Debating Anarcho-capitalists Posted by: Jon Henke
on Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Dale's About The Anarcholibertarians post has resulted in a lengthy, uninformative shouting match which is best ignored. There is simply no way to have a useful discussion when there are two mutually exclusive premises...
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.
The other side believes government is unnecessary and intrinsically immoral.
Those are utterly divergent premises, so it should be no surprise that different conclusions follow from each. We can have interesting theoretical discussions about how a post-government society might operate, but - absent some very significant changes in human nature - I simply don't believe such a thing is practically possible. Those conversations are purely theoretical, with no chance of real-world testability or sustainability within large populations over significant periods of time.
That is why I generally choose not to debate anarcho-capitalists. There are tremendous explosions, bursts of flame and smoke....but the whole thing never leaves the launching pad.
UPDATE
I should add that my position on the initial premise does not necessarily mean that I support all of the following conclusions reached by those who share my premise. In fact, while I understand Dale's justification for rendering a decision based on existing law rather than moral ideals, I would have chosen differently. Whether I would have voted for jury nullification or simply explained beforehand that I could not vote to convict in the absence of harm or fraud, I do not know. Nevertheless, I would have done so because of personal moral ideals, not because I reject the very premise of government itself.
"One side believes that government is an inevitable product of human nature..."
"It’s only human," you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept "human" mean the weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward, the fraud, and to exile from the human race the hero, the thinker, the producer, the inventor, the strong, the purposeful, the pure—as if "to feel" were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not—as if the premise of death were proper to man, but the premise of life were not. — Galt’s Speech
Yes. And the question is, all theoretical arguements aside between minarchism and anarchism aside, and with all due respect for Dale’s character and past accomplishments: how could a libertarian individual (of any variety that earns the term) adequately defend taking an active, supportive, part in sentencing a man to a 10 year prison term for doing nothing aggressive?
I understand Dale’s position; he explained it in detail. I just don’t think it meets muster.
In what way do you idiots think you deserve to call yourselves libertarian?
Perhaps they are anarchist performance artists, proving that you are not the boss of them. After all, what are you going to do? There is nobody to enforce it.
Whether I would have voted for jury nullification or simply explained beforehand that I could not vote to convict in the absence of harm or fraud, I do not know. Nevertheless, I would have done so because of personal moral ideals, not because I reject the very premise of government itself.
The honest thing to do would be to explain your views during voir dire. Then the judge would dismiss you without causing the defense or prosecution to waste a peremptory challenge on you. If you want to stand on principles, stand on them. Don’t sneak them in during jury deliberation. That would be "rejecting the very premise of government itself."
Just for fun, here’s some phrases to help our "true libertarian" friends get their message out in bumper-sticker size bites:
"Libertarianism - The OTHER Unworkable Extreme"
"Libertarians - No Government? No Problem. No Pot? PROBLEM!"
"Libertarianism - Because Prison Time for Drug Smuggling is for the Sheeple"
"Libertarians - We’re Against the Use of Force to Coerce Behavior, and Against Government, but Like We Told Dale, We’re Databasing All Your Crimes, so That On the Great Day of the Rope, We Can Organize and Hunt You Down and Kill You for Putting Scott Rhett in Prison, Even Though We’d Have to Form a Government Body and Use Force to Do So. So You Can Smoke Some Rope, Or You Can Hang From One."
must say that thread was quite the learning experience. i’m somewhat libertarian, and of late have been wondering why libertarianism - a philosophy that quite a lot of people agree with in one form or another - why it never *ever* gains any traction. why every election they routinely get outvoted by ... well, everyone.
that thread cleared up that question nicely. much as i agree with the "anarcho" liberts, i couldn’t help be struck by their *tone*, as much as their words. a cluster of dilettante suslovs forever arguing obscure interpretations, busting their guts to be the Most Ideologically Pure. my kid said it struck him more like a group of gangstas sitting on the stoop, each intent on having the *most* street cred. "ain’t nobody more for real than me!"
in reality, a group of luftmenschen squabbling over ever-finer points of debate, while the statists roll onward and upwards and right over them. this country was founded by unreasonable luftmenschen like that, to be sure. but the founding fathers could compromise; and they could band together. these guys .... not so much. nobody in this comes out of it too well, IMHO. not franks. not the paleolibertarians. certainly not poor mr. rhett, cheerfully betrayed by a good, obedient citizen.
ah, well. hopefully the kid learned something from it.
luftmenschen squabbling over ever-finer points of debate,
Dude this bl;og is in Mehrika an’ in Mehrika we: 1) Use the English system of measurement; AND 2) Speak English... We don’t speak no fur’n languages here....so what is this "Air Men" thing? You talking about the US Air Force?
After all, what are you going to do? There is nobody to enforce it.
—anonymous coward
For a blog like Q&O, their reputation, the evincing of their principles, and their fair trade in the marketplace of ideas is coin of the realm, and suddenly their coin isn’t worth what a lot of people thought it was.
I don’t have to do a damn thing about it. Franks and crew are doing a fine job themselves.
I’m sad to see it.
What hope does this country have if even one of the "Prominent neolibertarians" listed at Wikipedia can’t get up on his back legs in front of a judge to state that he cannot morally sanction the proceedings?
Innocent people are being killed with regularity, and numerous other lives severely disrupted every day, and have been for decades, at the hands of the government intent on waging its war against the free choices of an erstwhile free people.
The mast head on the blog still reads "Free Markets, Free People", but apparently Franks and others around here pretending to libertarianism are of the conviction that one of the largest markets in the country should continue to exist as a criminal enterprise, and that when those who trade in that market are caught they should be stripped of their freedom.
That kind of coin of the realm is big bucks over at Huckabee Central and with the preening hypocrites in the Clinton wing, but it’s worthless to me.
"For a blog like Q&O, their reputation, the evincing of their principles, and their fair trade in the marketplace of ideas is coin of the realm, and suddenly their coin isn’t worth what a lot of people thought it was.
I don’t have to do a damn thing about it. Franks and crew are doing a fine job themselves."
Precisely
(Henke) 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.
This is a false dichotomy precisely because committing to 1 implies no obligation to obey -every- diktat of the state, no matter how immoral or contrary to laissez-faire economics and the morality and politics of classical liberalism. I don’t even have to go to "2" to say that what Franks’s did was horse odure.
"Innocent people are being killed with regularity, and numerous other lives severely disrupted every day, and have been for decades, at the hands of the government intent on waging its war against the free choices of an erstwhile free people."
This is correct. Jury nullification was one of the ways in which the Volstead Act and Prohibition was undermined, and it was all in accordance with the common law and implied no anarchism. Franks doesn’t even rise to that level.
As far as tone goes, I was struck by the people, at least two of them (thirteen of them?), who thought it was appropriate for the smuggler to be raped for the next ten years for his supposed crime. One was the a$$hat who made the comment, the other was the man who was proud to vote for it in the jury room. The seeming inevitability of such assault in even the belly of the beast is one reason government, however inevitable, needs to be as small as possible, and not viewed as a handy tool to remedy whatever ills a mere majority finds as afflicting it.
Your two premises are disappointingly limited, Mr. Henke.
I strongly believe that a constitutionally limited government is about the best result from the inevitability of government we could have, and I see nothing of such a government in the war on drugs.
FWIW, since the other thread is closed, I’ll post this here
"Are you really sure that you want Hume to be your go-to guy for this?"
Hume’s essay "On the Original Contract" is not the "go-to guy" for my position, but a reductio of Franks’s position, since Hume accepts Franks’s notion of "dominance hierarchies" and an initial societal compact and then goes on to show that that does not imply a continuity of contract to the present day.
"But philosophers, who have embraced a party (if that be not a contradiction in terms), are not contented with these concessions. They assert, not only that government in its earliest infancy arose from consent, or rather the voluntary acquiescence of the people; but also that, even at present, when it has attained its full maturity, it rests on no other foundation. They affirm, that all men are still born equal, and owe allegiance to no prince or government, unless bound by the obligation and sanction of a promise. And as no man, without some equivalent, would forego the advantages of his native liberty, and subject himself to the will of another, this promise is always understood to be conditional, and imposes on him no obligation, unless he meet with justice and protection from his sovereign. These advantages the sovereign promises him in return; and if he fail in the execution, he has broken, on his part, the articles of engagement, and has thereby freed his subject from all obligations to allegiance. Such, according to these philosophers, is the foundation of authority in every government, and such the right of resistance possessed by every subject.
