, but at the end of the day, he’s stepping on my property rights without consultation, and I’ll respond in kind. I’m open to some sharing of profit, maybe even helping him feed his kids, but I’m under zero coercion to do that.

I’m not terribly surprised you have zero respect for the personal autonomy of other people, by the way. You’re digging your hole deeper and deeper.
DON’T F*CK WITH MY POT YOU F*CKING FASCISTS!!!!111!!!11
The terminally hilarious part to that is that I haven’t smoked it in seven years. I just didn’t like it anymore. Just as a hint, if you have to thusly ask why I’m sticking up for Mr. Scott Rhett, you’ll probably never understand.
There is a lot of asserting that the smuggler is morally innocent because he hasn’t harmed anyone (if I’m following the argument correctly). Okay, I can accept that. But neither has the erratic drunk driver. Neither has the guy who happens to be selling plutonium to Al Qaeda. Or the guy browsing through his child porn collection. I’m sure we can all think of questionable (or maybe they aren’t questionable to you) activities that in and of themselves are not causing direct harm.
One is almost certainly going to get someone murdered, one is endorsing unconscionably cruel violations of a child’s personal autonomy, and one is conspiring to murder.

And one is just trying to sell some products. Contrary to popular belief, not all pot is forced upon schoolchildren, just as not all alcohol is. I’d go so far as to say alcohol is much more deadly in this regard than marijuana, which is one more reason not to trust the view of "the people" on this issue.
And no, I’m not claiming that the smuggler had a high probability of harming someone else. That’s hard to ascertain.
A man is in prison for ten years. YOU need to claim what you think is the absolute maximum harm his innocent act could have done, and adjust your thinking appropriately.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Dear looker,

I am outraged at your threat, as it is a violation of my natural rights to enjoy base jumping. Therefore I have arranged to purchase the land surrounding yours, effectively confining you to your property without means of egress until you rescind your immoral restriction on my bliss.

Sincerely,

Jeff
Emperor of Jeffland (formerly Libertaria)
BASE Jumping Enthusiast
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Dale,
based on your cordial response to my sign request, I’ll have to warn you I’m in negotiation to purchase a 40mm Bofors gun for the base jumpers who are violating my air space and I’ve as of this moment, declared it extends to the maximum effective ceiling of the Bofor’s, so, about 22,300 feet.
Eh. Assuming I’m going to besieged by thieves the second the vaunted police fade away, I’ll take my chances with gun turrets. At least I can shoot back, which I can’t do without risking prison time during a botched no-knock raid.

But I have much higher faith in the cowardice, if not the morality that has only rarely been displayed in this thread, of people who understand that force will respond in kind if they must initiate violation of my rights. It’s not the complete impunity the current state has.
I just had the funniest thought - Billy Beck being in such a hurry to get back to his computer and "kick ass" that he is pulled over for speeding, refuses to obey the officer’s commands, and by tomorrow we’re watching his "natural rights" get Tasered on YouTube.
Slime, from one end to the other.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
If I choose to go 75 mph in contravention to the 65 mph speed limit, and therefore get my feed across the country 18 hours faster, have I not profited from the State’s coercion of my competitors?
Indeed you will have profited.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Yeah. Because killing a guy who simply trespasses on your property is both reasonable and proportional.

Thanks for clearing that up.
F*CK YOU and being proportional, Dale Franks. You’re absolutely the last man alive who can even discuss that. But because you’re terminally stupid , I’ll answer the implied question: the minute you mess with what is mine, it becomes a problem.
Ah. So I was right, then.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Purely going by natural rights-
A person buys land and builds a big house, by natural rights it becomes his property. He can decide what items come on to his property and what doesn’t.

When he gets older, he decides to move to Florida. So he sells the house to a married couple. It becomes their property. He may not like what she’s done with the living, and she hates his idea for the den, but they compromise and let it go. They still retain the same rights to decide what comes on the property. And prohibitions that are declared by the wife might even apply to the husband.

When they are ready to move elsewhere, a group of 50 buys the property, and some surrounding ones. They decides to raze the house and replace it with condos. Not everyone agrees with this decision, but they knew the decision making process and the condos get built. Even though it wasn’t a unanimous decision, the group still has the right to decide what comes on to the property and what doesn’t. That doesn’t have to be the same as the rules for what is on the property. They are fully withing their rights to decide you can’t bring firewood onto the land, but you can chop up dead trees for firewood.

