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

 
This isn’t your place, it isn’t 1999 and it damn sure isn’t USENET
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, January 17, 2008

Wow ... go away for a day and come back to snow in Atlanta, 800 emails and "the collective" in residence in the comment section going after their outrage du jure.

A few points, at least as I see them. Others who write here may disagree, but since this is my portion of the blog, I'll have my say.

1. Anyone is welcome to comment here and disagree with whatever is written. But you know what, I'm tired of the petulant children who can't do anything but hurl vile and juvenile insults and quickly drag any possibility of debate into the gutter. I've had this conversation with certain members of the swarm before, obviously to no avail. If you want to come to our place, you'd better figure out that you don't make the rules.

2. Jon's point about the possibility of anything being settled by shouting matches based in two divergent premises is correct and obvious. Let's back up here. I don't think anyone would say the swarm hasn't made some good points about their premise. But it's lost in the cacophony of screaming, shouting, hand-waving and outright juvenile behavior of others from the hive (and yes, I'm using a collective term to characterize you because, as usual, the "action alert" signal has gone out from one and you collectively respond to the stimulus by swarming the designated place). I don't have to extend commenting privileges (and that's what they are - privileges) to anyone who just shows up. And I certainly don't have to extend them to clueless cretins who repeatedly crap on my name.

3. To a particular emailer, and you know who you are, I don't respond to threats.

Whether or not you agree with Dale's actions is open to debate - reasonable debate (and we define 'reasonable debate' with very wide parameters here). But once you wander past those wide parameters, it becomes my right to make whatever arbitrary decision I choose to make about continuing to extend commenting privileges to you. If you can't muster the will to be an adult at someone else's place, I'll ensure you don't have the opportunity to bother those who choose to conduct themselves well.

Let me end this with a little story. Way back, over 30 years ago, I commanded a company in Korea. I had my own compound which housed my unit. We were self-contained. A closed compound with a fence, guards, the whole shooting match. Consider it "my little country" if you will, but I controlled everything that went in and out of that place. And there were certain things I forbade coming in. In fact, I stood in front of my unit the very first day I took it and specifically told the members of that unit that if I caught them with drugs of any kind I'd "max" them. Fair warning.

A few weeks later we had a guy go berserk one night, literally picking up empty wall lockers in a barracks and throwing them at people. It took 4 of us to subdue him. He was all fired up on bennies and wine. A week later, I ran into the gate-house and pulled a soldier - who I had restricted to base via Article 15 - off the gate guard who he was choking in an effort to leave the compound. He came up swinging, hit me and I knocked him though a plate glass window. Bennies again.

Striking an officer is a General Court-Martial offense, but I wanted the "importer". So I got the guy to roll-over on the supplier in return for a summary court-martial on the drug charge. An SCM is where I, alone, am the judge, jury and executioner. I sentenced him to 6 months with the Retraining Brigade at Ft. Riley KS, which was an option I had in those days.

Then I kept my eyes and ears open and eventually caught the soldier who was bringing bennies and all other sorts of crap onto my compound red-handed. In his case I charged him with everything I could think of and asked for a General Court-Martial. I got it, I testified against him and he went away for 3 years hard-time in Leavenworth and a Bad Conduct Discharge. If you're wondering whether I regret any of that today, the answer is no. I'd do it all again just as I did it then. You see I'd taken an oath as an officer to uphold the Constitution, its laws and the UCMJ. When I take an oath, I take it seriously.

To some, however, I'm sure I'm the bad guy and the guy I helped send away for 3 years was just a simple importer trying to make a buck in contravention to my explicit but "freedom-killing" prohibition of those substances. And he did quite well for a while.

Now if you want to have a measured and civilized conversation or debate about this, have at it. But if we get into the juvenile personal attacks and nonsense I saw in the other threads, I'll delete those remarks and, if necessary, close the thread.

Oh, and one other thing. For those of you planning on making this a running gun-battle in which you place off topic comments in other threads referring back to the battle below, huh-uh. Not gonna happen. Again, this ain't your place, this ain't 1999 and this ain't USENET. This is private property and at present and at my pleasure you have commenting privileges. Don't abuse them.

Fair warning.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"To a particular emailer, and you know who you are, I don’t respond to threats."
I promise you, Bruce: that was no threat.

I don’t keep friends who keep friends like this rotten crumb you’re blogging with.

I’ve known you for nearly eighteen years. You really have no serious idea what I’ve thought of you for a long time. I’ll never forget you. But I’m glad my father isn’t here to see this.

This is really bad, and you know it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I can’t be sure, but I don’t think Bruce would bother to mention "You won’t be my bestest friend any more" as a threat.

For some reason, I think he’d only mention it if it was, you know, a threat.

Not the petulant whinings of a spoiled child hiding in an adult’s body.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Uh, yeah Scott, I believe I can speak for myself. So let’s not start the insults OK? All of that’s been covered.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Fair enough...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Well I’m not an An-Cap, as you can imagine...but I would say this about your example, it doesn’t really work McQ. IF, as an An-Cap, I accepted the idea of a military or mercenary combat force, THEN I’d say that you were perfectly within your rights , as an employer, of the troops to restrict the importation of the drugs. My point being, that if your example is a way of suggesting that the importation of drugs can be considered a crime and punishable, I think that others would simply say that yours was a "special" case, but not one that could be applied in a general manner. This fellow, everyone is so upset about, was importing to the general public, and by their lights was NOT importing to your compound, where you make the rules, but rather to ANY compound that cared to import pot. I’m not a part of the crew that thinks Dale was EVILLLLL Incarnate, just pointing out that from their view point your story just doesn’t quite do the trick.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"So let’s not start the insults OK?"
Not to mention the far more essential matter of his stark bloody ignorance.

Don’t mention it, Bruce. It’s cool. I can speak for myself too, until you throw me out of here, which you’d probably better do.

This is never going to stop. And you can save your "action alert" horsesh|t, too. I speak exclusively for myself at all times, and you know it, even if nobody else does, to include people who wade in here saying things like "we" or "us" or any of the rest of it. And even if nobody else ever says another word about Dale Franks being the punk he is, I will.

I’ll never forget him, either.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
This fellow, everyone is so upset about, was importing to the general public, and by their lights was NOT importing to your compound, where you make the rules, but rather to ANY compound that cared to import pot.
And in the case with the non-convict, the base commander (the Legislature) forbid and made contraband.

He tried to come onto base (he tried to enter the US) with a nono (marry-jah-whanna). He knew the CO’s (the government’s) stance and policy regarding such an act (he knew it was illegal), and did it anyways.

He broke a law that is both constitutional and equally applied (I would get nearly the same if not THE same punishment if I did what he did).

And thus, he went to the clink. As he should have.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
now-convict, not non-convict.

Bah, I need more coffee.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Not to mention the far more essential matter of his stark bloody ignorance
Hmmmm...
And even if nobody else ever says another word about Dale Franks being the punk he is, I will.
It would seem that I am in fine company, Mr Beck.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Joe,


"Well I’m not an An-Cap,"

Neither am I.


"as you can imagine...but I would say this about your example, it doesn’t really work McQ. IF, as an An-Cap, I accepted the idea of a military or mercenary combat force, THEN I’d say that you were perfectly within your rights , as an employer, of the troops to restrict the importation of the drugs. My point being, that if your example is a way of suggesting that the importation of drugs can be considered a crime and punishable, I think that others would simply say that yours was a "special" case, but not one that could be applied in a general manner."

You’re correct, Joe, if the man voluntarily signed an ACTUAL contract to not engage in that activity and then -did- that activity, his conduct is actionable and McQ had the responsibility to apprehend him under the terms of the same contract.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
This is never going to stop.
It’s going to stop here, I can promise you that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You’re correct, Joe, if the man voluntarily signed an ACTUAL contract to not engage in that activity and then -did- that activity, his conduct is actionable and McQ had the responsibility to apprehend him under the terms of the same contract.
You mean like the contract you enter into by default when attempting to enter the united states, that you aren’t going to try and break a few laws in the process?

He got in line to come back in, and thus accepted the implied terms of the contract: "Try and sneak naughty stuff in, and you’ll get arrested".
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Then you’re going to have to be the one to stop it, Bruce.

Why can’t that bastard answer the question about the moral right of this thing?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
When does Beck ever answer anyone else’s questions?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Then you’re going to have to be the one to stop it, Bruce.
I think I’ve made it pretty clear I’m more than willing to do that - I’m not sure how you’re missing that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Make the most of it, Sir.

Why can’t the man whose name you proudly share on this "libertarian" weblog deal with the plain moral implications of what he did to a morally innocent man?

Can you?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
the plain moral implications of what he did to a morally innocent man
Stating your opinion of Mr Rhett does not make it a fact.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Nope, an -ACTUAL- contract based on a rational prescription. (keeping good order and discipline in a military unit) No faulty analogies allowed.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
No faulty analogies allowed.
Then please, explain if you can how my analogy is faulty.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I just did.
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
Ah, it’s command and control of the U.S. citizenry, then. We’re all to be soldiers in the people’s army.

I better go get my papers in order.

Buh bye.

 
Written By: MikeSoja
URL: http://www.kayak2u.com/blog/
Why can’t the man whose name you proudly share on this "libertarian" weblog deal with the plain moral implications of what he did to a morally innocent man?
I don’t answer for Dale. He’s apparently answered your question to his satisfaction. If you have a problem with it, take it up elsewhere.

This thread has a certain topic. You’re welcome to stay on it and participate in a discussion of that topic - and it isn’t Dale Franks.

I have a real freaking short fuze today, Billy. If you want to light it, you know how.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Point of note:

http://www.honestylog.com/root/2008/01/outrage.html
If you feel like chiming in, I’d suggest any comment you write would be better served over at that entry than here.
Sounds like an "action alert" to me...

But anyway, there has always an ideological split between "pure" libertarians, and everyone else. Why the "pure" keep trying to convince the "un-pure" that they are "un-pure" is beyond me.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
But anyway, there has always an ideological split between "pure" libertarians, and everyone else. Why the "pure" keep trying to convince the "un-pure" that they are "un-pure" is beyond me.
Because they are, as someone wrote elsewhere, "Suslov’s"...Mikhail Suslov being the last CPSU "Ideologue" or one of the last, you know the guy that developed and defended the "Party Line." Or if you prefer, think of them as the Torquemenda’s or Bellarmine’s of the movement, the Inquisitors ferreting out heresies!

The pure are always suspicious of the impure, for many reasons, both good and bad...exactly what the mix of motivations is is best left to God, otherwise this just becomes a shouting match.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
You can make sure that nobody else sees it, Bruce, but you and I did, and that’s what matters.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Wow, I go to Phoenix for the week and all hell breaks loose.

Sorry to hear about the problems McQ.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
You can make sure that nobody else sees it, Bruce, but you and I did, and that’s what matters.
You have a blog - put it up over there, but I’ve been pretty clear on how it works here. Topic is above (and you’ve been told what the topic isn’t), you’re welcome to discuss it. I’m not sure what part of that you don’t understand.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You know damned well that there is no dispute over your right here, Bruce. That’s not the point.