But would these reasoners look abroad into the world, they would meet with nothing that, in the least, corresponds to their ideas, or can warrant so refined and philosophical a system. On the contrary, we find every where princes who claim their subjects as their property, and assert their independent right of sovereignty, from conquest or succession. We find also every where subjects who acknowledge this right in their prince, and suppose themselves born under obligations of obedience to a certain sovereign, as much as under the ties of reverence and duty to certain parents. These connexions are always conceived to be equally independent of our consent, in Persia and China; in France and Spain; and even in Holland and England, wherever the doctrines above-mentioned have not been carefully inculcated. Obedience or subjection becomes so familiar, that most men never make any inquiry about its origin or cause, more than about the principle of gravity, resistance, or the most universal laws of nature. Or if curiosity ever move them; as soon as they learn that they themselves and their ancestors have, for several ages, or from time immemorial, been subject to such a form of government or such a family, they immediately acquiesce, and acknowledge their obligation to allegiance. Were you to preach, in most parts of the world, that political connexions are founded altogether on voluntary consent or a mutual promise, the magistrate would soon imprison you as seditious for loosening the ties of obedience; if your friends did not before shut you up as delirious, for advancing such absurdities. It is strange that an act of the mind, which every individual is supposed to have formed, and after he came to the use of reason too, otherwise it could have no authority; that this act, I say, should be so much unknown to all of them, that over the face of the whole earth, there scarcely remain any traces or memory of it.
But the contract, on which government is founded, is said to be the original contract; and consequently may be supposed too old to fall under the knowledge of the present generation. If the agreement, by which savage men first associated and conjoined their force, be here meant, this is acknowledged to be real; but being so ancient, and being obliterated by a thousand changes of government and princes, it cannot now be supposed to retain any authority. If we would say any thing to the purpose, we must assert that every particular government which is lawful, and which imposes any duty of allegiance on the subject, was, at first, founded on consent and a voluntary compact. But, besides that this supposes the consent of the fathers to bind the children, even to the most remote generations (which republican writers will never allow), besides this, I say, it is not justified by history or experience in any age or country of the world."
and it was all in accordance with the common law and implied no anarchism
In fact the evils of the anarchism associated with that period resulted from the prohibition, and the tendency of juries to nullify the law helped put an end to the unintelligently lucrative subsidy the Volstead act afforded the actual mob, and the Kennedy’s.
"There are tremendous explosions, bursts of flame and smoke..."
Get used to it, Henke. You and your threadbare little outlook on party-hats and elections: look all the way down the road, and get used to it. What you’re describing is what happens when reason fails, and your metaphor will someday come to actual reality.
Consider this: Franks’ brand of abject cowardice is not going to be useful.
Get used to it, Henke. You and your threadbare little outlook on party-hats and elections: look all the way down the road, and get used to it. What you’re describing is what happens when reason fails, and your metaphor will someday come to actual reality.
Perhaps things will grow intolerably worse, perhaps they won’t. Trend is not destiny, and injustice does not always lead to the holocaust.
suddenly their coin isn’t worth what a lot of people thought it was.
In other words, you aren’t going to do anything but bitch. LOL that’s why you’ll never see the state fall away, little man. While you whine, others do. And Ayn Rand’s fiction aside, a lot of the doers are no sort of libertarian.
The problem is with ideologies. A big enlightenment error was the quest for the "right" first principle or proper ethics. This leads people to start from different premises and principles and then build an intellectual edifice around their core beliefs and turn it into an ideology. If internally consistent, it can withstand all attacks from outside the ideology, as long as they define the terms in accordance with the ideology. Thus, rather than practical critical reflection and debate there is a tendency among true ideologues to a kind of intellectual jihad — each "ism" is The Truth, and ideologies become secular forms of religion.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t useful, but they would be best seen as rival perspectives, with true insight gained as one learns how the world looks through different perspectives and reflects critically on the issue and ones’ own beliefs, unafraid to change opinion if evidence and reflection warrant. Reflection is not just intellectual, but also (following Hume’s ideas on morality) involves sentiment. And the goal, if dealing with others in some kind of shared polity, is to compromise, learn, persuade and make choices for those values and principles that are involved in issues that cannot be taken down to the purely individual level.
i’m somewhat libertarian, and of late have been wondering why libertarianism - a philosophy that quite a lot of people agree with in one form or another - why it never *ever* gains any traction. why every election they routinely get outvoted by ... well, everyone.
You answered your own question with. It’s because libertarians are:
a cluster of dilettante suslovs forever arguing obscure interpretations, busting their guts to be the Most Ideologically Pure.
You can’t get any group of 10 libertarians to even agree on what "libertarian" is. Is it any wonder that they can’t get their sh*t together?
And then there’s that whole Being a F*cking Nutjob thing, as evidenced by statements like:
certainly not poor mr. rhett, cheerfully betrayed by a good, obedient citizen.
Or:
colluding with the state to lock a man up for ten years for the "crime" of hauling weeds?
Here’s another bumper sticker - "Libertarians - We Don’t Just Inhale, We Inhale and HOLD That Sh*t In!"
Then there’s
What hope does this country have if even one of the "Prominent neolibertarians" listed at Wikipedia can’t get up on his back legs (subservient dog looking to please master imagery - nice) in front of a judge to state that he cannot morally sanction the proceedings?
And refusal to accept reality:
As far as tone goes, I was struck by the people, at least two of them (thirteen of them?), who thought it was appropriate for the smuggler to be raped for the next ten years for his supposed crime.
Nothing "supposed" about it. Smuggling dope is a crime. Don’t like it? Hire a lawyer to challenge the constitutionality of the law on Mr. Rhett’s behalf. Since you are all so smart, you should have no problem convincing 5 Supreme Court justices of the righteousness of your views. Unless, of course, they’re not "thinking" people.
The seeming inevitability of such assault in even the belly of the beast
There’s nothing inevitable about it. Not if you’re a true libertarian! A true libertarian would not allow his natural right to a virgin butthole to be violated - No Sir! Such attempts would be met with deadly force, I tell you!
And if you don’t think they can do it:
"There are tremendous explosions, bursts of flame and smoke..."
Get used to it, Henke. You and your threadbare little outlook on party-hats and elections: look all the way down the road, and get used to it. What you’re describing is what happens when reason fails, and your metaphor will someday come to actual reality.
That’s right - there will be REVOLUTION, baby!!!!
Consider this: Franks’ brand of abject cowardice is not going to be useful.
And there will be purges! And public executions! Because that is consistent with the libertarian principles of personal liberty and freedom from state-sanctioned violence!
First, the 120-lb. guitar instructors came for Dale, and I did nothing, because I don’t know Dale.
Nothing "supposed" about it. Smuggling dope is a crime.
Jeff, the law has all the constitutional cover of the federal gun laws—none at all. The SCOTUS also doesn’t get to say 2 plus 2 is 5 and have me respect the decision.
There’s nothing inevitable about it. Not if you’re a true libertarian!
It is as long as irrational devotion to majoritarianism and mindless veneration of a hemp roll substitute for reasoned consideration of politics.
Take the following, for example:
(Franks) "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."
Setting Nuremberg aside, the Fugitive Slave Laws were legal, Constitutional (via the 1857 Dred Scott Decision) and, by reasonable assumption, would have gotten majoritarian support given the electoral dominance of the pro-slave property Democratic party in the 1850’s. By his arguments and actions in favor of convicting for drug dealing, Franks would go along with the legal mechanisms and not opposed them (hell, he might have jumped at the chance to join a slave-catching posse), his "equal treatment" figleaf aside.
After all, his "moral position" can’t trump politics if the "social contract" is rewritten via "legal" mechanisms to stigmatize a minority group, in fact we’ve seen him go along with it in a state of disgusting pleasure.
Jeff, the law has all the constitutional cover of the federal gun laws—none at all.
Right. Because you say so. Never mind that it was passed by a house of representatives, a senate, and signed by an executive. It has complete constitutional cover until repealed by the same process that made it law or until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional.
You don’t like the process. I get that. I am unsympathetic to your position just like you are to mine. It would be a push if only The Way Things Are didn’t support my position.
The SCOTUS also doesn’t get to say 2 plus 2 is 5 and have me respect the decision.
That’s exactly what they did with Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London.. Unfortuantely for us, neither my respect for their decisions nor yours makes a damn bit of difference.
WTF are you trying to say?
That was my jab at all the keyboard warriors like Billy who threaten to kill any man who darkens the door of their single-wide. If only Mr. Rhett were like them, his A-hole would be the same ring-gauge when he gets out of prison as when he went in.
1) the application of objective and equally applied rule of law is a proper function of government, and
2) your support for that was adequate for your decision in that courtroom.
So: had the legally proscribed penalty been death, would you have acted in the same way?
If not, why not? What would the difference have been in principle?
If so...well, it would be fascinating to read a "libertarian" defence of that decision.
——
On a slightly different note, I heard this exchange in another courtroom:
"Downey: What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong. Dawson: Yeah, we did. We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn’t fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willie."
It has complete constitutional cover until repealed by the same process that made it law or until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional.
Yeah. Just like McCain-Feingold.
I get what you are saying, that the law is stacked firmly against our way of thinking. Can’t really deny that. But these laws, which restrict your freedoms in ever more obscene ways, are pretty much the only result.
The secret is to get you to stop obeying your conscience. Or if it actually starts telling you that a legal result is by definition just? Even better.
In fact the evils of the anarchism associated with that period resulted from the prohibition, and the tendency of juries to nullify the law helped put an end to the unintelligently lucrative subsidy the Volstead act afforded the actual mob, and the Kennedy’s.
If the bust had not taken place the same type of subsidy from this law would have been afforded here. Mr Rhett knowingly broke the law for the profit of breaking the law.