A consortium of Three-Hundred Fifty million people buys the land and all occupy it together.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
F*CK YOU and being proportional, Dale Franks. You’re absolutely the last man alive who can even discuss that. But because you’re terminally stupid , I’ll answer the implied question: the minute you mess with what is mine, it becomes a problem. When you start costing me repair bills due to your trespassing, I’m permitted to respond in kind.
What makes you think you would even have the ability to respond in kind? I have superior force on my side, rugged individual.
But if you want to import a thousand pounds of marijuana, azaleas, Dutch tulips- if it isn’t through my house and you’re not hurting anyone else’s interests, I really don’t care.
And what if I AM hurting someone else’s interests? Mind your own f*cking business. What are you going to do about it?
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Created by consciousness, as opposed to pre-existing it

So, when you wrote this:

If you attack me, I will defend myself (possibly resulting in your injury or death) - Natural Consequence

are you claiming that this "natural" consequence precedes your conscious decision to defend yourself?

additionally, the market: natural or artificial? By your definition, it’s artificial; it’s a product of the consciousness of men.

 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Dale Franks:
"....we consent...."
Ambiguous-Collective logical fallacy

Franks is either...

a: a consciously knowing liar, or...
b: a pre-Sapiens life-form. (The home-erectus Eloi referred to in the prior thread.)

Either way, he is at WAR with anyone who does not consent. He willingly participated in grinding up ten years of a man’s life — a man who initiated force upon no one; a man who pursued a free market as a free person. A man who did not "consent", as Franks puts to lie above.

Franks? You are one *evil* person; and nothing would please me more than to hear that you’d met a horrible end. (This, of course, being the perfectly natural response to the outrage of seeing an injustice committed.)

It has always been my assumption that virtually everyone alive today would live to see the next civil war. This being the age of the internet and all, it is my fervent hope that every evil deed is databased, and justice meted out accordingly at the appropriate time.
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
OK. I think we're just about done here.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
I must protest...I DO protest...Ott Scerb can not be allowed to post like this! Unless my irony and satire metet is badly broken, this was a SERIOUS post! Have we no rules..Oh OK, it’s about An-Cap’s that’s the debate can there be rules? Ok, never mind
Didn’t you promise to leave?
Shut up.


Written By: Billy Beck
So much for personal freedom...
[Billy], I’m sure you think you’re some big bad a@@ behind your computer screen

Haha. I swear, next time one of these kinds of threads pops off, I’m going to start a betting pool on how many comments it takes for this canard to get vomited up, and on which of the peanut gallery is first to offer it.
I subscribe to the "Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory" posited by John Gabriel
Ah, if that’s the case, it depends on why your child was buying it and why the store owner sold it.
Written By: trevalyan
So it depends on WHY the guy raped the 8 year old? Because that’s the extention to your argument...
You can talk about philosiphers, social contracts, voting, and whatever else gets dragged in here, but the morality of the thing is obvious.
I wish I could say I was shocked by Shamus’s comment, but his dear and close association with the morally turpid of Fear the Boot renders that a moot point.

The morality, Mr Young, is that Mr Rhett knew the law, and disregarded it. He has been sent away for the punishment proscribed for that lapse of judgement.

If you argue that "no one was harmed", then NAMBLA must be allowed to exist, since it’s main tenate is that it be a willing act. If that 8 year old wants the 40 year old to have sex with him, who are we to condem the 40 year old, right?
Are you fvcking serious? Shamus Bloody Young reads QandO? I’ll be.

I loved DM of the Rings. :D Even happier to know you’re on the side of the angels in this.

Written By: trevalyan
DOn’t be that thrilled. His buddies are as feckless as they come.
But thanks for the SSN. You have enough credit line for me to use it to get a plasma tv?
I swear to god shark, if you ruin my chances at a 50" plasma HDTV, I’m gonna hurt you...
The Constitution happens to explicitly provide for government to develop roads, so I wouldn’t be morally outraged about that clause. I’d PREFER private developers managing the roads, mind you, especially as it’s one less reason to need a government in the first place.
You mean just like it explicitly provide for the government to regulate trade? Good to see you on our side in this!

Or were you just showing your hypocracy by saying you like Government stuff that benifits you, but you reject utterly the bits that make you pay $20 for a baggie of Mary Jane?
Ah. So I was right, then.
Best quote-block in this thread...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
In the absence of government, Might Makes Right. And while you "true libertarians" are busy hitting the bong, I’ll be busy taking all your sh*t away from you, because I can.
You can safely assume that I am bigger, stronger, better trained, have bigger, better and more guns, and are willing to bushwhack you and all that stand with you with no warning, wiping you out to the last man, woman and child? Hmmmm?

Well, then, Jethro, you can just as safely assume I have an army of cloned magical unicorns.
This is beautiful, and a perfect summation of this argument.

Point one is that coercive force will exist in the absence of government and the point maker possesses this coercive force, Point two argues that the maker of point two actually possesses the coercive force.

In either case, the person who made the initial point is correct, whether he possesses that force, or whether his force is less than the other guys.

So assume that the libertarian actually has the greater capacity to exert force, what then. We rely on his goodness and self control not to use his superior force to coerce others and violate their natural rights.

Gee, sounds just like government.

This has been entertaining, watching all the libertarians ignore thousands of years of the history of human interaction, and coming up with the theory that without government there will be no coercive force taking your rights away.

Smart people can be so incredibly dumb.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
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