Why are you acting like you have to hide from this?
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
You know damned well that there is no dispute over your right here, Bruce. That’s not the point.
Obviously it is or you wouldn’t keep pushing this.
Why are you acting like you have to hide from this?
I’ve had my freakin’ say and like an adult, I’m done. I don’t have to flog the horse until it’s a puddle of crap.

Secondly, I have a life which entails doing things I find more satisfying than engaging in shouting matches with people who don’t listen, don’t care to listen and are here to mostly to pronounce their "superiority".

I’m tired of arrogant attempts at intimidation, juvenile insults and those who try to out-shout everyone. I’m done with it at least on my threads.

If you want to talk about the topic at hand, you’re welcome to do so. If not, don’t comment.

Now, if you really mean what you wrote in the first line above, then I’m sure I won’t hear another word about your second line on this thread. If I do, it will be deleted. Clear?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
For the love of Christ.

Billy, you come on here all the time saying that you are answerable to no one. Fine. But what makes you think you can come in here and demand answeres from Franks, or Bruce, or anyone else for that matter? Because he doesn’t have a ’purists’ or YOUR definition of libertarianism?

This is the Free Market, Billy. If you don’t like it, there’s a little arrow at the top left hand corner of your browser. You don’t HAVE to be here. But bloody hell, you definitely have no right to be insulting and/or lording over people, like myself, when you display the maturity level of an emotionally retarded 14 year old.

Act your age and not your shoe size.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Good on you, McQ!

One of the best ways to assert your rights is to define your boundaries.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
This is the Free Market, Billy. If you don’t like it, there’s a little arrow at the top left hand corner of your browser.
On my browser that button leads to "Girls, Girrrls, GRRRRLS" is it the same for everyone else’s browser too? You mean Bambi really doesn’t have a "special place in her heart JUST for me?" Wow, what a let down...that would mean that mayhap I’m not the only other person to ever see her on that web’cam...and the money....I’ll bet her mother doesn’t really need an expensive operation!?!?!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
You don’t HAVE to be here. But bloody hell, you definitely have no right to be insulting and/or lording over people, like myself, when you display the maturity level of an emotionally retarded 14 year old.
That is their method of sifting the wheat from the chaff.

The fact that you don’t get this, and wish them to curb their god given right to unfettered free speech, just proves that you are of the "un-pure."

So what if they sound like 14 year olds, that’s their right.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
It’s going to stop here, I can promise you that.

Only the words, not the consequences. Dale, and you, will get the constituency you’ve earned, and your efforts will have the kind of counter-productive "effectiveness" that was pointed out to you when you started this neo-farce years ago, except now at an accelerated pace due to Dale’s summary amputation of any part of it that might have tempered your worst impulses.

That, you can’t hide from.


 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"You just turn your pretty head and walk away."

One of a very few people in the world that I could respect.

That might not matter to you, but it’s a big deal to me.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Serious question: why do people take differences of opinion on issues where there is no way to prove a point of view correct take disagreement so personally and emotionally? Is that really rational? I honestly don’t understand it...I can be riled up sometimes by an argument I strongly disagree with and I’ll perhaps too often let that show in my comments. But it never extends to the person as an individual. It’s good that people have different ideas, that’s how we learn and improve.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Only the words, not the consequences. Dale, and you, will get the constituency you’ve earned, and your efforts will have the kind of counter-productive "effectiveness" that was pointed out to you when you started this neo-farce years ago, except now at an accelerated pace due to Dale’s summary amputation of any part of it that might have tempered your worst impulses.

That, you can’t hide from.
I’m not hiding from anything, Kyle, I’m just not going to engage in jaw flapping and keyboard slapping with a bunch of zealots who beam in on command and crap on the floor. I’ve watched it happen for years. There’s no reasoning or argument going on here, your mind was made up when you showed up and it isn’t open for debate as far as you’re concerned. Why in the world would anyone waste more time than it has taken me to type this to make it clear to even the slow among you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
That is their method of sifting the wheat from the chaff.

The fact that you don’t get this, and wish them to curb their god given right to unfettered free speech, just proves that you are of the "un-pure."
And this is where you anarchists fail to understand the other part of that Natural Law you just love to misquote.

Yes, you do have the natural right to be as much of an a$$ as you can muster. But, by God, I also have the Natural Right NOT to take it and to respond accordingly.

So the day Billy and others like him get his teeth kicked in I wonder whether or not he’ll call the po-po and sue them.

Professor Erb, I have a whole new appreciation for you, and I sincerely mean that.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
There does seem to be a substantial amount of demands for accountability going on from a group of people who profess to live to be only accountable to themselves.

Or

Is this really about the brand name?

Because ’anarchy’ really isn’t such a great brand.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m not hiding from anything, Kyle,

I hope not. I barely know you from Adam, but you’ve been one of the best of them in Billy’s eyes, and that means something. The problem is that I can’t see any other way to explain it, and none of the arguments the three of you have given pass even a cursory analysis.

I can’t speak for what Billy is doing, but I came here to evaluate people, hoping to find something left in you guys, or some of your regular comment contributors to value. I’ve come up empty.

You don’t have to answer to me, but you do have to answer to yourself. You can go about your business not caring about whether I value you, and rightly so in my individual case, but you’ve lost something important these last few days, and it will matter.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
I only read and comment at this blog because I have long respected McQ, going back to 1999 and Usenet, if that means anything. I don’t really know any of his partners here other than their occasional contributions.

I’m not a libertarian, per se, so I’m not even on the side of the point of view within which the relevant schismatic episode takes place.

Soja, Sabotta, and Beck are old homeboys from Usenet cyberwarfare, and they’ve always (well, not always, but mostly) extended to me the courtesy of being able to disagree with them.

I understand that sentiments can override good will in a place like this. It happens to me. I cancelled my subscription to National Review two years ago, and have regularly told them to fire John Derbyshire because he is both dishonest and intellectually incompetent. They have never obeyed me, but I still read their free stuff every day.

Hypocrisy is the price that vice pays to virtue. There are no saints at this blog, among its owners or its commentators.

I would suggest that the subject of the controversy has been exhausted, and that everyone can take what conclusions they need to away from it.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Again, Kyle, it takes a high level of arrogance to say ’he’s lost something important these last few days’.

What, exactly, has he lost? They stood on principle, their own principle (not your version or interpretation of it) and felt the right thing was done. In the end, the only two entities their answerable to is themselves and God, and unless I’ve seriously misunderstood something all these years, you (nor Billy or anyone else) don’t fall into either of those categories.

Again: back button.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
"I came here to evaluate people, hoping to find something left in you guys, or some of your regular comment contributors to value. I’ve come up empty."
Likewise with respect to you, Richard, Beck (whom I used to respect) and a few of others. Whatever merit your arguments have is lost in the vituperation and sanctimony. I know, I know - Beck’s Razor (are pure libertarians really given to hero worship?). And yet I did and none you bothered to address any of my points (save Trevalyan, in part). It was one blow down after another; a contest between pompous *sses to be crowned king. I’d say you, Richard, and Billy win in a tie and you are free (natch) to go f*ck yourselves.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
what upsets me most is how much people like Billy and others (myself included) cricisize blogs like HuffPo and KOS for their vitriole and then something like this happens.

Again, it’s sad.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
What, exactly, has he lost? They stood on principle, their own principle (not your version or interpretation of it) and felt the right thing was done. In the end, the only two entities their answerable to is themselves and God, and unless I’ve seriously misunderstood something all these years, you (nor Billy or anyone else) don’t fall into either of those categories.


They have lost the respect of many decent people (including, I’m sure, many who have never commented anywhere in all of this), but more importantly they’ve lost their way. Feeling that the right thing was done is not good enough. In fact, the wrong thing was done, and both the actions and the ideas behind them will have negative consequences for a very, very long time.

And didn’t I say right there in my post that they are not answerable to me? You may wish to examine why it is you want to cast what I said into such terms against the evidence of a plain statement to the contrary. You might be surprised at what you find you are protecting yourself from by doing so.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"I would suggest that the subject of the controversy has been exhausted, and that everyone can take what conclusions they need to away from it."
That’s a done deal, Martin.

Let me tell you something about "disagreement": should the day ever come when you decide to throw an innocent man in prison, you’d better make up your mind that you’re all done with me, because you’ll be all done with me. If you ever stand with someone like that, you’d better have all that squared away, too.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
should the day ever come when you decide to throw an innocent man in prison

Ahh, innocent.

Given that we’re discussing the nature of what that means, for you to describe the convicted as "innocent" is a bit of question-begging.

And I’m not entirely sure how Mr. Franks "decided" that all by himself. I’m pretty sure there were quite a few entities outside of Mr. Franks that decided all that as well.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
but more importantly they’ve lost their way. Feeling that the right thing was done is not good enough. In fact, the wrong thing was done
again ACCORDING TO YOU!

I cannot stress that enough, and THAT’S where the arrogance of this comes in. If you do not have enough decency to understand that, considering that this entire argument is purely philiosophical, then you’re being beyond dishonest and instead purposefully dense.

And threatening a member out of disagreement is not only unlawful but immature to boot. Neither of you have done anything to show anyone anything except that you’re incapable of accepting differences of oppinions. If people don’t agree or think like you, then you must attack them.

How very hypocritical for someone espousing a live and let live philosophy.

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
And yet I did and none you bothered to address any of my points (save Trevalyan, in part).
I’m a patient guy. Mr. McQuain’s feelings are clear, as are mine, so you know where to find me if you ever want to puzzle things out a little bit more.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
should the day ever come when you decide to throw an innocent man in prison, you’d better make up your mind that you’re all done with me, because you’ll be all done with me.
A nice summation of the thread(s):
1) It’s not obvious that the guy was "innocent". To An-Cap’s he was, to LP members he was convicted of a crime that ought not BE a crime, but they might question whether he was innocent, as he DID commit the act. To others, myself included, he was NOT innocent, what he did was UNJUST and ILLEGAL. But to some, it is patently obvious that he was "innocent."; and
2) The arrogance of some, that having lost their "respect" is in any way a detriment or a deterrent to adopting certain policies or holding certain beliefs. Because, after all, who would want to be bereft of the respect of Mr. Beck, or Kyle or Nikolayev, right?

Bottom-line: Fundamental and Unbridgeable Philosophic/Semantic difference of opinion, mixed in with overwhelming amounts of ego.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
THAT’S where the arrogance of this comes in. If you do not have enough decency to understand that, considering that this entire argument is purely philiosophical, then you’re being beyond dishonest and instead purposefully dense.

Call it arrogance if you like, it doesn’t matter. The truth of it stands or falls on it’s own merits.

And are you accusing me of threatening someone? If so, you damn well better back that up.