There is a massive amount of stuff he could have imported from Mexico legally and not be sitting in prison. There was no neccessity for him to engage in this illegal activity and this was part of his normal activities suddenly made illegal - he chose to act illegally for no other reason than the high profits crime could bring.
This law banning dope is quite stupid, but Mr Rhett is still a criminal and needed to be punished for choosing to commit crime.
"Right. Because you say so. Never mind that it was passed by a house of representatives, a senate, and signed by an executive. It has complete constitutional cover until repealed by the same process that made it law or until the SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional."
It would necessarily be true that positive law is always, either per the accident of history or by the nature of the process of its creation, not only in line with the laws of the nature of man, and sound from the perspective of rational ethics, but incapable of being otherwise than a statement of ethics itself. This is demonstrably false. To do what is right is not always to do what is legal. To do what is lawful may, at times, necessarily entail to do what is wrong. One who refuses to make the distinction required to see why this is could never be a libertarian except as an accidental emergence of their own. They simply act libertarian, and no situations come up which would lead to them doing the aggressive and wrong that entails contravention. As this is impossible in reality, it is only a matter of time (as Franks’ stunning lack of conscience at the heart of this discussion demonstrates) before such a one shows what they truly are.
Further, the necessary assumption, also false, that the political government elected by a majority of voters, or even a majority of the populace, acquires the right to dispose of the lives and property of those who lost the election is simply mob rule in more polite language. To put it more simply; the gangsters you like are pointing their guns at your preferred targets. You call this justice.
"Smuggling dope is a crime."
A maxim from a practicing lawyer; "vices are not crimes." It is a violation of the positive law, yes, but not criminal. The positive law is not a valid foundation for the determination of what is right or wrong. The constitution was not written in fire across the heavens to be received by the Philadelphia convention and transmitted straight from God to Man. It was a document, itself a criminal act, which was written by men. Those men made many mistakes in crafting that document, if we understand liberty to be their end. The first was crafting the document.
"If only Mr. Rhett were like them, his A-hole would be the same ring-gauge when he gets out of prison as when he went in."
You’re a monster. There are no other words for it.
You’re a monster. There are no other words for it.
Logically, that where not placing any value upon a man’s suffering takes you. Mr. Franks has already demonstrated that to our satisfaction. Criminals are not people, hence their excruciatingly disgusting treatment in American prisons.
I get what you are saying, that the law is stacked firmly against our way of thinking. Can’t really deny that. But these laws, which restrict your freedoms in ever more obscene ways, are pretty much the only result.
No, I’m saying that it only SEEMS that way to you because certain things are illegal that you don’t think should be.
You want your pot - okay, fine. Joe Snuffy wants to have sex with fourteen-year old girls, which may be morally repugnant to you. Both are against the law, a law which is a result of legislators and judges drawing a line based on their own morality.
What I am saying is that all this raging against Leviathan bullsh*t overlooks the fact that there is a mechanism for changing laws you find oppressive. The Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment, since someone brought it up, is a prime example.
It took thirteen years, but Prohibition was repealed by constitutional amendment. The amendment process is long, arduous and has to be approved by 75% of the states to pass. So don’t tell me it can’t be done within the system we have.
Your problem is not the dictates of "simple majoritarianism." Your problem is that enough people don’t think like you. Want to legalize dope? Start convincing your fellow Americans. Participate in the process. You have new legislation to repeal bad legislation, challenges to constitutionality within the court system, and the constitutional amendment process. These are the tools at your disposal. They take time, effort and organization.
Excoriating Dale for convicting this dumbass in accordance with the law and rules of evidence is not the way to go about it. Not that any of you will listen - the perfect will always be the enemy of the good, and people like me are sheeple, traitors,
OOOOOoooo!!!! And monsters! Thanks for chiming in, Brian N.
And so the self-marginalization of libertarians continues apace.
OOOOOoooo!!!! And monsters! Thanks for chiming in, Brian N.
And so the self-marginalization of libertarians continues apace.
You get why he said that, right? I mean, is ten years of being subjected to prison rape some kind of acceptable punishment now? Just something we don’t really consider when we pass sentence?
Do you see why making jokes about it, especially given the actual crime committed, isn’t appropriate?
What I am saying is that all this raging against Leviathan bullsh*t overlooks the fact that there is a mechanism for changing laws you find oppressive. The Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment, since someone brought it up, is a prime example.
It took thirteen years, but Prohibition was repealed by constitutional amendment. The amendment process is long, arduous and has to be approved by 75% of the states to pass. So don’t tell me it can’t be done within the system we have.
Except people completely ignored the Prohibition experience, and simply declared marijuana illegal by simple majority. So the question becomes, does majority rule get to override not only natural rights, but the ones apparently granted by the Constitution itself?
If so, then you’re constantly forced to accede rule to the mob. If they demand a gun registry, you need to comply with it, or, by your ideals, you accept the risk of being imprisoned for non-compliance.
To put it more simply; the gangsters you like are pointing their guns at your preferred targets.
Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. It is what it is. Couldn’t you have just said that first instead of rambling like George Plimpton on an opium binge?
A maxim from a practicing lawyer; "vices are not crimes." It is a violation of the positive law, yes, but not criminal
Someone call the Vice Squad and tell them they can all go home, now.
You’re confusing "right and wrong" with "legal and illegal". I’ve already outlined the process for you to align the two more to your liking. So far, you’re doing a piss-poor job.
It was a document, itself a criminal act, which was written by men.
Now you’re confusing the Declaration of Independece with the Constitution of the United States. The first was a criminal act. The second was not.
You’re a monster. There are no other words for it.
Specifically, I am the Tickle Monster. That’s what my kids say when I chase them around the house, "Oh, no - it’s the Tickle Monster!" and then we all giggle wildly.
"Perhaps things will grow intolerably worse, perhaps they won’t."
They will if certain crucial aspects of the thing continue as they are.
"Trend is not destiny, and injustice does not always lead to the holocaust.
That’s all true, but it’s also a horrible comparison, in no small part because of the very pregnant question of how closely conditions might have to approach something like that before what passes for a "libertarian" conscience, now, might at least begin to condemn it per se.
Thank you for a shred of reason amid the chimps. I’m not kidding. This is revolting.
You get why he said that, right? I mean, is ten years of being subjected to prison rape some kind of acceptable punishment now? Just something we don’t really consider when we pass sentence?
Quit hyperventilating. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report for 2006
The 2006 survey recorded 5,605 allegations of sexual violence. Taking into account weights for sampled facilities, the estimated total number of allegations for the Nation was 6,528.
That’s out of a total prison population of 1.8 million surveyed. And those were just allegations, not only of rape, but of "unwanted sexual contact," like Bubba pinching your ass in the shower.
But hey, you’re extremists, so let’s assume they’re ALL tantamount to rape. Are you sitting down?
THERE IS A .00362 PERCENT CHANCE THAT SCOTT RHETT WILL BE RAPED IN PRISON!!!!!111!
Do you see why making jokes about it, especially given the actual crime committed, isn’t appropriate?
No, not really, given that your idea of life behind bars does not comport with reality. But then again, I’m a monster, so I can be excused for my monstrous behavior.
You’re confusing "right and wrong" with "legal and illegal".
No, we’re not. We’re talking about what one properly does when what is legal is wrong and/or what is right is illegal.
Our contention is "you do the right thing".
Others (apparently you as well) suggest it is best to just "follow the rules" unless or until they are changed.
My contention is that Dale should have fought for Mr Rhett for exactly the same reasons Dawson & Downey were supposed to fight for Willie. Instead, he followed the order for the Code Red.
Ethically, Jeff smacks of Stirnerite nihilism. He merely recognizes the fact of power and domination and does not evaluate it. To do what is right is not always popular, Jeff. It may take more courage than you possess to accept it, and to live by the necessary condition that it implies upon all actions.
"No, not really, given that your idea of life behind bars does not comport with reality."
You implied it as a likelihood that Mr. Rhett will end up the victim of rape in prison.
"Couldn’t you have just said that first instead of rambling like George Plimpton on an opium binge?"
You don’t read much beyond an eighth grade level, do you? It is not enough to state a conclusion, or a premise; to present an argument one must show how the premises lead to conclusions, and also the steps taken.
"Now you’re confusing the Declaration of Independece with the Constitution of the United States. The first was a criminal act. The second was not."
On what basis did the King of England rule over North America, or anywhere, or more specifically, over any human beings in those places? On what basis does anyone rule anyone else or do anything to them without their consent? If the "Declaration of Independece[sic]" was a criminal act, declaring the existence of a new nation apart from the old, then the Constitution was simply an act of criminality stacked upon it; merely a reorganizing of how the criminal deed was to be performed in the future. In any case, study your history. The Constitution was created in violation of the agreement that brought the convention together.
Except people completely ignored the Prohibition experience, and simply declared marijuana illegal by simple majority.
Wrong again. Damn, why do I have to research YOUR argument for you? Yes, marijuana use and possession is illegal.
Except where it isn’t.