 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
And are you accusing me of threatening someone? If so, you damn well better back that up.
Not you.
The truth of it stands or falls on it’s own merits.
Torquemada said the same thing.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
They have lost the respect of many decent people (including, I’m sure, many who have never commented anywhere in all of this), but more importantly they’ve lost their way. Feeling that the right thing was done is not good enough. In fact, the wrong thing was done, and both the actions and the ideas behind them will have negative consequences for a very, very long time.


Yes, yes. Of course, Kyle. Because you say so. Perhaps McQ should kill himself just like everyone is suggesting Dale should over at Richard Nikoley’s blog. And that was a serious suggestion. I can’t speak for McQ, but why would anyone want the respect of such a crowd?
Serious question: why do people take differences of opinion on issues where there is no way to prove a point of view correct take disagreement so personally and emotionally? Is that really rational?
Because they have NOTHING else going for them. I have a wife and four kids who occupy most of my thoughts and actions. You have kids of your own. In that respect, I can relate to you as a fellow father and human being, regardless of what I think of your politics.

Why else would Billy be threatening to disown McQ and anyone else who "stands with Dale." First of all, he has already put everyone who would convict a pot smuggler on his purge list.

Second of all, who the hell is Billy Beck that a threat to not hear from him anymore would carry such weight? "Hey honey - some dude on the Internet just told me he never wants to talk to me again."

Does anyone else not see how silly this all is?
And are you accusing me of threatening someone? If so, you damn well better back that up.
Or what? That sounds like a threat to me.

 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
The arrogance of some, that having lost their "respect" is in any way a detriment or a deterrent to adopting certain policies or holding certain beliefs.

You can keep pretending I said that if you like. It won’t make it any more true.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
This whole thing, to get back to USENET, is a really good exemplar of how losing killfiles was a bad thing. If blogs had killfiles, debate would get better, fast, because you could screen out the utter idiots while keeping the rest. And "the utter idiots" should include bloggers as well as commenters. For example, there is a group blog I read (not this one) where one particular commenter is so stupid and meaningless that I always scroll to the end of the article first, so I can skip it if he wrote it.

 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog
Joe,
1) It’s not obvious that the guy was "innocent". To An-Cap’s he was, to LP members he was convicted of a crime that ought not BE a crime, but they might question whether he was innocent, as he DID commit the act. To others, myself included, he was NOT innocent, what he did was UNJUST and ILLEGAL. But to some, it is patently obvious that he was "innocent.";
Very succinct. Game ball goes to you.
2) The arrogance of some, that having lost their "respect" is in any way a detriment or a deterrent to adopting certain policies or holding certain beliefs. Because, after all, who would want to be bereft of the respect of Mr. Beck, or Kyle or Nikolayev, right?
Yeah. I plan to keep motoring on.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Perhaps McQ should kill himself just like everyone is suggesting Dale should over at Richard Nikoley’s blog.

That’s a damn lie and you know it, a$$hole. Richard suggested it once, I explicitly disvowed it, and Richard later backed off of it.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
The truth of it stands or falls on it’s own merits.

If it’s that inevitable, then what’s the point in discussing it?

First of all, he has already put everyone who would convict a pot smuggler on his purge list.

Ultimately, everybody ends up on Billy’s purge list at one point or another.

We’re all just ignorant children of the Endarkenment and the coming Eschaton. He speaks of it in religious terms, akin to the End Times.

Or what? That sounds like a threat to me.

Or he shall taunt you a second time-ah!
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
But it was said, Kyle!

Think about that for just one second. You all have been harping on this for two days now because you feel ’an innocent man’ was sent to jail for ten years and with the same breath are demanding the man commit suicide! Then, you’re lumping us all in together regardless of what WE would have done (because you’ve never bothered to ask) just because we’re not like you and will not outright denounce the man.

So, tell me, HOW isn’t that purely hypocritical?
Doesn’t feel so good when its done to you, does it?

Learn from that.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
"Richard later backed off of it."

No, you’re the liar.

Over the course of the day I’ve had time to consider my admonition that Dale Franks take his own life as the honorable thing to do. I think most people react on the raw unabashed radicalism, and not on the merit of the idea itself; but in any case, I’ve come to think it was too extreme a suggestion this early in the process. I think my error is a cart-before-horse kind of thing. For instance, if you opened the paper and found that a man had taken his life over causing irrevocable and real, substantial harm to someone, as Franks has caused Steven Rhett, then you would likely be totally at peace about it. Maybe you’d not have done the same thing, but most people "get it." Well, kook that I am, I simply think that if that’s the case, there’s no essential difference between that and suggesting that as a possible option for someone. The timeline doesn’t change anything. But I think I’m quite a minority in thinking of it that openly, and that much I get. Anyway, if I was writing this post right now, I would leave that part out.


 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
"You all have been harping on this for two days now because you feel ’an innocent man’ was sent to jail for ten years and with the same breath are demanding the man commit suicide!"
Words mean things, and what you just wrote is as far from the truth as you can get on the matter: even after the facts were pointed out to you, you still can’t get ’em straight.

Nobody is obliged to take you seriously.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
So a liar AND a hypocrite.

Yea, you’ll be ’sorely missed’
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Words mean things, and what you just wrote is as far from the truth as you can get on the matter: even after the facts were pointed out to you, you still can’t get ’em straight.

Nobody is obliged to take you seriously.
It’s been cited, Billy. You’re attempting to rewrite what happened.

Spin away
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
It’s been cited, Billy. You’re attempting to rewrite what happened.

Fvck off, Joel. You’re not even attempting to spin, you’re flat out lying. You too, Grimley, though with you I have some doubts about your having the cranial capacity to understand any of it.

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Richard didn’t back off of it all, just said that it might have been an error to suggest it "this early".

The truth must not mean much to Billy or Kyle.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Then, you’re lumping us all in together regardless of what WE would have done (because you’ve never bothered to ask) just because we’re not like you and will not outright denounce the man.
Can’t quite speak for Kyle, but I can only judge people on what they do and do not support. Speaking for myself, I didn’t think those words were terribly appropriate. But I wasn’t condemning Richard Nikoley for ordering the destruction of Dale Franks’ life, or supporting those that would order it. Because he hadn’t. Mr. Nikoley’s words have no more weight on what will happen to Dale Franks’ life than a feather.

That’s why I didn’t remark on it at the time. Straining at gnats while swallowing camels, etc. If he had pronounced a fatwa on Dale Franks’ life, and if I supported it, I’d fully expect decent people to condemn my behavior.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Go look at your words, "you all", kid. Now: tell me where I demanded that anyone commit suicide.

Put up or shut up.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
You’re correct, Joe, if the man voluntarily signed an ACTUAL contract to not engage in that activity and then -did- that activity, his conduct is actionable and McQ had the responsibility to apprehend him under the terms of the same contract.
Nope, an -ACTUAL- contract based on a rational prescription.
What you seem to be missing is that performance equals acceptance of a contract. And it has for hundreds of years, long before this country ever came into existence.

Living within the U.S. territorial boundaries is "performance" and therefore acceptance of the laws of this jurisdiction (literally "where the law speaks"). That’s a problem in places where one has no say over the laws of the land, and/or the government is not limited in its powers. But here, we have an explicit contract between the governed and the governors. It is through that contract that we bind ourselves as one nation (made up of several sovereign and independent jurisdictions). Laws that are passed in accordance with that contract, and that are not contrary to its other provisions, are valid. Those are the terms of the contract we live by.

Because we live in a free country, if you don’t agree with terms, then you actually have several legally valid choices:

(1) Change the law through exercise of your franchise, and pressuring your government representatives;

(2) Challenge the validity of the law(s) through the judiciary;

(3) Leave the country.

And, of course, you always have the option to revolt and toss out the government altogether, which does not require any legal justification. However, in that case, you are no longer choosing to live in a particular society, but instead seeking to start a new one.

So the choice is, (a) work within the contractual boundaries you accepted through performance of continuing to live in said jurisdiction, (b) leave, or (c) revolt.

Choosing (a) does not make one any morally superior or inferior than someone choosing (b) or (c). They are all valid choices, albeit with drastically different probabilities for creating the desired result.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Fvck off, Joel. You’re not even attempting to spin, you’re flat out lying.
is that so?
Over the course of the day I’ve had time to consider my admonition that Dale Franks take his own life as the honorable thing to do. I think most people react on the raw unabashed radicalism, and not on the merit of the idea itself; but in any case, I’ve come to think it was too extreme a suggestion this early in the process. I think my error is a cart-before-horse kind of thing. For instance, if you opened the paper and found that a man had taken his life over causing irrevocable and real, substantial harm to someone, as Franks has caused Steven Rhett, then you would likely be totally at peace about it. Maybe you’d not have done the same thing, but most people "get it." Well, kook that I am, I simply think that if that’s the case, there’s no essential difference between that and suggesting that as a possible option for someone. The timeline doesn’t change anything. But I think I’m quite a minority in thinking of it that openly, and that much I get. Anyway, if I was writing this post right now, I would leave that part out.
How am I lying, Mr. Maturity. His. Exact. Words. Not mine.

No one said a word. YOU, Beck, and others like you, have been lumping us all together EVEN THOUGH you never asked how we would have voted. You simply assumed.

I, sir, believe in reciprocity. Doesn’t feel all too god, now, does it?

There’s your ’put up or shut up’ for you. You can choke on it.


Oh, and if your continual reference to me as ’kid’ is meant to be insulting, it really isn’t. If anything, showing that I, someone in their mid 20’s, is showing far more maturity than an old fart only goes to show that with age neither wisdom nor maturity follow, just a bad temper and foolishness.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
already tried to make that point, Michael.

But, according to their own philosophy, the Constitution is null and void even to the Federal Government, considering none of the men who signed it are alive today.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Go look at your words, "you all", kid.

Oh, dear.

Look what happens when you hold Billy to the "friends" standard he elucidated in the beginning:

I don’t keep friends who keep friends like this rotten crumb you’re blogging with.

You judged McQ by the company he keeps, but get frothy when you’re held to the same standard.

Forgive us if it looks like you keep friends who advocate a man commit suicide over a philosophical disagreement.

But, according to their own philosophy, the Constitution is null and void even to the Federal Government, considering none of the men who signed it are alive today

Heh. Excellent point.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
That’s it, I’m going home. Kyle Bennett, a man so brilliant he can’t be bothered to explain himself to anyone, has insulted me. When I’ve lost Kyle’s respect, there’s not much point in soldiering on.

Kyle, like your fellow travelers, you will much more comfort if you return to the the virtual echo chamber, pull your pants up under your arms, and continue the ranting and praying with your fellow sycophants (look it up, alter boy).
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Joel C. - And this is where you anarchists
I hope you aren’t lumping me in with that group...

I’ve decided a new category is needed...

I am part of the

Freely Undeclared Party
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
"YOU, Beck, and others like you, have been lumping us all together..."
Cite that, and make sure of yourself when you do.

I don’t think you’re lying: you’re just incompetent to manage the issues here. In any case, Bruce really is going to have to ban me if he’ll put up with what you’re doing, because I won’t.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
That’s it, I’m going home. Kyle Bennett, a man so brilliant he can’t be bothered to explain himself to anyone, has insulted me.

Wow, I didn’t expect it would really work, but hey, I’ll take it.

you will much more comfort if you return to the the virtual echo chamber,

On the contrary, I’m practially desperate for an honest, reasoned argument with someone who disagrees with me and is capable of challenging me.

It’s lonely at the top.


 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"You judged McQ by the company he keeps, but get frothy when you’re held to the same standard.

Forgive us if it looks like you keep friends who advocate a man commit suicide over a philosophical disagreement."
That’s your call to make and no one else’s, but it has nothing to do with that kid’s flagrantly implicit assertion that *I* "demanded" it, too.

And you know it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
already tried to make that point, Michael.
Yeah, I did too on the first thread, but that became drowned by the nonsense.
But, according to their own philosophy, the Constitution is null and void even to the Federal Government, considering none of the men who signed it are alive today.
Which is all well and good, but it begs the question of why they are challenging Dale’s choice to enter the courtroom in the first place, seeing as how it’s illegitimate. Or how he could support the state by joining the military, which is also illegitimate under this theory.

Condemning Dale for delivering a verdict to someone who knowingly risked his freedom and got busted seems a strange hill to die upon, IMHO.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Beginning to sound like the ’good old days’ at Free Republic in here.....
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Cite that, and make sure of yourself when you do.

I don’t think you’re lying: you’re just incompetent to manage the issues here. In any case, Bruce really is going to have to ban me if he’ll put up with what you’re doing, because I won’t.
I don’t keep friends who keep friends like this rotten crumb you’re blogging with.
If you ever stand with someone like that, you’d better have all that squared away, too.
That’s two, and just in this thread. I don’t think I need any more sources.

I don’t think you’re lying, I just think you’re head is so far up your colon you’re depriving your brain of oxygen.

That, or age is catching up with you and you’re becoming addled. Perhaps I should type slowly and in caps?
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
that *I* "demanded" it, too
I never asserted that, old man. What I said is you like to judge people by the company they keep, and I’m holding you to the same standard.

Oh, I’m sorry, I forget, you’re decrepit.

I NEVER ASSERTED THAT, OLD MAN. WHAT I SAID IS YOU LIKE TO JUDGE PEOPLE BY THE COMPANY THEY KEEP

:BREAK HEAR TO CATCH YOUR BREATH:

AND I’M HOLDING YOU TO THE SAME STANDARD.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
All you’ve pointed out is that I stated what everyone already knows: it is a manifest fact that you, for one at least and adequately for the purpose here, stand with Franks. You can call it "lumping together" if you want to, but there is nothing arbitrary about it: it’s a fact. I’m not making it up, which is what you’re doing when you include me in Nikoley’s demand for Franks’ suicide. It’s not true. Do you understand? When I "lump" you "together" with Franks’, it’s because you stand with him on the Rhett case; I don’t stand with Nikoley on his "demand", and never did, and you have no reason in the world to insinuate that I do.

You’re dead wrong, every step of the way.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
You all have been harping on this for two days now because you feel ’an innocent man’ was sent to jail for ten years and with the same breath are demanding the man commit suicide!
Sounds like you’re certainly saying we’re the ones demanding he commit suicide. Unless the values of "you all" and "you" shifted midway through the sentence.
Then, you’re lumping us all in together regardless of what WE would have done (because you’ve never bothered to ask) just because we’re not like you and will not outright denounce the man.
I’ve only had a problem with anyone who supported that decision. And you know it as well as I do.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
"I never asserted that, old man. What I said is you like to judge people by the company they keep, and I’m holding you to the same standard."
"You all have been harping on this for two days now because you feel ’an innocent man’ was sent to jail for ten years and with the same breath are demanding the man commit suicide!"

That’s what you wrote. It’s right up there in the original where anyone can go look at it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I’m practially desperate for an honest, reasoned argument with someone who disagrees with me and is capable of challenging me.

I’d suggest that taking an honest, reasonable tone is a good start to getting what you desire.

It’s lonely at the top.

I am sure that it’s likewise lonely in the mental prison which you have constructed for yourself.

it begs the question of why they are challenging Dale’s choice to enter the courtroom in the first place, seeing as how it’s illegitimate. Or how he could support the state by joining the military, which is also illegitimate under this theory.

Other than my slight pedantic quibble that it raises, rather than begs, the question, there’s really no arguing with the insight of this observation.

Why this particular issue?
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
No, sir, I am not. That’s the problem with blanket statements, it never works regardless of who makes it.

But I’m a fair man: retract your ridiculous statement and I’ll do the same. Keep it and I, believing in reciprocity, will have no choice but to deal with you in the same method.

I can understand why a person does something even if I don’t agree with it, and I’m capable of accepting the fact that not everyone is going to agree with my point of view. I’m not megalomaniacle nor arrogant enough to believe that I, a mere human, flawed and sinful, hold the absolute truth. I leave enough wiggle room to understand that at the end of the day, when it’s all said and done, I might actually be wrong.

it’s called ’humility’. Only God is perfect and right, and while I come damned close (jest), I’m not God.

You, sir, are making the same mistake Lucifer made when he and his host were cast down: you’re being Prideful. You believe yours is the only Truth, and leave absolutely no wiggle room nor will even attempt to entertain the fact that, as a fallible human, you might just be wrong.

You are judging me by the company I keep, so I am obeying the Golden Rule and doing the same to you.

If you don’t like it, change it.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Again, Trev and Billy, I’m holding you to your own standard. Though YOU may not have said it one OF you did, and therefore, the lot of you did (according to your own logic).

I am judging you by the company you keep, just like you are doing to me and us. If you don’t like it, then change.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
"Why this particular issue?"
It’s because it’s where the the rubber of "ideological dispute" (to bring a phrase from last night’s e-mail) met the real road of a man’s life. That’s why.

"This ain’t no disco."
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Serious question: why do people take differences of opinion on issues where there is no way to prove a point of view correct take disagreement so personally and emotionally? Is that really rational? I honestly don’t understand it...I can be riled up sometimes by an argument I strongly disagree with and I’ll perhaps too often let that show in my comments. But it never extends to the person as an individual. It’s good that people have different ideas, that’s how we learn and improve.
It’s because they hold their views with the same blind focus as religious fanatics. If you dare challenge them, you aren’t just expressing disagreement, you are going against the TRUTH. And anyone who rejects their truth must either be an idiot, or on the side of evil.
 
Written By: David C.
URL: http://
I’m practially desperate for an honest, reasoned argument with someone who disagrees with me and is capable of challenging me.

Hmmm, I just realized something about this. This aint usenet. I used to actually be able to find it there.

Interestingly enough, the best forum out there for it now is YouTube.

Why this particular issue?

Because it’s such a crass betrayal.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Of WHAT? YOUR interpretation of libertarianism?

You think too highly of yourself.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Joel, that shrill tinge is starting to creep into your voice. What’s the matter?
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Though YOU may not have said it one OF you did, and therefore, the lot of you did (according to your own logic).
That is absolutely not our logic. If you don’t support Dale Franks’ terrible decision, we would not condemn you for it. We can, however, point to things you say and render our own judgments.
According to the Supreme Court? Yes, yes it is. Though the question on Prohibition is an interesting one. I’m gonna look that up.
You mean you walked into a discussion on drug criminalization without that knowledge? Judging by your comments in that post, you felt that Dale Franks was simply doing his duty as a juror to uphold a legitimate law. That is my point of contention with you specifically. The Supreme Court can express their opinion on the legality or morality of law: but you have to look at laws and make your own decisions on what you think the moral rightness of a law is. All of them, not just drug law. That is our contention.
 
Written By: trevalyan
URL: http://
Are you guys all under 5’ 6"? Such drama.
And you know it as well as I do.
You’re dead wrong, every step of the way.

And you know it.

Put up or shut up.

Nobody is obliged to take you seriously.
If so, you damn well better back that up.
You don’t have to answer to me, but you do have to answer to yourself.

but you’ve lost something important these last few days, and it will matter.
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.

Step right up and try it. I dare you.
Your "opinion" is rubbish: it’s just wrong.

...which is the very limit of my interest in it.

I have given you good advice. You should act on it.

In fact, you should be quiet and pay attention for a long time before you write another single word.
That’s what.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
That is absolutely not our logic. If you don’t support Dale Franks’ terrible decision, we would not condemn you for it. We can, however, point to things you say and render our own judgments.
But, of course, you’re not speaking for anyone else but yourself, correct?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
If you don’t support Dale Franks’ terrible decision, we would not condemn you for it.
..and yet you (Billy) has, and therefore you (trev) have, too.
Joel, that shrill tinge is starting to creep into your voice. What’s the matter?
Hardly, I’m actually laughing. I find it amusing when people think they’re so smart they fall to pride.
You mean you walked into a discussion on drug criminalization without that knowledge?
yes, i did. I am fallible, and I do not pretend to know everything about everything.

And while I do not know, specifically, why they had to pass an ammendment for Prohibition of Alcohol and what the argument was, I DO know a bit about current drag laws, being a student of law.

I also know, and believe, that the Courts are more trouble than their worth, and don’t consider them legitimate under the Constitution. I do NOT, however, disobeye the Court’s decisions because I, as a citizen, understand that you must take the good with the bad, but work to CHANGE the bad from within, not just ignore things as I choose. That’s Anarchy. And stupid.

But no one ever asked me and, in respect of Bruce and Dale, I’m not going to go into it now, either. All I know is that you, and Billy, and others like you lumped me (and others) into the same category because we didn’t want to proverbially hang Dale for his decisions.

Monday Night Quarterbacking aside, it’s none of your damned business or concern what it is that Dale did or didn’t do. It’s his decision, not yours, and you’re no one to judge him on it, either.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Because it’s such a crass betrayal.
Of what?
The Supreme Court can express their opinion on the legality or morality of law: ...
Are suggesting that the SCOTUS opinion means nothing? That it is illegitimate? Also, keep in mind that the SCOTUS does not opine on the "morality" of any given law, but on whether or not it is constitutionally valid ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the Court to say what the law is." Marshall, J., Marbury v. Madison).
... but you have to look at laws and make your own decisions on what you think the moral rightness of a law is. All of them, not just drug law. That is our contention.
And what is that "morality" supposed to be based upon? You seem to suggest that choosing to enforce constitutionally laws does not have any moral validity. How so? Whose morality?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Because it’s such a crass betrayal.

Oh, it’s personal. Best to stay on the sidelines, then.

. The Supreme Court can express their opinion on the legality or morality of law

Which seems to carry a lot of weight with people.

I suppose there are two explanations for that: the one that thinks the majority are complete fools or the one that doesn’t.

I have a sense of which side you’d pick.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
"Monday Night Quarterbacking aside, it’s none of your damned business or concern what it is that Dale did or didn’t do."
You’re as wrong as you can be about that in every possible way. Right off the bat: that federal indictment presumes everybody’s name on it.

For a "student of law", you’re not getting around very well, even with your training-wheels still on.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
"Are you guys all under 5’ 6"? Such drama."