Like Alaska. Or Oregon. Or Mississippi. Or any of the other states, counties or municipalities that have either decriminalized marijuana possession or reduced the penalty to a misdemeanor calling for a fine less than that of a parking ticket.
Or how about in 1978, when the FDA was ordered to grow and provide Robert Randall with 300 DOOBIES PER MONTH!
There are dozens of examples of people working within the system to change laws they find oppressive. Annoying how this is your hot-button issue and you can’t be bothered to educate yourself on it.
And as far as a gun registry goes: if that is proposed, I will fight it within the system through my congressman, governor and senator, and from outside the system by court challenges and legislation sponsored by my NRA pals.
In other words, I’ll take ACTION, not piss and moan about the tyranny of the majority.
Wow. And that number doesn’t seem low to you? Almost like guards and wardens don’t have a specific reason for under-reporting it?
And we’re shocked that Americans are so used to being lied to. Even Democrats aren’t so used to being wilfully blind.
You’re right - it’s all a conspiracy. I won’t bother you with any more obviously falsified data.
Ethically, Jeff smacks of Stirnerite nihilism. He merely recognizes the fact of power and domination and does not evaluate it. To do what is right is not always popular, Jeff. It may take more courage than you possess to accept it, and to live by the necessary condition that it implies upon all actions.
Thanks for the e-psychoanalysis. And thanks for the fatherly advice. Did I mention that you’re a douchebag?
"Couldn’t you have just said that first instead of rambling like George Plimpton on an opium binge?"
You don’t read much beyond an eighth grade level, do you? It is not enough to state a conclusion, or a premise; to present an argument one must show how the premises lead to conclusions, and also the steps taken.
Now you’re rambling like Scott Erb on a... well, like Scott Erb. Complete with smarmy pseudo-intellectual condescension.
If the "Declaration of Independece[sic]" was a criminal act, declaring the existence of a new nation apart from the old, then the Constitution was simply an act of criminality stacked upon it; merely a reorganizing of how the criminal deed was to be performed in the future.
Wow - you caught a typo. Savor your victory, Brian. It will be short-lived.
The Declaration of IndependeNce was a criminal act under British rule as the thirteen colonies were not a STATE. They then REBELLED and won a protracted war, ending with the TREATY OF PARIS, which in Article 1, recognized the colonies as FREE AND SOVEREIGN STATES, thus enabling the LEGAL adoption of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
In any case, study your history.
Why, so you can cheat off my paper during finals? Because you obviously have no grasp of the events that shaped this nation.
Ron, I have two points to make to you:
Our contention is "you do the right thing".
1. YOUR definition of "doing the right thing" is not MY definition of "doing the right thing.
My contention is that Dale should have fought for Mr Rhett for exactly the same reasons Dawson & Downey were supposed to fight for Willie. Instead, he followed the order for the Code Red.
2. It’s even more awkward and nerdy when you put it that way.
Jeff: Perhaps this will make things easier for you to understand: the fact the guy was importing marijuana is irrelevant; he was doing nothing coercive or aggressive, period.
Further, writing letters to congressmen and making court challenges, or voting, or demonstrating, doesn’t make it right to actively continue oppressing folks while you’re bargaining for a change in the rules. What do you need, Jeff? Someone else’s permission before you do the right thing?
It’s not complicated. The right thing to do when you have the opportunity to free a wrongful captive is "free them".
Jeff: THERE IS A .00362 PERCENT CHANCE THAT SCOTT RHETT WILL BE RAPED IN PRISON!!!!!
You base this upon official reports. But, according to this:
Only a small minority of victims of rape or other sexual abuse in prison ever report it to the authorities.
And:
...line officers...estimated that roughly one-fifth of all prisoners were being coerced into participation in inmate-on-inmate sex. Interestingly, higher-ranking officials...tended to give lower estimates of the frequency of abuse, while inmates themselves gave much higher estimates: the two groups cited victimization rates of roughly one-eighth and one-third, respectively
.
So, when you say:
Jeff: ...your idea of life behind bars does not comport with reality
...you really do look dazzlingly stupid.
But even if life in prison was not filled with danger and institutionalized degradation, don’t you see a problem with putting someone behind bars for ten years who did nothing to hurt anyone else?
It’s not complicated. The right thing to do when you have the opportunity to free a wrongful captive is "free them".
Bye-bye, boys! Have fun storming the castle!
Seriously, what are you doing to free wrongful captives? Writing the governor for clemency? Writing your legislature to repeal these terrible laws? Busting these innocents out of prison? Anything at all?
It’s really easy to sit here and say what everyone else should do, but it’s meaningless unless you put your own words into action.
I assume none of them support the government regulating the importation of elephant tusks and ivory from other endangered species?
After all, I’m not harmed because someone else kills an elephant and brings the ivory into America, just as I am not harmed if someone brings a weed into America.
So I’m guessing that first Dale and then Jon were at a loss for topics and so we’ve made a second and mayhap a THIRD day of discussing this?
Really, either you believe: a) that your opinion doesn’t count as it relates to my actions, unless your opinion inivolves the safety or yourself and presumably your minor children; or
b)You think that your opinion can count, either because your opinion is the law or that somethings aren’t really OK, whether or no they "hurt" only a third party.
The believers of a) simply are not going to agree with the believers of b)? So, the only thing to do is crack wise, because there can be no meeting of the minds on this and I really don’t see why any of you are wasting your time.
It’s like Abortion, for most folks, you’re "fer" it or "A’gin" it and the debate isn’t a debate and really can be skipped...same thing here.
I will say that the believers of a), above, tend to be nasty, opinionated folks that don’t do their cause any great favours, but that’s a "style" question, not a substantive one.
No, I’m talking about the folks who are calling him evil and cowardly and all manner of ill. And since you had nothing but a flippant answer to my question, I can safely assume you’re not putting your words into action.
It’s really easy to sit here and say what everyone else should do, but it’s meaningless unless you put your own words into action.
You’re talking about Dale, right?
Jesus wouuld ask you, what have YOU done for this man? Have you collected any money for a defense fund? Have you collected money for his family? Have YUO vistied him in prison yet, to see what he needs. "For I say to you, what you do to the LEAST of My Brothers you do to Me." God expects us to put things to rights, as much as we can...not excoriate the sinner or talk about the Kingdom of Heaven to come, but to help the suffering, NOW. So yes, what have you done, besides type on a screen and complain? Rest assured the Lord may note, with approval, your concern, but He will also note, with disapproval, your inaction.
If you don’t like the religious overtones, there’s this. It’s how we act, and if an injustice has occurred, then what have YOU done to put it to rights? Your words on a screen do nothing for this "innocent" man? So, in a choice, if you could ask him, I’d imagine this guy would prefer your excoriate Dale less and DO more, for him. Right now, this is just like Smellie Hippies castigating "The Man" for his cruelty and indifference, but really DOING nothing to alleviate the supposed suffering. It’s the difference between "Posturing" and "Accomplishing".
"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."
His words were put into action.
His other words that you like to point to about the state becoming "illegitimate" also contained the word "arbitrarily" in reference to the state’s actions.
Obviously there is a serious disagreement about what is arbitrary, but Franks was clear about his view.
I can safely assume you’re not putting your words into action
I would even speculate that many of them still act in support of the illegitimate state. I know Beck has previously commented specifically on how he does NOT, so as far as I know he acts consistent with his beliefs. However, looking through the blogs and comments from the others it appears they still tend to pay federal taxes and take interest in who runs for political office, despite viewing the Constitution as an illegitimate contract.
I can safely assume you’re not putting your words into action.
How would you even know? And why would you think I’d tell you about it? Dale and his supporters are not allies to share strategy ideas with, they’re the opposition. Decent people have to work to protect themselves from Dale.
"The Declaration of IndependeNce was a criminal act under British rule as the thirteen colonies were not a STATE. They then REBELLED and won a protracted war, ending with the TREATY OF PARIS, which in Article 1, recognized the colonies as FREE AND SOVEREIGN STATES, thus enabling the LEGAL adoption of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."
So, if you steal someone’s television, then proceed to beat the snot out of them, with help from a guy named Louis, and they say, "you win" does that make the television any less theirs? I’m operating on the assumption that the King and Parliament were justified in claiming territorial and personal dominance over the thirteen colonies and every single soul within, respectively. I’m not even bothering to criticize the fundamental injustice of the monarchy itself; at this point I’m convinced your brain would probably short out in hearing the case. And we won’t get into the illegalities of the framing of the Constitution itself, for that’s another can of worms, for which you’re evidently ill-equipped to participate in the opening and sorting.
"Thanks for the e-psychoanalysis."
Stirnerism is a philosophy, with which everything you’ve written is perfectly commensurable. Look it up before you spout off like a Marxist in heat.
"And thanks for the fatherly advice. Did I mention that you’re a douchebag?"
You make sick jokes about men getting raped after having their life stolen from them as a cheap vehicle for a half-assed ad hominem attack on someone else, and I’m the douche bag? I’ve met retarded people who think more clearly than you do, and act with more decency than you yourself are capable. What I said was, and will probably always be in your case, fundamentally and radically opposed to the premises informing your arguments. But the lesson isn’t for you. You’ve educated yourself into a circular hole of hermeneutic proportions. The lesson is for those who are still willing to learn.