This might explain it:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater/
msg/716e89d44cc0f3e0
 
Written By: E. Brown
URL: http://
"Also, keep in mind that the SCOTUS does not opine on the ’morality’ of any given law, but on whether or not it is constitutionally valid..."
I, for one, was well aware of that long before you came along. It’s a crucial point, and I’ve never forgotten it.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Are suggesting that the SCOTUS opinion means nothing? That it is illegitimate?
For me? yes and no.

yes, it is illegitimate, because Judicial Review is a made up power that isn’t in the Constitution, no because it’s been an established and protected power in the US since M v. M. However, if it’s what we decide is what should be (and I have issues with Judicial Review) then we should ammend the constitution.

but that’s neither here nor there, just my two cents.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
You’re as wrong as you can be about that in every possible way. Right off the bat: that federal indictment presumes everybody’s name on it.

For a "student of law", you’re not getting around very well, even with your training-wheels still on.
And rightly so, because it’s the law of the land whether we like/agree with it or not. By accepting your citizenship to these United States you accept to be bound by its laws, whether you like it or not.

And before you get on this asinine ’show me where i signed this contract’ bit, if you have a social security card, if you’ve paid taxes, if you’ve voted, if you’ve ever uttered the words ’it’s my constitutional right’ then guess what: you’re bound to the contract. Not all contracts are ones in which you sign.

But you’d know that if you’ve taken pre law 101, which, apparantly, you haven’t.

If you don’t like it, then you have three choices: a. die trying to start a revolution b. try to change it through legislation c. move somewhere else.

That’s it, buddy. That’s the reality of the situation. Those are the irrefutable facts of the situation, so what are you going to do?

I’ll personally buy you the ticket to Holland if it’ll shut you up.

You, sir, have NO idea what you’re talking about.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
if it’s what we decide is what should be ... then we should ammend the constitution.

Begs the question of how a "we" decides anything and how a "we" amends anything. Oh, I know, "we" vote, and the part of "we" that isn’t in the majority is disregarded entirely... except for being bound by the decision that "we" just made.

If you’re going to go into the second oldest profession (less honorable than the first), you might want to sort all of the above out very, very carefully. It will be the central feature of your professional life.

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Oh, I know, "we" vote, and the part of "we" that isn’t in the majority is disregarded entirely... except for being bound by the decision that "we" just made.
That’s democracy.

If you don’t like it, again, i know a pretty island where my parents are from 90 miles south of Key West that doesn’t like it very much, either.

You could give them a try.

I’m not pretending that Democracy is the best solution: but it’s a farsight better than anything else that exists.

And if it came down to drinking bad coffee or piss water, it’s the bad coffee every time.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
a. die trying to start a revolution b. try to change it through legislation c. move somewhere else.

Stipulating to a = death, there is still a fourth choice. I’ll let you spend whatever part of the rest of your life it takes to find it, because telling it to you would only assure that you will never see it.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
yes, it is illegitimate, because Judicial Review is a made up power that isn’t in the Constitution...
Well, this is in the Constitution:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
What power does the judiciary have besides reviewing the legal sufficiency of cases and rulings? Appellate courts in particular exist for the sole purpose of deciding issues of law (i.e. judicial review), and do not (or, at least, they aren’t supposed to) delve into factual disputes.

That being said, I do understand that M v. M can be, and sometimes is, read to mean that the Court can simply make up the law. With that I disagree wholeheartedly. However, the people through their elected representatives always have the power to overturn the Court.
However, if it’s what we decide is what should be (and I have issues with Judicial Review) then we should ammend the constitution.
Not an unreasonable position.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
you’re right, a could very well succeed.

But, again, I wouldn’t hold my breath
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
What power does the judiciary have besides reviewing the legal sufficiency of cases and rulings?
The biggest power of all: the power to determine the constitutionality of a law, or lack there of.

That power, specifically, DOES NOT EXIST anywhere except M vs M, where they effectivelly made it up.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
However, the people through their elected representatives always have the power to overturn the Court.
actually, they don’t.

Only two ways to do that: change the make-up of the court or ammend the Constitution.

That’s why Judicial Review is so powerful.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
... except for being bound by the decision that "we" just made.
Well, there’s always choice (b) or (c).
So the choice is, (a) work within the contractual boundaries you accepted through performance of continuing to live in said jurisdiction, (b) leave, or (c) revolt.
Which, I think you’ve implicitly acknowledged before.
Stipulating to a = death, there is still a fourth choice. I’ll let you spend whatever part of the rest of your life it takes to find it, because telling it to you would only assure that you will never see it.
What, wait for the whole thing to fall down around your ears and then get on with life? You’re still operating under (a), (b) or (c) before that happens. Even if you’re just opting out of the system (and yet taking advantage of its amenities) by keeping a very, very, very low profile, you’re really just pursuing "(c) revolt" only without actually making it known what you’re doing.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
The biggest power of all: the power to determine the constitutionality of a law, or lack there of.

That power, specifically, DOES NOT EXIST anywhere except M vs M, where they effectivelly made it up.


Combine that fact with the Tenth, and what do you get?

and yet taking advantage of its amenities

Careful who you ascribe the creation of those amenities to.

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Combine that fact with the Tenth, and what do you get?
Oh, i know. I totally agree with you there.

Which is why I also said that if that’s how the majority of this country plus two thirds of the states decide they want to live under, then ammend the constitution to make it official.

But even then, until such a time, i plan to make it my life’s work to bring this to the forfront and either create something new or ammend the Constitution. I do NOT, however, intend to completely disregard everything SCOTUS says even though i believe they are illegitamite, because i do NOT believe in anarchy.

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
If you’re going to go into the second oldest profession (less honorable than the first)

A paraphrased Reagan quote. How very unoriginal.

Begs the question of how a "we" decides anything and how a "we" amends anything. Oh, I know, "we" vote, and the part of "we" that isn’t in the majority is disregarded entirely... except for being bound by the decision that "we" just made.

And your point is...?

I mean, it is what it is, Kyle. Joel’s given you the lay of the land and the options available.

I’ll let you spend whatever part of the rest of your life it takes to find it, because telling it to you would only assure that you will never see it.

Joel, don’t worry about this. This is the kind of faux-estorecism that Billy and Co. engaged in over at Reason. There’s ultimately an answer, but you can’t be told because you aren’t in the Inner Circle.

Don’t you see? OHHHMMM.

 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
"I’ll let you spend whatever part of the rest of your life it takes to find it, because telling it to you would only assure that you will never see it."
Kyle, take off your wizard costume, stop reading so many god-damned comic books and write like an adult.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
The biggest power of all: the power to determine the constitutionality of a law, or lack there of.

That power, specifically, DOES NOT EXIST anywhere except M vs M, where they effectivelly made it up.
Well, that’s basically what judges do in deciding issues of law. If not the SCOTUS, then who decides what is constitutional or not? The Legislature? That’s not in the document, and if you take that position that things like McCain-Feingold are fine and dandy. The Executive? No, that branch has no such power. Then who?
actually, they don’t.

Only two ways to do that: change the make-up of the court or ammend the Constitution.

That’s why Judicial Review is so powerful.
Of course they do! The Legislature can and does override judicial opinions all the time. Thumb through the annotations of any state’s statutes and you’ll find plenty of circumstances where laws were either drafted or revised specifically to override a judicial opinion.

And the amendment process is done either through elected representatives or constitutional convention. Either way, the people ultimately have the power to overturn SCOTUS judgments.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Kyle, you’re a sys admin, aren’t you? F*ck all those plebeian users who don’t know sh*t about ’nix, right? When’s the last time you shaved? Ever? Hey, this is Billy’s razor, get it?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Careful who you ascribe the creation of those amenities to.
I’m sorry. Do you feel personally responsible for the creation of a national defense? Did you personally create all the roads you drive upon? Was it you who created and enforced the land records system where the deed to your house is stored (so that you do not have to guard the borders of your property with your life)? Was it in fact you, and not Al Gore, who created the internet over which we now converse? And assuming you’ve ever been to court to dispute a legal matter, it must also have been you who created and maintained that system.

Well thanks for all that. I really like your work!

 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
If not the SCOTUS, then who decides what is constitutional or not?

Who does the Tenth Amendment say it is, in the absence of enumerated constitutional authority?

Oh, i know. I totally agree with you there.

Do we? I was getting at jury nullification. I’m not being snide, I just want to be clear.

you can’t be told because you aren’t in the Inner Circle.

No, because it’s like trying to describe "blue" to a blind man. No fault of the blind man, it’s just the way it is.

Kyle, take off your wizard costume, stop reading so many god-damned comic books and write like an adult.

Shut up, Grimley.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Well, that’s basically what judges do in deciding issues of law. If not the SCOTUS, then who decides what is constitutional or not? The Legislature? That’s not in the document, and if you take that position that things like McCain-Feingold are fine and dandy. The Executive? No, that branch has no such power. Then who?
Read the 10th Ammendment.

The People do, because the power isn’t given to the States, either.

It’s also irrational to say that we’re going to abolish the system we have now. Nothing short of catastrophe will create that kind of radical change. However, passing a constitutional ammendment to make the status quo legitamite would be the obvious solution.
The Legislature can and does override judicial opinions all the time. Thumb through the annotations of any state’s statutes and you’ll find plenty of circumstances where laws were either drafted or revised specifically to override a judicial opinion.
Not SCOTUS. Supreme Court Decisions are irreversable except by the Supreme Court.

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
MichaelW:
Living within the U.S. territorial boundaries is "performance" and therefore acceptance of the laws of this jurisdiction (literally "where the law speaks")....
"Implied consent" *bullsh!t*.

You could say exactly the same thing about Semites in the Land of the Hun circa seventy-five years ago.
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
This definition of morality seems to beg the question of whether there is any such thing as absolute morality. After all we’re talking standards of right or good conduct, and systems of ideas.
I’ll let you spend whatever part of the rest of your life it takes to find it, because telling it to you would only assure that you will never see it.
IIRC, Billy has made similar statements before on this blog. Never to be explained.

I suppose one alternative is to: Turn On, Tune In, and Drop Out of society, and live your own life. But it seems to me ones life still has to intersect with greater society and their rules every now and then.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
"Implied consent" *bullsh!t*.

You could say exactly the same thing about Semites in the Land of the Hun circa seventy-five years ago.
are you seriously trying to compare contraband regulations to Genocide?

Do the words ’Intellectually Dishonest’ mean anything to you?

If you reap the benefits of the country in which you live, drive on it’s roads, use it’s judicial system, are protected by it’s military, police, fire, lawyers and courts, then guess what body. That is implied consent.

Again, i hear Cuba is really nice this time of year.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Not SCOTUS. Supreme Court Decisions are irreversable except by the Supreme Court.
Joel, I believe you have it wrong here.
Congress’ attempt to overturn a Supreme Court decision by amending the Constitution is "extremely rare," said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, but it’s in line with how the American system of government was designed to work.

"The only way to overrule a Supreme Court precedent is by changing the Constitution," Toobin said
Rare but certainly "there" as a legislative capability.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Keith? You’ll know it’s absolutely immoral when it’s being done to *you*.

— There won’t be any doubt at all in your mind.
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
No, because it’s like trying to describe "blue" to a blind man. No fault of the blind man, it’s just the way it is.

See? Believe it or not, I expected this response.

We’re lacking some kind of sense...we have to feel it, guys. You can’t know what Kyle’s solution is because we’re all Blind Men and Kyle is the One-Eyed King.

IIRC, Billy has made similar statements before on this blog. Never to be explained.

Because it’s a blustery smokescreen. Note how every time you ask for an explanation, you’re not given one because ’they’ define you as conceptually incapable.

Kyle has compared his "knowledge" to a sense, which is ridiculous on its face.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Who does the Tenth Amendment say it is, in the absence of enumerated constitutional authority?
Read the 10th Ammendment.

The People do, because the power isn’t given to the States, either.
In order for you both to be right, then the judicial power explicitly vested in the ... er, judiciary, must be something other than the ability to decide issues of fact and law. Then what it is "judicial power"? Who then decides if laws laws conflict, or when the obviously do, which one prevails?

The Anti-Federalist "Brutus" understood that the judiciary had this power, and raled against it:
The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control. The business of this paper will be to illustrate this, and to show the danger that will result from it. I question whether the world ever saw, in any period of it, a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible. Certain it is, that in England, and in the several states, where we have been taught to believe the courts of law are put upon the most prudent establishment, they are on a very different footing....

The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.
I’m not sure your argument holds water.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
are you seriously trying to compare contraband regulations to Genocide?
The false *principle* of "Implied Consent" lies behind both. I.e., "You live here, and haven’t left, so you must consent to all the rules I make bossing around every aspect of your life." (Of course when the State runs the airports and the passports, one’s ability to migrate to a new & improved dictatorship abroad is also at its discretion.)

— The Krauts simply carried that principle of "we own your ass" all the way to its logical conclusion.

And you know what? If a person is described as a "drug-dealer" to the average American, he’ll have almost exactly the same conditioned response as the average German in the late ’30s. Already cops in this country have carte-blanche to blow anyone away in the own home with virtual impunity under the aegis of a "drug raid".
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
You could say exactly the same thing about Semites in the Land of the Hun circa seventy-five years ago.
Yeah, you could, and the ones who no longer consented to the way they were about to be goverened got the hell out and thereby broke the ’contract’ between themselves and the Land of the Hun before they could be rounded up.





 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
We’re lacking some kind of sense. ... ’they’ define you as conceptually incapable.

The latter. Let me put it a different way: it’s like trying to teach calculus to someone who hasn’t learned algebra yet. I’m sure you’ll still take insult from that, that’s your choice. My point is that you either don’t fully understand all the facts, implications, and dynamics of individualism, market forces, and spontaneous order - or you don’t accept them. In either case, an explanation will be nothing but gibberish to you.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
The false *principle* of "Implied Consent" lies behind both. I.e., "You live here, and haven’t left, so you must consent to all the rules I make bossing around every aspect of your life." (Of course when the State runs the airports and the passports, one’s ability to migrate to a new & improved dictatorship abroad is also at its discretion.)
Meh.

Blame your parents, they signed you up for the service at birth. That said, you’re quite free to immigrate to the service provider of your choice, lousy airport screening or no.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Hey looker, did the ones who stayed consent to be shipped to Dachau?

— That WAS the very thrust of your counter-response.
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
"Implied consent" *bullsh!t*.
Right. And there’s no such thing as an implied contract either.
You could say exactly the same thing about Semites in the Land of the Hun circa seventy-five years ago.
And didn’t a lot of them leave? Others revolted. Tragically, millions of those who expressly said they would work within the system perished for that choice, but by that time they no longer had the choice that you do to leave.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
did the ones who stayed consent to be shipped to Dachau?

No, concentration camps were evil because they were used by a country which was evil because it used concentration camps.

Drug laws are good because they are passed by a country that is good because it has drug laws.



 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
The false *principle* of "Implied Consent" lies behind both. I.e., "You live here, and haven’t left, so you must consent to all the rules I make bossing around every aspect of your life." (Of course when the State runs the airports and the passports, one’s ability to migrate to a new & improved dictatorship abroad is also at its discretion.)
Do you think that you can’t leave? You might want to test that theory.
Hey looker, did the ones who stayed consent to be shipped to Dachau?

— That WAS the very thrust of your counter-response.
Only if you think that they considered that result a possibility. Do you think the jews were equally as aware of the consequences of their decision to stay in Germany as Rhett was of the consequences of his decision to cross the border with a half-ton of pot?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
No, concentration camps were evil because they were used by a country which was evil because it used concentration camps.

Drug laws are good because they are passed by a country that is good because it has drug laws.
There’s a lot of straw in that strawman.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
So, "Shark", if your parents sold your ass into slavery, it’s all your fault if you can’t manage to slog your way out of it?

==//==

MichaelW:
And didn’t a lot of them leave? Others revolted. Tragically, millions of those who expressly said they would work within the system perished for that choice
I.e., they "consented" to be slaughtered is your argument.

==//==

(Kyle, you crack me up.)
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
Keith? You’ll know it’s absolutely immoral when it’s being done to *you*.

— There won’t be any doubt at all in your mind.
And you know what, while I disagree with our drug laws, I’m smart enough to not engage in trafficking, possessing or using said drugs, because that is the law of the land. Change the law if you don’t agree with it.

Bitchin’ about the state of affairs isn’t changing it.
My point is that you either don’t fully understand all the facts, implications, and dynamics of individualism, market forces, and spontaneous order - or you don’t accept them. In either case, an explanation will be nothing but gibberish to you.
And what of the fact that we don’t live in a society where "individualism, market forces, and spontaneous order" are the "rule."

Instead we live in a society in which "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Joel, I believe you have it wrong here.
I had said earlier that by constitutional ammendment (or meant to say it if i didn’t), but my fault for not being clear on it.

What I meant is that the legislature itself cannot overturn a SCOTUS decision. Even by ammendment, it then has to be ratified, so it’s a multi process step that goes from Federal to State.
In order for you both to be right, then the judicial power explicitly vested in the ... er, judiciary, must be something other than the ability to decide issues of fact and law. Then what it is "judicial power"? Who then decides if laws laws conflict, or when the obviously do, which one prevails?
Because we’re specifically discussing Judicial Review, not Judicial Power.

The two are different.

Judicial Power is specifically written into the consitution and is the power to hear cases. Judicial Review is the power to decide the constitutionality of a given law. That power does not exist anywhere other than a Supreme Court decision where they basically gave it to themselves and then cite it as precedence.

What Brutus was talking about was the end result, not what actually exists. People fully expected for the Courts to take the route it did, even after the ratification of the Constitution. The problem is, the power of Judicial Review really didn’t become a major issue until the 20th century except for Dred Scott and Slaughterhouse, really.
The false *principle* of "Implied Consent" lies behind both
BS

In the German situation, you had a basic autocratic system in which all aspects of life were controlled by the state and civil rights, as well as Habeus Corpus, was virtually a non issue.

In this country, we have an established legal system built on the Constitution and Precedence which allows the citizenry to question their government. In fact, the fact that the power is spread between branches and not controlled mainly by any central force protects us further from such actions.

Worst part of all this is that you already know this, which is why I’m calling intellectual dishonesty and BS.

I’m also invoking a logical fallacy, Affirming the Consequent
The latter. Let me put it a different way: it’s like trying to teach calculus to someone who hasn’t learned algebra yet. I’m sure you’ll still take insult from that, that’s your choice. My point is that you either don’t fully understand all the facts, implications, and dynamics of individualism, market forces, and spontaneous order - or you don’t accept them. In either case, an explanation will be nothing but gibberish to you.
A conclusion which, conveniantly, leaves you to determine whether or not we’re ready to understand it.

You’re no different than cult leaders if that’s your logic.
Do you think the jews were equally as aware of the consequences of their decision to stay in Germany as Rhett was of the consequences of his decision to cross the border with a half-ton of pot?
German Jews were, largely, dealt with in Germany. it was Foreign Jewery (Austrians, Hungarians, Soviets, Polish, Checks etc) that were sent to the concentration camps.

Just wanted to point that out.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
In either case, an explanation will be nothing but gibberish to you.

Try me.

So if you’re on a "calculus level" of knowledge, one has to wonder why you spend so much time with us ignorant proles. How healthy is that?

I mean, hell Kyle, you think of yourself as head-and-shoulders above all of us in knowledge (or morality, take your pick); why waste time with us Ignorati?

For the rest: I almost guarantee Kyle’s response will be something along the lines of "I have my reasons", with, of course, no explanation of said reasons.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
I was raised to believe the following aticles of faith:

My rights end where yours begins.

I command no-one but myself and am responsible to only the same.

If I break a law, be it a natural or man-made law, I am responsible for that. I - me - myself - alone.

Should I find myself in the position to judge the action of others, I will do so based only upon the evidence and my own beliefs - nothing else matters.

Where you may acquit, I may convict. Where you may convict, I may acquit. I answer not for your position nor do you answer for mine.

Anybody got a problem with the above, it is your problem - not mine.

I have sat here and read all of the comments and find violations of the above stated articles of faith time and again - from both sides of the argument. I have been a reader and commenter on this blog for some 4 years and it saddens me to see the vitriole in the comments. Please put this dead dog in the ground before its gangrene spreads any further.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
So, "Shark", if your parents sold your ass into slavery, it’s all your fault if you can’t manage to slog your way out of it?
Again, comparing your current status as a US citizen to slavery is an insult to people who are actually slaves.

Intellectually dishonest.
they "consented" to be slaughtered is your argument.
many of them did, actually, mostly because of their conditioning prior to the situation. You can see the same thing happen in Rwanda.
For the rest: I almost guarantee Kyle’s response will be something along the lines of "I have my reasons", with, of course, no explanation of said reasons.
or the condescending ’benevolent tutor’ argument Erb used on me once.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
What I meant is that the legislature itself cannot overturn a SCOTUS decision.
Not the decision, but the reason for the decision, certainly. It (the legislature) can amend law to remove the objection by which the SCOTUS found the law to be unconstitutional. While not a direct "overturning of a SCOTUS decision", it nullifies its effect.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I.e., they "consented" to be slaughtered is your argument.
No, that’s your argument. If you want to deal with mine please do, but there’s no need for you to make it for me. I’m pretty good and doing it on my own; so good in fact, I actually get paid to do it!
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
JoelC:
Change the law if you don’t agree with it.
JoelC, translated:
Individual rights are subordinate to majority herd whim! So said Paul Joseph Goebbels; and so say I.
==//==
They "consented" to be slaughtered is your argument.
many of them did, actually....
This is so ludicrously preposterous that it beggers the imagination. And you’re accusing me of intellectual dishonesty?
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
if your parents sold your ass into slavery, it’s all your fault if you can’t manage to slog your way out of it?