"Now you’re rambling like Scott Erb on a... well, like Scott Erb."
You asked an utterly stupid question. I answered. The answer makes you look even more like the punch-drunk fool you are, and now you prove that you can’t even follow the action of your own thoughts. But you’re not even the real reason I’ve come here. You’re just a morsel of window dressing attached to a mote hanging off the edge of the real problem.
Besides, Turtleneck of Maine pretends to be nice and to like everyone. I hate your rotten guts with a passion that is inexpressible in mere words. When push comes to shove, in those situations where it’s ’women and children first’ yours is the creed that says ’screw the women and children, I’m getting on the boat!’ and when someone asks about your craven cowardice at some later date, your lack of what can only be called humanity, your excuse will be as it is for similar monsters past; "That’s the way it is."
"Complete with smarmy pseudo-intellectual condescension."
If you weren’t so utterly moronic it would not be necessary to spoon feed the truth to you, one bite at a time. It’s your own fault for acting this way.
This ’neo-libertarian’ ’libertarian-republican’ synthesis thing was pegged long ago for what it was. I’m not surprised in the slightest at the fruit born by it.
So, if you steal someone’s television, then proceed to beat the snot out of them, with help from a guy named Louis, and they say, "you win" does that make the television any less theirs?
Ah, heck. Let’s just give the country back to the Indians, pack up our things and move back to Europe. Because what you’re describing is what the colonial powers of the 17th and 18th centuries did.
Based on that, the eastern seaboard was no more England’s property in 1776 than it was the US’s in 1791.
Well really no one owned or owns the Eastern Seaboard by this argument...it was the property of the INDIVIDUAL or indiviuals living there, never the tribe or nation that claimed it...And no I’m not an An-Cap and I find the idea preposterous, but I’m sure that’s the tack that’s about to be unleashed. No GROUP, has title to the land, only the person(s) living there....so no the "indians" didn’t own it, the British didn’t own it, and the United States did not own it....because by definition "they" could never own it, only I or you or a PERSON could be said to own it.
My phrase does seem counter-intuitive in retrospect. I was granting a premise, that the British Monarchy rightly held the thirteen colonies. I pointed out that the circumstances leading up to the ratification of the Constitution did not change the apparent criminality. However, the actual crimes were of the British state. It was always the right of the colonists (and all people, everywhere, at any time) to secede, and any violence they used to keep the British from forcibly continuing their dominance can only be seen as self defense.
Ah, heck. Let’s just give the country back to the Indians, pack up our things and move back to Europe. Because what you’re describing is what the colonial powers of the 17th and 18th centuries did.
Based on that, the eastern seaboard was no more England’s property in 1776 than it was the US’s in 1791.
Both the English settlers in Virginia and those in New England at least initially bought land from the indians. Generally speaking, English and American settlement later spread with settles moving to wide open spaces, and conflict with indians would typically arise months or even years later.
Conflict with the indians origionated due to the significant cultural differences; the English with firm property rights, and the indians with a "property rights system" that was basically based upon the strength on one’s warriors.
I hate your rotten guts with a passion that is inexpressible in mere words. When push comes to shove, in those situations where it’s ’women and children first’ yours is the creed that says ’screw the women and children, I’m getting on the boat!’ and when someone asks about your craven cowardice at some later date, your lack of what can only be called humanity, your excuse will be as it is for similar monsters past; "That’s the way it is."
You are one crazy, humorless, S.O.B. How difficult is it to read your spittle-flecked screen right now?
Why don’t you take your crazy back to Richard’s blog?
The initial reason for the American Revolution was summed up by: "No taxation without representation!". It did not start as an effort to succeed.
I don’t think the Founders thought they had an arbitrary right to succeed. However, they also felt they had a right to have a say in their taxation, and the violation of that right led to their resistance, first in the form of political agitation and non-compliance, later in the form of armed resistance.
As a note, the "shot heard round the world" set off the actual violence, and the colonial militiamen at Lexington had assembled with unloaded firearms (at least, they were so ordered). Essentially, the militia were putting on an "armed demonstration" without an intent towards actual violence, but the British officiers escalated the situation . . .
That phrase "No taxation without representation!" is not one that, to my knowledge, can be found in a single printed document in the pre-revolutionary or revolutionary period. That doesn’t mean taxation and lack of parliamentary representation weren’t at issue in the whole thing...It’s like the phrase ’pink slip’, I don’t know as anyone’s actually found firing notices that were printed on slips of pink paper, so the exact origins of the phrase remain unclear. I believe someone traced it to a 20th century American History textbook printed in the first half of the century, but could find it no further back...
"I don’t think the Founders thought they had an arbitrary right to succeed."
You may be right about that. However, in the Declaration Jefferson argues for secession as a natural right. The thesis is fundamentally Lockean, but then Jefferson was the philosopher par excellence of the whole bunch.
As someone with no dog in this fight, I have a question. I am interested in learning more about libertarianism. I’ve followed the comments throughout this topic. How the hell do the libertarians expect to attract a larger following? I’ve never seen such a load! While I disagree with the "war on drugs" and feel that marijuana is not a harmful drug, the state does have its rules. The smuggler has to take responsibility for HIS actions. That said, Dale, if he was a libertarian with deeply held beliefs, should have gotten himself recused IF he thought that he could not act as an IMPARTIAL JUROR.
I have seen many wonderful arguments on both sides. But I have yet to see the arrogance portrayed by Billy Beck anywhere else on the NET except at the Kos kids when you disagree with them. If all I ever found was Beck to convince me to be a libertarian, I’d rather not. When you are at someone else’s site, be civil. If you can’t don’t comment. I’ve seen flame wars all over the net, but "shut up" is definitely the wrong tack to take. Not a debate? No wonder the Libertarians can’t get elected dog catcher. If I want "holier than thou" I either go visit Huckabee or the commies. I WANT more libertarian views in government. But we’re not going to get there overnight.
Let’s say that Mr. Smuggler brings drugs across legally. Since everything should be legal, that would include addictive drugs. Since minors technically cannot be responsible under the law, and do not yet have the wisdom to make good decisions, is it my right to go shoot the smuggler in the head if he sells to my child?
The role of democratic government is to SECURE our rights, through COMMONLY agreed upon rules, laws, etc. Otherwise, there is only rule of the strongest or mob rule. See Somalia for a libertarian paradise. Or Eastern Europe.
Yes, our government is too big and centralized. What have you done to make it smaller? Most Libertarians won’t vote for incremental changes. It’s all or nothing.
Quoting dead authors about philosophy does nothing. Natural rights means nothing without the means to secure them. NO RIGHT is absolute. Right to life? If you are killed, who enforces the the penalty if you can’t enforce your rights?
There must be some sort of body to enforce the contract. This time, a man broke the agreed upon rules, with full knowledge of the consequences. Are the penalties too much? Perhaps. Get them changed. The contents of his truck are meaningless. Everything is harmless unless misused. Even properly packaged plutonium. It is the act of smuggling that is illegal. Even if its paper clips.
No one is above the law. But the law can be changed. Get over yourselves. You’ve lost one possible convert to "pure" libertarianism.
Let’s see - Franks gets on a supposedly libertarian blog, boasts about how he helped put a man who harmed no one in a cage for ten years (with due gloating emphasis on the humiliating details of the man’s physical fear) and anyone who reacts to this with proper outrage is an "extremist" and "uncivil." Mr. "nom de guerre" claims to agree in principle but objects to the "tone" of the justified outrage. Well, Mr. Anonymous De Guerre, if Franks had been instrumental in throwing you in the slammer for ten years for nothing at all that any decent person would consider a crime, maybe you’d be a little less dispassionate about the business. And if Mr. "nom de guerre"’s son is really reading this, he should understand now that his father is a a fool and a coward.
However, in the Declaration Jefferson argues for secession as a natural right. The thesis is fundamentally Lockean, but then Jefferson was the philosopher par excellence of the whole bunch.
The key point is that he’s providing the reasons for secession.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;"
He then explains the causes of secession.
And of course, when he wrote this, the colonies had been at war with England for a little over a year.
How the hell do the libertarians expect to attract a larger following?
Most don’t. In all honesty, most libertarians (and I use the term in the loosest sense for this conversation) think that libertarianism is doomed to political failure (especially in the short term) because of factional differences and infighting.
And it’s all the fault of those (insert name of one of the other self-labeled libertarian factions here)!!!
Please don’t let that discourage you from learning more about libertarianism. I strongly believe that learning more about it can only be a boon to you and to the cause for liberty. Just... don’t expect to see any coherence or cooperation in raising the "big tent" and unifying the disparate factions.
Anonymous De Guerre, if Franks had been instrumental in throwing you in the slammer for ten years for nothing at all that any decent person would consider a crime, maybe you’d be a little less dispassionate about the business.