Uh-oh. Someone’s on a slippery slope here.

Tell me, Michael, if a child’s parents were to sell their child into slavery, wouldn’t that be their right to do so as the parents guardian?

If it isn’t the right of the parents to do this, the child is going to have a dickens of a time defending his right to not be sold into slavery without the State.

 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Hey looker, did the ones who stayed consent to be shipped to Dachau?
We’re talking about you rugged individualists now who are beating down on Franks, right?
Not us statist slaves to the system, you’ve already told us to wear our chains lightly as we’re marched off to the camps.
After all, we accepted the contract.

Franks accepted the contract, that’s what he said. He pointed out that Rhett accepted it too, because, what with us NOT having passport restrictions and control of the airports that would prevent Rhett from leaving, he could have left.
But, he didn’t.

So, you can trot out the reliable old bad NAZI regime, but that’s not where we live is it. That’s not the society that arrested Rhett.

And how would it be any different in your ’society’ - I mean, after all, most of you are going to be busy ’minding your own business, doing no harm’.
What with the hoopla over getting busted for so much pot, I’m with Jeff assuming what you’re really going to be doing is getting zonked a lot of the time.
And when the Empire of Jeff rolls up and rounds up people 5 cities over, I assume a lot of you are going to take a look at who got rounded up by Emperor Jeff, presume you’re not ’those kind of people’ and that there’s nothing you can or should do about it anyway.

After all, you’re all rugged individualists, doing your own thing, not bound up by laws and contracts and stuff like that that you didn’t agree to.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So, "Shark", if your parents sold your ass into slavery, it’s all your fault if you can’t manage to slog your way out of it?
If you think you’re not allowed to leave the United States, please test that theory out. That’s quite the difference. You choose to stay, were you a slave, you’d HAVE to stay (unless you could flee somehow)

If you persist in comparing being born into US citizenship to being sold into slavery, we have nothing else for discuss. And if you seriously think they’re the same, I feel very badly for you

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
SShiel:
If I break a law, be it a natural or man-made law, I am responsible for that. I - me - myself - alone.
Laws are not gods entitled to be obeyed, Shiel.

==//==

SecondHander:
Tell me, Michael, if a child’s parents were to sell their child into slavery, wouldn’t that be their right to do so as the parents guardian?
Are you playing Devil’s Advocate, or are you actually serious?
If it isn’t the right of the parents to do this, the child is going to have a dickens of a time defending his right to not be sold into slavery without the State.
For which, I gather, you’d see him soaked for the rest of his life to pay for it all, same as if he’d just stayed home sharecropping?

Where the hell are you going with this analogy, and what lays at the logical end of it?
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
Because we’re specifically discussing Judicial Review, not Judicial Power.

The two are different.

Judicial Power is specifically written into the consitution and is the power to hear cases. Judicial Review is the power to decide the constitutionality of a given law. That power does not exist anywhere other than a Supreme Court decision where they basically gave it to themselves and then cite it as precedence.
Again, you’re pretty clearly wrong on this point, but since it’s OT, I guess this isn’t the place to deal with it. I would advise you to re-read Brutus’ complaint however, especially this:
But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.
While not a direct "overturning of a SCOTUS decision", it nullifies its effect.
McQ’s exactly right on that, and I should have been more clear in making that distinction before, Joel. Mea culpa.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
should the day ever come when you decide to throw an innocent man in prison
The problem is that you utterly refuse to even listen to the other side’s argument that he in fact wasn’t innocent, let alone consider it. Without that, it’s just a shoulding match at opposing brick walls.
For instance, if you opened the paper and found that a man had taken his life over causing irrevocable and real, substantial harm to someone, as Franks has caused Steven Rhett,
As nasty as prison is, being sent there is hardly substancial harm, nor is it irrevocable... At some point, he’ll be released (either for good behavior, or having served his time).
Begs the question of how a "we" decides anything and how a "we" amends anything. Oh, I know, "we" vote, and the part of "we" that isn’t in the majority is disregarded entirely... except for being bound by the decision that "we" just made.
Well, more rational people would try to persuade others with words instead of doing silly things like call them monsters, bastards, f*ckwits, or other such terms. That isn’t attempting to change minds, that’s insuring no one even listens to what you say.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
This is so ludicrously preposterous that it beggers the imagination. And you’re accusing me of intellectual dishonesty?
For comparing me to a Nazi Propagandists after twisting my point of view, most certaintly.

As for the quote, if you’ve studied Comparative Genocide, you’d know that that is indeed the case. There are multiple actions when one is the target group. Some flee, some fight, some are resigned to their fate and await it quietly. That, sir, is a fact and a commonality amongst all genocides, a subject that I have studied for quite some time now.

It’s not pretty, it’s not nice, but it’s true.

As for your asinine Goebles comment:

you live in a democracy. There are certain aspects of life that are controlled by democratic rule. However, the system has built in safety nets that specifically protect minorities from abuse by the majority, and thats why they were written in.

Again, stop being dishonest. And stop with the Ad Hominum. You’re starting to take on Logical Fallacies like causes.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
You’re no different than cult leaders if that’s
your logic.


Except I’m not trying to get you to follow me. If I was, I’d have to tell you what it is I wanted you to do.

I mean, hell Kyle, you think of yourself as head-and-shoulders above all of us in knowledge (or morality, take your pick); why waste time with us Ignorati?

In part, because I don’t know a priori who is and is not of the Ignorati, and despite what you think of my criteria for that, it’s not an automatic thing, nor is it black and white. You, for instance, Anti-Randian, it took me about 3/4 of that Reason thread to become fully convinced. If you had stayed away from Grylliade for a while, you might have avoided being pulled back into the muck. It was sad to watch them doing that to you.

I do it also, in part because I am, in fact, interested in learning. You, Anti-Randian, are, of course, not qualified to teach me anything, but occasionally, swatting your petty arguments down allows me to refine my understanding, and the nearly random quality of your input works like those "Oblique Strategy" or "Creative Whack" cards that people use to spur creativity. Others here show a little more spark.

And then there’s the fact that I was and still am simply enraged by what Dale did, and though I have no true recourse, there is something to be said for simply letting off steam.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Shark:
If you think you’re not allowed to leave the United States, please test that theory out.
If I am required to have a passport and the state’s permission in order to do so, what does that really say about my liberties, Shark?

==//==

Jacobs, to Billy:
The problem is that you utterly refuse to even listen to the other side’s argument that he in fact wasn’t innocent, let alone consider it.
The problem is that you utterly refuse to comprehend the fact that he is manifestly innocent of any moral crime. I.e., he initiated force upon NO ONE.
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
that’s insuring no one even listens to what you say.
but it’s what they’re most familiar with.
You’d know that if you weren’t such a statist slave.

You zergling.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The problem is that you utterly refuse to comprehend the fact that he is manifestly innocent of any moral crime. I.e., he initiated force upon NO ONE.
He also remains unconvicted of any moral crime.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
For which, I gather, you’d see him soaked for the rest of his life to pay for it all, same as if he’d just stayed home sharecropping?

You mean if he had to portion out a percentage of his income to pay for the agency that rescued him from slavery?

Would that be better or worse than slavery itself?

Are you playing Devil’s Advocate, or are you actually serious?

Just answer whether it would be the parents’ right to sell their child into slavery. Is it their right, or isn’t it?


 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
I am required to have a passport and the state’s permission in order to do so, what does that really say about my liberties, Shark?
I don’t know - do you have a driver’s license?
Did they give you a hard time getting it?
Did you notice anyone else being hauled out by jackbooted guards while you were there?

Don’t try to pretend that the American government ’permission’ to get a passport is anything like NAZI Germany handling the Jews.
Good lord, talk about intellecutal dishonesty.

We can’t even keep people OUT of the country, are you seriously proposing that the government is trying to keep YOU in?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Mr. McQuain refuses to directly endorse Franks’ vile actions, but instead presents us with a perfectly irrelevant example taken from an incident concerning military discipline in what I assume was a volunteer army. (Had those soldiers been draftees it would be all too relevant.)

What he significantly does not do is tell us whether or not he thinks Franks did the right thing in a completely different situation.
 
Written By: John Sabotta
URL: http://
The problem is that you utterly refuse to comprehend the fact that he is manifestly innocent of any moral crime. I.e., he initiated force upon NO ONE.
There it is again.

I accept that you find nothing wrong with what he did. On that we obviously disagree.

The difference really starts when you realize I’m not equating you to Hitler, a Monster, or even really calling you names.

He broke a law that was put in place by the government we live under, for better or for worse. He knew what he was doing was a crime, as evidence of his hiding the drugs when he tried to come in. He smuggled. That shows a guilty mind.

Whether or not you agree that it is wrong to try and bring drugs into the US, do you at least agree that he willingly broke a law he knew existed?
You’d know that if you weren’t such a statist slave.

You zergling.
I lol’d...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Laws are not gods entitled to be obeyed, Shiel.
they are, however, rules and regulations agreed upon by consensus.

It’s very simple: if you don’t like the laws, then you leave the society that creates them, which you are free to do at any time. But if you want to enjoy the fruits of our society, then you MUST obey the laws by which it’s citizenry is governed.

You cannot pick and choose like some illegal immigrant.
Again, you’re pretty clearly wrong on this point
actually, no lol I’m not. I gave you text book definitions of both.

The power of Judicial Review, under the Marshall Court, is said to be implied in the constitution. Hence the first instance of judicial activism.

But, again, neither here nor there.
Except I’m not trying to get you to follow me. If I was, I’d have to tell you what it is I wanted you to do.
Instead, you try to coerce me by belittling me and making me appear stupid.

Nice try.
In part, because I don’t know a priori who is and is not of the Ignorati, and despite what you think of my criteria for that, it’s not an automatic thing, nor is it black and white. You, for instance, Anti-Randian, it took me about 3/4 of that Reason thread to become fully convinced. If you had stayed away from Grylliade for a while, you might have avoided being pulled back into the muck. It was sad to watch them doing that to you.

I do it also, in part because I am, in fact, interested in learning. You, Anti-Randian, are, of course, not qualified to teach me anything, but occasionally, swatting your petty arguments down allows me to refine my understanding, and the nearly random quality of your input works like those "Oblique Strategy" or "Creative Whack" cards that people use to spur creativity. Others here show a little more spark.

And then there’s the fact that I was and still am simply enraged by what Dale did, and though I have no true recourse, there is something to be said for simply letting off steam.
Which is bloviating for ’I’m smarter than you, duh. But every now and then I have to spank you insolent children.’

Again, get your head out of your a$$. You’re no better or worse than anyone here, just more arrogant.
If I am required to have a passport and the state’s permission in order to do so, what does that really say about my liberties, Shark?
a requirement by OTHER countries, you fool!