***Arrogance Alert*******Arrogance Alert*******Arrogance Alert**** Assumption...sadly not "all decent persons" agree that it was not a crime or an unjust act. That’s just ONE of the problems you An-Cap’s have....first I support the War on Drugs, so I don’t start from this assumption. You guys do...sadly when anyone disaggrees with your arrogant, first assumptions, vitriol ensues. You see what may come is the "true Scotman" argument, "Oh you support the WoD, then you’re NOT a decent person." That’s not a logical argument. So please label, clearly your assumptions and axioms, and don’t jsut throw them out there as Fundamental Rules of the Universe, such as F=M*A or E=M*(C*C). Since I consider his actions both a crime and immoral/unjust I arraive at different conclusions. You guys simply don’t like to ackowledge that you have different ideas, not necessarily the TRUTH.
And that is something Cargosquid makes clear in his post, that your arrogance and blindness to the idea that some folks don’t agree, and don’t agree not because they are evilll or stoopit. You make disagreement ILLEGITIMATE, and in that you are no better than the CPSU or the NASDAP or even the Catholic Church.
Let’s see, "Joe" - if I express an opinion on what’s decent or not decent I’m as bad as the Communists or the "NASDAP". Oh noes! - I’m oppressing you with my unkind words! Of course the Communists and the Nazis used to oppress people by, you know, actually throwing them in prison (rather like Mr. Franks) or worse, not by disagreeing with them on blog comments threads. Actually, according to people like you, holding any strong opinion is "elitist" and oppressive, because you are too much of a coward to have any principles at all.
if I express an opinion on what’s decent or not decent I’m as bad as the Communists or the "NASDAP".
No my poinnt is that you and the An-Cap’s act AS IF your first ASSUMPTIONS, were fundamental laws of the Universe....they aren’t and then when people disagree with YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, much vitriol ensues, because we are "heretics" or "Splittes/Trotskyites"...not simply people that do not agree with your first assumptions.
because you are too much of a coward to have any principles at all.
I disagree with you, I am a "coward" without any "principles"
I already said I agree with the WoD, I HAVE principles, they differ from yours. I could send ole’ Mr Rhett to jail NO PROBLEMO...I could send him if he were my brother...Dale could send me, if it were ME in the dock...in my world he imported pot, which is ILLEGAL and also UNJUST... in your guys world that may not be true, though technically it is still ILLEGAL, you simply feel it is unjust to try a man for that...
Again I have my principles, I live by them, they have consequences, I have to live with those too, so I’m not a coward.
But in An-Cap world disagreement=No Principle=Coward... and then you guys wonder, "Why don’t people vote Libertarian more?" Or do you? Or is your philosophy just a little club for the morally/mentally superior? In fact if it were "popular" then wuld you have to move onto something more outre? I don’t know I just wonder.
No it runs the risk of being WRONG, but that’s OK. I hold opinions strongly, please don’t "understand me so well" in the immortal words of Yul Brenner (Magnificent Seven).
In other words, if you aren’t engaging in reasoned debate, and in fact trying to shut down debate by the use of such tactics as calling people names, or liking their actions to the Nazis, then you may be "no better than the CPSU or the NASDAP or even the Catholic Church."
Kiss my ass. Its easy to say crap like coward and fool on the net. Lets meet. Cargosquid@aol.com email me. We’ll meet.
YOU think he was an innocent lamb. I think that he is a convicted criminal. If I break the law, I go to jail. If I don’t agree with a law, I try to get it changed or repealed. HE DESERVED TO GO TO JAIL. Whether the sentence is extreme or not, that is a different subject. I’m anonymous because of people like you that take this personally. I ask a question and make my opinion known and you have the unmitigated gall to insult me. You are a nut.
YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU PREVENT LIBERTARIAN IDEALS FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED.
1) the application of objective and equally applied rule of law is a proper function of government, and
2) your support for that was adequate for your decision in that courtroom.
So: had the legally proscribed penalty been death, would you have acted in the same way?
If not, why not? What would the difference have been in principle?
If so...well, it would be fascinating to read a "libertarian" defence of that decision.
There’s nothing insulting about the question I’m asking Dale in the above quote. But if not Dale, can anyone give me a principled answer that would defend Dale’s decision if the penalty in a case otherwise exactly the same was death.
I’ll give an answer for myself Ron, if that’s ok...
I’d have voted the same as Dale in the federal trial, and had the proscribed penalty been death, I wouldn’t have been on the jury, because death for smuggling is not even remotely proportional.
That is, however, my opinion, and others are free to disagree.
My contention is that Dale should have fought for Mr Rhett for exactly the same reasons Dawson & Downey were supposed to fight for Willie. Instead, he followed the order for the Code Red.
2. It’s even more awkward and nerdy when you put it that way.
Awkward and nerdy, perhaps...but I note you didn’t say "incorrect".
Lemme see if I understand this (and as you are obviously leaving "free markets—free people" right out of the equation)...
You’re not concerned with *if* a prisoner is punished, your concern is only *how much* he is punished? As in: it’s the degree of damage that would make a punishment wrong—not, say, the essential question of "should the prisoner have been punished"?
You’re not concerned with *if* a prisoner is punished
I’m sorry, I’d thought we had established that in this case I think he SHOULD be punished. There is little "if" there.
If you commit a crime, and it isn’t done under durress, or is not done KNOWING that it is illegal, I don’t believe there is much question as to whether or not you should be punished.
I guess my guiding principle in this regard would be "don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time."
or, put another way, "Don’t break the law, and then get all pissy when you go to jail"
So, Scott, in your view: it’s not the rightness or wrongness of a law that counts, but instead you say that the mere existence of a law is sufficient that breaking it deserves punishment, with the addition in this particular case, you also agree with the law—making an exception, then, for marijuana in the "free markets" proviso.
So, Scott, in your view: it’s not the rightness or wrongness of a law that counts, but instead you say that the mere existence of a law is sufficient that breaking it deserves punishment, with the addition in this particular case, you also agree with the law—making an exception, then, for marijuana in the "free markets" proviso.
In a word, yes.
"Rightness" and "wrongness" is entirely subjective, changing almost from person to person. I’m sure you would agree that it being against the law for a 50 year old man having sex with a 10 year old boy is "right". He, however, would greatly disagree with you, and would recite chapter and verse of the NAMBLA "core values".
Therefore, your opinion of the "rightness" of a law (or mine) is irrelevant, as it should be. What matters is a) is the law, at the time, Constitutional and b) is it applied evenly to everyone.
The first is important because, whether you like it or not, we live in a society governed by a body that draws it’s authority from a bit of paper writen almost 300 years ago. It has worked relatively well in that time, providing the framework that has, in time, come to be quite equitable (at least as far as treatment under said laws is concerned).
The second is equally important, and if it is lacking it would suggest thatthe first is as well. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments set us forth as equal under the law. We may not be, it they suggest, created equal, but we at least get an even shot to achieve what we can within the rules.
That being the case, whether or not you think drug laws are bad or good, they exist, and are deamed (thus far) to be Constitutional. Since you or I would face the same possible punishment as Mr Rhett were we to duplicate his actions (excuse me if I should try and avoid "befouling" myself should I make the attempt), the law is applied evenly.
I don’t think ALL drugs should be legal, but I can see very convincing arguments for why some - MJ for example - should be.
I would support legalization if it carried with it EXTREME punishments for crimes commited while high, such as traffic accidents with injury/death, and what not. Smoke it? Fine by me. Do something after you smoke it that harms someone, and you should get hammered for it - you have more or less actively seen to it you were in a stupor, and thus should face every possible sanction possible.
But that’s acedemic, since they aren’t legal. There are ways for you to go about getting laws passed to MAKE them legal, but one of those ways is not simply ignoring the laws that currently exist. Work to have them changed, don’t flagrantly disregard them...
The Law, no matter how derived, is only a guide to right action. It is a tool and no more an end in itself than a hammer. It is not "revealed wisdom", it is not inerrant and it is not an acceptable substitute for my independent judgement. The law does not control my judgement or my action; at best it merely advises it.
When it comes to real world action, it is never correct to do to another human what would be wrong between you man-to-man, even to suit a "greater purpose".
My contention is that Dale should have fought for Mr Rhett for exactly the same reasons Dawson & Downey were supposed to fight for Willie. Instead, he followed the order for the Code Red.
2. It’s even more awkward and nerdy when you put it that way.
Awkward and nerdy, perhaps...but I note you didn’t say "incorrect".
Why not?
I’m sorry - I thought that the implication that it was incorrect was clear enough. To clarify, let me restate my premises:
I am fine with the smuggling of importation of marijuana being codified as a crime subject to a 10-year prison sentence.
I believe in the rule of law, including the mechanisms to amend or repeal, or strike down laws deemed oppressive or unconstitutional.
I believe that Dale’s DUTY in this case was to judge Scott Rhett’s innocence or guilt based on the evidence and testimony presented by the prosecution, weighed against the defense mounted in Rhett’s behalf.
NOW... the reason you are incorrect is that it is not Dale’s or any juror’s duty to "fight for" Scott Rhett. If you feel that way, you are unable to judge the defendant impartially and, if you have a shred of honesty, should inform the judge of your views and you would be excused from duty.
I know it really bums a lot of people out that there is that much less pot to go around. But you’re all smart enough to understand the concept of "civic duty." Even though you scream and rail about the unfairness of our police-state. Dale discharged his duty faithfully, EVEN THOUGH IT CONFLICTED WITH HIS PERSONAL FEELINGS ABOUT THE RIGHTNESS OF THE LAW UNDER WHICH RHETT WAS CONVICTED.
I for one, respect the hell out of him for that. What he did took extreme mental and moral discipline. I certainly don’t agree with even the majority of his views, but I admire his conviction.
And for you LIARS that claim there was no "call to action" as McQ termed it, let me just excerpt this from Richard Nikoley’s blog:
A public, solemn nod and salute to Billy Beck. I wasn’t disappointed for a moment that he wasn’t actively engaged. I knew he was watching; every godammed detail. And then. Follow Billy’s links, or mine.
They ban me, and they get a half dozen in my place, all at least as capable, and some more so. Go see. And hats off to those who jumped in on my own say-so. You guys are terrific and I won’t forget it.
Thanks again, Beck. You lined up all the implications and you, above all, know the importance of this. This isn’t about winning a debate. That was 1995. This is about 10 years of a man’s one and only life. What you’ll see demonstrated, there, at those links, is the highest form of charity and goodwill you’ll ever witness. It’s in defense of Steven Rhett, a man none of us know, but he has a life.
In the comments over there, I’ve been called a-hole, rat bastard, etc. But the money quote is from Brian N., who says:
Jeff strikes me as having the ethical foundations of a cockroach, with the manual dexterity of a chimpanzee. No, that’s not fair; cockroaches only eat their own as an act of direst necessity and chimpanzees are utterly mammalian in their concern for their children. His beastliness is positively reptilian.
Awesome! But what do I have to do to get someone to demand my suicide?
I still stand by this: When it comes to real world action, it is never correct to do to another human what would be wrong between you man-to-man, even to suit a "greater purpose".
you’re all smart enough to understand the concept of "civic duty."
Yeah. It’s what people claim we owe because we were born here. I’m not an Objectivist, but credit where credit is due; this still pretty much explains my attitude towards imposed duty.
We get to the heart of the matter; legal positivism, and the ethical bankruptcy at the heart of it. It posits that the only meaningful standard to judge the arbitrary whims of men is...the arbitrary whims of men, written on pieces of paper.
Awesome! But what do I have to do to get someone to demand my suicide?
You’re too much of a walking spectacle as it is, Bubby. I couldn’t possibly suggest you do that for ethical* reasons, and besides that all-important consideration, you’re amusing to me. Like a bad comedian who can’t understand why his act is so damn terrible, you bulldoze ahead. Any observer watching the action and thinking clearly sees precisely what’s so disgusting about you, and they may know the logical roots of it. Demonstrating it has been a positive, productive good.
*Yes, I know you’re going to have trouble with that. If you stumble, don’t bother to reply. You’d be wasting everyone’s time, including yours.
We get to the heart of the matter; legal positivism, and the ethical bankruptcy at the heart of it. It posits that the only meaningful standard to judge the arbitrary whims of men is...the arbitrary whims of men, written on pieces of paper.
Brian, what if all we have is what we choose — what if there is no "right" answer, what if this isn’t like chemistry (perhaps more like quantum mechanics)? My blog on January 14th "Wanting an Answer Key" argues that it is an enlightenment era error to think there is one, right, natural way to view human social relations. We make it up as we go along, we set the rules, we determine value, and we are free to do so how we want. And it is "we," since it is an intersubjective process involving human interaction. It must be.
Ironically, those who want a "right" answer see human freedom to create the answers we choose as too much freedom. They want us to be limited by an answer key they hope exists, but can’t prove.
BTW, all that said my own view is that one should follow ones’ subjective belief system if the law demands someone do something one considers immoral. I would therefore not vote to convict someone of drug use, and I would probably not be put on a jury because I’d make clear that I will not be part of imprisoning someone for something I don’t think a crime. But hey, that’s just me, and I’m not under a delusion that my beliefs somehow should take precedence of Dale’s or anyone else’s — this is a personal call for each individual to make, based on his or her own moral judgement, and they might choose legal positivism or some other measure. We’re free to do that — free to determine our own moral systems and act on them, limited only by the consequences of our actions, our capacities and of course the fact others have that same freedom.
It posits that the only meaningful standard to judge the arbitrary whims of men is...the arbitrary whims of men, written on pieces of paper.
That would be because they are harder to change without telling people when you write them down. They are a meaningful standard because everyone can know what they are. They become a common framework for everyone, which is what is needed for truly fair treatment regardless of who is interacting with who.
The arbiotrary whims of man would still rule in your libertopia, but would have no over-arching framework.
MY whims and YOUR whims are completely different, and you have no way of knowing if my whim is to shoot you.
Were that my whim now (it isn’t, but go with me on this), I’d have that pesky law in my way.
"Some people live only because it’s against the law to kill them." I believe is the appropriate bumper-sticker.
Do you agree that the only difference between YOUR ideal and reality is that laws are actually written down for the purpose of enforcement, as opposed to being merely the whim of each and every person without a system to control aberant behavior?
It’s illegal to not hire a man because he’s black. Illegal to do a LOT of things because someone’s black, actually.
Now Ron, lets assume that you’re black (work with me here), and I’m a racist (eh, been called worse). I refuse to hire you because yer one of them coloreds.
Under who’s system do you get fair treatment?
You all keep assuming that if you take away government and laws, peole will become perfect little angles, and I’m sorry but that just isn’t realistic. They will still be rapists and molesters and killers and racists.
But now they have access to pot, I guess. I don’t quite get what that solves, really...
It’s illegal to not hire a man because he’s black. Illegal to do a LOT of things because someone’s black, actually.
Now Ron, lets assume that you’re black (work with me here), and I’m a racist (eh, been called worse). I refuse to hire you because yer one of them coloreds.
Under who’s system do you get fair treatment?
Under their system it wouldn’t be illegal to not hire a black. It also wouldn’t be illegal to not sell products or provide services to blacks. If blacks didn’t like that, they could protest peacefully outside the mans establishment letting everyone know.
Face it, we haven’t swallowed the red pill, and what they are trying to explain just wouldn’t make sense unless we did.
I’ve run into these arguments before, also with the same "if you don’t get it I can’t explain it" attitude. The people doing the arguing then were just as devoid of respect for anyone who didn’t "get it" as well.
The Sovereign Citizen Movement is a political movement in the United States which grew out of claims concerning government abuses of citizens’ rights. Other names for "sovereign citizens" include "freemen" (see Montana Freemen) and "common law citizens".
This movement is based on theories that U.S. citizens are either "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" (who are subject to the federal and state laws and taxes) or "sovereign citizens", who are subject only to common law or "constitutional law" (or both), not to statutory law. Under these theories, sovereign citizens are exempt from any laws with which they do not agree. No court has ever upheld these arguments[1] (see Tax protester arguments). The Uniform Commercial Code plays an important part in these legal theories.
"Sovereign citizens" often avoid using zip codes, and refuse to hold social security cards or driver’s licenses.
Some African-American groups have adopted Sovereign Citizen beliefs,[2] which sometimes include a distinction between the Corporation and the Government, which (under these theories) no longer operates in the traditional sense.
You’re too much of a walking spectacle as it is, Bubby. I couldn’t possibly suggest you do that for ethical* reasons, and besides that all-important consideration, you’re amusing to me.
Bullsh*t, you liar.
I am a "rat-bastard" you "hate my guts with a passion", I’m a "monster" - these are all YOUR words, Brian.
You can act all calm and collected and retreat behind your pedantic tone, but I’ve seen you jumping up and down like a f*cking organ-grinder’s monkey in the comments at Nikoley’s blog about how much you hate me.
And I think it’s hilarious! Because you take yourself SO seriously that anyone who disagrees with you is a MONSTER!!!!
If I had to show an example of "Impotent Rage", accent on the IMPOTENT, I would print out your comments addressing me, or your buddies’ demands that Dale apologize and make amends.
Truly pathetic, that’s what your crew is. And you don’t even realize that while you may think you are being condescending, it’s not having the effect you think it is. For example -
*Yes, I know you’re going to have trouble with that. If you stumble, don’t bother to reply. You’d be wasting everyone’s time, including yours.
You FOOTNOTED one of your comments. What a complete tool you are! How could I possibly accept a dressing-down from the likes of you?
I still stand by this: When it comes to real world action, it is never correct to do to another human what would be wrong between you man-to-man, even to suit a "greater purpose".
And I disagree, Ron. But thank you for at least addressing my point, instead of blowing a head-gasket like Brian.
For example, man-to-man, I also believe the use of force to coerce behavior is wrong. However, in a "ticking time-bomb" scenario, I do believe it’s fingernail-pulling time. For the "greater purpose" of saving more lives. Or preventing future attacks on our troops, for instance.
But since you’re at least being polite, I think we can both agree that "Close Cover Before Striking" is a pretty good piece of advice.
you’re all smart enough to understand the concept of "civic duty."
Yeah. It’s what people claim we owe because we were born here. I’m not an Objectivist, but credit where credit is due; this still pretty much explains my attitude towards imposed duty.
See, like I said - you DO understand the concept, you just reject the notion that you owe any duty to the state. I understand and accept that that is your view, while completely disagreeing with it.
I guess the crux of what I’m trying to say is - You have to decide what’s right for you, when the state demands you perform your civic duty. Like it or not, there IS a system that both codifies crimes and prescribes the punishment for them.
I like that system and you do not. Okay, but I don’t think that makes you a fool or a monster for disagreeing with it. I’ve been reading QandO since it was just Jon Henke on blogspot, even though I don’t usually comment. I have always found it stimulating and informative to read the different perspectives on current events. I LIKE THIS PLACE.
But when the An-Cap posse busts in here insulting everyone, it’s like some chess club decided they were going to show up in force at my favorite watering hole, talking down to the guys at the bar whom I’ve come to like. That’s when it’s time to slide Grandpa’s lead sap out of my back pocket and crack some skulls. If your gang could be more respectful of someone else’s (McQ, Dale, Jon) space, which is supposedly what you’re all about, things would not have gotten so ugly.
I am a "rat-bastard" you "hate my guts with a passion", I’m a "monster" - these are all YOUR words, Brian.
You’re still amusing. I didn’t say you were amusing in a good way. You keep pretending to some kind of competence that is clearly beyond you. You’re more like a drunkard who pisses himself and then blames others, both for the dizziness and the stink.
How could I possibly accept a dressing-down from the likes of you?
Your ego won’t permit it, and your vacuous mind cannot comprehend it. You are, simply put, too immature to understand what it is that’s being objected to, let alone whence the objection. You are, of course, free to keep shaking your pompoms. I’ll try one more time to point out how utterly, absolutely wrong you are, but I doubt you’ll get it. You’ve been not comprehending what I’ve said from my first post, with the attendant lengthy explanations, with spectacular success.
Like it or not, there IS a system that both codifies crimes and prescribes the punishment for them. I like that system and you do not.
This "system" does not derive its power over others by consent, and it is not in existence except in the individuals who act in its behalf. Those individuals, in turn, are no more or less human than you or I. These individuals in turn rule, as they have always ruled, by main force. It is not merely possible but in the a priori it is self-evident that the ethical value of any given law is not determined by its existence as such. It is not a question of ’like’ or ’dislike’, terms best reserved for something arbitrary, like aesthetics. A rational aesthetics is impossible because it is a fundamentally emotional phenomenon. Ethics, on the other hand, is not an irrational thing, fundamentally, and a rational ethics is possible. A systematic laying out of the basic principles of such has been done, and it won’t be necessary (or possible, given the length of the discussion) to go into that here. From that standpoint of rational ethics, and many non-rational systems, the state is not essentially different from a gang of thugs. Its actions are cloaked in a pseudo-morality that is convenient in many ways for the moralists, who are well rewarded for their apologetics. Historically, from the earliest throne-and-altar up to morality cops apologizing for the latest act of asset forfeiture, the fundamental aspect is the same.
They are a meaningful standard because everyone can know what they are.
You’re missing the point; if it’s a law that all red-heads are to be shot on sight, must you obey it? Are you saying that all questions of right and wrong are merely arbitrary, subjective, and that ethics is always and fundamentally a non-rational discipline? Meanwhile, could not criminals conspire, as they have conspired in the past, to create laws that turn the whole engine of state power to their benefit? Labor unions and their history of cozying up to state power is a fine enough example.
Jeff and Scott: Thank you both for acknowledging my wish to be polite here. Other people, people with whom I actually have otherwise wide agreement, use different tactics and I even hope they’re effective; it’s just that I am personally not aware of anyone ever being insulted into changing their mind. So I try to remember that, even if useful for others (and it might be), the tactic doesn’t usually work for me.
That said, I still have a strong issue with (please, I only mean this as crude short-hand...) "love it or leave it" and the milder but similar variants; the idea that if one stays in the USA one is accepting the obligations of a contract.
I did not ask to be born, nor to be born in America. Such is my good fortune, true, but still, the mere existence of a state into which I was born and the fact I still reside there implies no debt to that state.
My point is that the logical consequence of accepting such an argument, especially when tied to arguments stating that because of the contract one must obey laws unless and until legislatively changed, would lead to the unfortunate but consistent (and, most importantly, wrong) position that, for example and not intending a Godwin, German citizens who grew up, worked and learned in Fascist classrooms, who received Fascist pensions and medical care, who drove on Fascist infrastructure, and who were even protected to degree from common street-thieves were consequently morally obligated to obey all the laws of that state unless and until such laws were changed.
To use a .netism: that argument is full of obvious FAIL.
Were you in the majority, I suspect your stance that "the mojority doesn’t have the right" would rapidly disappear.
That’s my stance as well, and no it wouldn’t. Morality is not a numbers game; there is no magic formula where something wrong when done by an individual becomes right when done by some group.
You all keep assuming that if you take away government and laws, people will become perfect little angels, and I’m sorry but that just isn’t realistic. They will still be rapists and molesters and killers and racists.
Actually, no. I assume—as do you—that there will always be a wide variety of *ssh*l*s. Luckily, holding the views I do (unlike democrats/statists), I’m not morally obligated in any way by how many of them vote, for example.
This "system" does not derive its power over others by consent, and it is not in existence except in the individuals who act in its behalf. Those individuals, in turn, are no more or less human than you or I. These individuals in turn rule, as they have always ruled, by main force. It is not merely possible but in the a priori it is self-evident that the ethical value of any given law is not determined by its existence as such. It is not a question of ’like’ or ’dislike’, terms best reserved for something arbitrary, like aesthetics. A rational aesthetics is impossible because it is a fundamentally emotional phenomenon. Ethics, on the other hand, is not an irrational thing, fundamentally, and a rational ethics is possible. A systematic laying out of the basic principles of such has been done, and it won’t be necessary (or possible, given the length of the discussion) to go into that here. From that standpoint of rational ethics, and many non-rational systems, the state is not essentially different from a gang of thugs. Its actions are cloaked in a pseudo-morality that is convenient in many ways for the moralists, who are well rewarded for their apologetics. Historically, from the earliest throne-and-altar up to morality cops apologizing for the latest act of asset forfeiture, the fundamental aspect is the same.
Interesting. Now can you describe for me the caress of a woman? And I thought Erb was boring.
That said, I still have a strong issue with (please, I only mean this as crude short-hand...) "love it or leave it" and the milder but similar variants; the idea that if one stays in the USA one is accepting the obligations of a contract.
That would be true if we were a static culture. But times and laws change. Slavery is now illegal, blacks and women can vote, alcohol was illegal and now legal again, etc.
What your crew is overlooking is that the true blessing of American citizenship is your ability to renegotiate that contract. Refusal to participate in the process does not exempt you from the rules, it just negates your ability to influence the rules.
Such is my good fortune, true, but still, the mere existence of a state into which I was born and the fact I still reside there implies no debt to that state.
I agree that being born here implies no debt to the State.
But you (and by you, I mean Billy and the rest of the ACs who enjoy being so shrill on condicending) continue to live here. You (again, see other definition) have long since passed the age where you can make your own choices.
And yet you stay.
I can only assume it is because they enjoy complaining, because they certainly must not have much success at changing minds.
And again, Ron, your comments here are why I keep reading the comment sections.
for example and not intending a Godwin, German citizens who grew up, worked and learned in Fascist classrooms, who received Fascist pensions and medical care, who drove on Fascist infrastructure, and who were even protected to degree from common street-thieves were consequently morally obligated to obey all the laws of that state unless and until such laws were changed.
I’d also like to finally address this who "good German"/Goodwin’s Law thing
Yes, the citizens of Nazi Germany accepted an infrastructure funded by fascists.
But most of it wasn’t origianlly put there by the facists, and even if it were, the whole concept of facist is you can’t speak out against the state without disappearing.
I see little proof that people are being rounded up because they disagree with Dale, and thus I find the idea of equating him (or even the US Govt) as "Nazi" or "Facist" to be silly, insulting, and pretty darn stupid.
Remember, if Bush really did equal Hitler, saying that out loud would get you shot.
I take part in *this* process, which I think it’s more effective at changing hearts and minds than voting, and it doesn’t require that I impose on anyone, even by proxy. Trust me, even on a day-by-day basis, I’m not a bystander.
the whole concept of facist is you can’t speak out against the state without disappearing
Although that was a practical reality in Germany, it isn’t an essential to the philosophy.
But—anyways—I wasn’t equating at all (the fascist State was clearly worse); I was just making the point through illustration that one’s existence in a State doesn’t imply obligation, even if one benefits in ways by living there. One has to live somewhere and one has a right to be free no matter where one lives.
For disagreeing with 50+ percent of the nation’s population...
I repeat: Morality is not a numbers game; there is no magic formula where something wrong when done by an individual becomes right when done by some group.
Do you really want "disagreeing with 50+ percent of the nation’s population" to be the reason folks are rounded up?