You can leave here without one, but good luck gaining entry into another country.
What he significantly does not do is tell us whether or not he thinks Franks did the right thing in a completely different situation.
because according to your own philosophy, which he appears to adhere to more purely than you do, it’s not his right to judge.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Shark:
If you think you’re not allowed to leave the United States, please test that theory out.
If I am required to have a passport and the state’s permission in order to do so, what does that really say about my liberties, Shark?
It says that once you get a passport you’re free to go. No undue or onerous burdens or restrictions are placed on getting you this document. Go to the post office, take a photo, shell out a nominal fee and you’re sailing away to your destination of choice. A Passport is not an unreasonable instrument for the state to require so it can track who is coming and going across their borders (something they have a right to do)

So it doesn’t say what you think it says about your liberties.


On a more practical level, going to ANY country requires a passport, so I’m not sure what the gripe is.

Again, do you really equate needing a passport to the chains of slavery?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Kyle - blah, blah.

You still haven’t seen fit to actually try explaining this mysterious "it" to me.

Like I said: Try me.

And it is convenient that every time you come into a forum, despite the fact you claim to be judging the commenters on their intellectual capacity, you have yet to deem any of us "worthy" enough to receive the Philosophical equivalent of calculus you supposedly possess. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

Or...

it’s not an automatic thing, nor is it black and white.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It was sad to watch them doing that to you.

Trust me when I tell you that your tears aren’t going to keep me from getting to sleep.

Also, why do you persist on calling me by anything other than my online handle? I’ve extended you the courtesy of calling you Kyle, yet you’re so arrogant you somehow haven’t even deemed me worthy of simple etiquette and class.



 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Which is bloviating for ’I’m smarter than you, duh. But every now and then I have to spank you insolent children.’

You’ll notice I was very careful to address this to one specific person. Keep that in mind before you presume to know what I conclude about anyone else.




 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Joel:
As for your asinine Goebles comment: you live in a democracy. There are certain aspects of life that are controlled by democratic rule.
Germany was a democratic national republic in the 1930s. The Nazis came to power in an election.
However, the system has built in safety nets that specifically protect minorities from abuse by the majority, and thats why they were written in.You can SAY that a million times a day, but it’s manifestly bullsh!t in reality, as the majority can, will, and does abuse you all day long via its proxies on the Potomac.
Again, stop being dishonest. And stop with the Ad Hominum.
Stop being a hypocritical dumbass, Joel.

And I have your logical fallacies right here.

==//==
For which, I gather, you’d see him soaked for the rest of his life to pay for it all, same as if he’d just stayed home sharecropping?
You mean if he had to portion out a percentage of his income to pay for the agency that rescued him from slavery?
"I’m from Washington, and I’m here to save you! To pay for your saving, you will work for me for life! If you don’t like my terms, I’ll just sit right here and whistle fvcking ’Dixie’ while you toil for life for this other assh0le who’s paying his taxes to me on time."

"Gee, thanks Massah guvamint....."

==//==
Just answer whether it would be the parents’ right to sell their child into slavery. Is it their right, or isn’t it?
Of course it isn’t. If you’re in basic agreement with that conclusion, then you ought to be taking it up with the people on this board who’re throwin’ down with it in premise when posed in the language of the State bossing individuals around.

==//==
The problem is that you utterly refuse to comprehend the fact that he is manifestly innocent of any moral crime. I.e., he initiated force upon NO ONE.
He also remains unconvicted of any moral crime.
No *real* libertarian has any ethical regard whatsoever for any so-called "crime" which isn’t a moral one.

— I say "real" libertarian to distinguish them from those oxymoric hyphenated "libertarian"-statists who spend all day defending the primacy of government arbitrary power.
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
Shark:
It says that once you get a passport you’re free to go.
The premise of this response is that I am not free to go otherwise.

Under the same moral authority you’re willing to concede to the state, I could stand on your front step with an automatic on hip and an empty out-stretched hand which I expect to be filled by you, to my determined satisfaction, before you’re "free" to leave your own house.

The principle involved is exactly the same.
 
Written By: Mike Schneider
URL: http://
Heh, I can get a passport at the Post Office for christsake, and if I pay the statists their extra $180 bucks, they’ll expedite it for me.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Try me.

I’ve tried you, numerous times in that other thread. You failed each and every time. You failed to even notice you’d been offered an opportunity to rise above your so-called friends. Remember my comment about you going up to the door?

why do you persist on calling me by anything other than my online handle?

Because your handle a damn lie, and I won’t stand for it. You may call me whatever you like.


 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Germany was a democratic national republic in the 1930s. The Nazis came to power in an election.
except until they became an autocratic dictatorship.

did you miss that part?
You can SAY that a million times a day, but it’s manifestly bullsh!t in reality, as the majority can, will, and does abuse you all day long via its proxies on the Potomac.
If that were really the case, then women would never have gotten the rights to vote, the Civil Rights Act would never have worked, and you would never have the ability to sue the government.

The facts are against you.
Stop being a hypocritical dumbass, Joel.

And I have your logical fallacies right here.
I would suggest you read them, then, so you can stop committing them.

Also, calling me a hypocrite without backing it up doesn’t prove much but your once again committing ad hominum.
No *real* libertarian has any ethical regard whatsoever for any so-called "crime" which isn’t a moral one.
Thank you, Torquamada.

It’s either your interpretation or we all burn at the stake until we repent our ways, eh?

I didn’t expect the bloody Spanish Inquisition.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
I’ve extended you the courtesy of calling you Kyle, yet you’re so arrogant you somehow haven’t even deemed me worthy of simple etiquette and class.


Fair enough, Steven.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Let’s distill this little back-and-forth into a dialogue:

Supposed Keeper of Knowledge (SHOK): You know, there’s something you’re missing.

Commenter: Well, please tell me. Your insight would be appreciated.

SHOK: No.

C: Why not?

SHOK: You have to prove yourself worthy ’intellectually capable’ and willing to learn it.

C: Well, what do I do to prove this?

SHOK: Oh, you can’t prove it. I’ve already judged that you can’t learn it.

C: Why not give it a shot?

SHOK: Well, because that would be a waste of time. You’re so far below my knowledge that you’d never understand it. It’d be like trying to describe "blue to a blind man".

C: But I’m not blind!

SHOK: Yes you are, you just don’t realize the level of your blindness. I’ve judged you blind.

C: Then why are you even bothering to talk with me if I’m so far below your level?

SHOK: Silly Child. I have my reasons, one of them being that your petty arguments help me learn...but of course you know, you don’t teach me anything.

C: Whatever.

SHOK: Gosh, poor Ignoramuses. Will they never learn?

Fine

 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Under the same moral authority you’re willing to concede to the state, I could stand on your front step with an automatic on hip and an empty out-stretched hand which I expect to be filled by you, to my determined satisfaction, before you’re "free" to leave your own house.
Well boy howdy - and that’s the type of world the rest of us are trying to tell you you’re going to get in your libertarian society.

That YOU can stand on his door step with an automatic on your hip and etc and unless HE can personally stop you, oh well, it sucks to be him.
After all there’s really not much of a ’state’ to stop it, you weren’t actually causing any harm walking around with that pistol on your hip (until you decided to cause some harm).

But the other people were all being good doobies and not bothering you that day because you weren’t harming anyone.
Get it?

You’re like pure communists, fine, re-engineer man so he doesn’t do selfish sh!t and your grand plan will come to fruition.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Shark:
It says that once you get a passport you’re free to go.
The premise of this response is that I am not free to go otherwise.

Under the same moral authority you’re willing to concede to the state, I could stand on your front step with an automatic on hip and an empty out-stretched hand which I expect to be filled by you, to my determined satisfaction, before you’re "free" to leave your own house.

The principle involved is exactly the same.
Too bad we don’t deal in "moral authority" here. Or maybe it’s a good thing since we’d all have dirty hands anyway.

Again, if you really think the two situations described here are the same, I beg you to leave. You really are allowed to.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Because your handle a damn lie, and I won’t stand for it. You may call me whatever you like.
You won’t stand for it?
What does that mean?
More pseudo macho internet posturing?
Is it hurting you?

I don’t see the harm, that’s the measure, right?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
That’s pretty good, Steve. Seriously.

One nitpick, though, judgment of a person is never final. I’m willing to teach and learn along with anyone willing to think for themselves with complete honesty. Thrilled to get the opportunity, in fact. Get in touch should you ever decide that doing so is more important than urkobold’s warm embrace.

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
You won’t stand for it?
What does that mean?


It means I won’t help him fake reality by using that term to refer to him.

More pseudo macho internet posturing?
Is it hurting you?


It’s offending me. That’s a kind of hurt, just not the kind that requires or justifies any coercive recourse.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
we don’t deal in "moral authority" here

I nominate this to replace "Free Minds - Free People"

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
I didn’t expect the bloody Spanish Inquisition.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Joel, are you talking to me in Monty Python code today? I love it!

Get in touch should you ever decide that doing so is more important than urkobold’s warm embrace.

I’ll consider it.

But for what it’s worth, you might want to rethink your marketing strategy. Alienating (via insult and condescension) 99% of the customer base isn’t exactly what I would call a good selling strategy.

It’s just a suggestion; please don’t take it as an insult.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
That’s a kind of hurt, just not the kind that requires or justifies any coercive recourse

Hmm. That’s according to you.

I might think differently.

And therein lies the rub, no?
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
you might want to rethink your marketing strategy. Alienating (via insult and condescension) 99% of the customer base isn’t exactly what I would call a good selling strategy.

Don’t worry, I don’t take it as an insult. But it’s not marketing, and I’m not looking for customers. But if it was, then alienating 99% of the customer base would be exactly the right strategy if only 1% are in the right demographic. It just takes the right filter function. Rolls Royce doesn’t sponsor the Jerry Springer show.

That’s a kind of hurt, just not the kind that requires or justifies any coercive recourse

Hmm. That’s according to you.

I might think differently.


Wait, you think that my being offended doesjustify a coercive response against you? Did you misunderstand what I was referring to?
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
"Note how every time you ask for an explanation, you’re not given one because ’they’ define you as conceptually incapable."
To begin with, that "every time" thing is false, and you know it from experience. And: when see conceptual incompetence, I understand it and I know then what I can expect. There is nothing irrational about this.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
But it’s not marketing, and I’m not looking for customers.

I think that’s part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

It just takes the right filter function. Rolls Royce doesn’t sponsor the Jerry Springer show.

Heh, of course. But if you overfilter, you’re not going to sell to anybody.

Wait, you think that my being offended does justify a coercive response against you?

No, I don’t think that. Others do, however.

What happens when one definition of "justifiable coercion" meets a differing one?

when see conceptual incompetence, I understand it and I know then what I can expect. There is nothing irrational about this.

No, there isn’t. I don’t see where that helps any, though.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
"I mean, hell Kyle, you think of yourself as head-and-shoulders above all of us in knowledge (or morality, take your pick); why waste time with us Ignorati?"
This was explained to you weeks ago, now. At this point, you really are just being stupid.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
But if it was, then alienating 99% of the customer base would be exactly the right strategy if only 1% are in the right demographic.
Well, your new ’society’ will be interesting.
I mean, if only 1% of those of us alive right now are needed by you or acceptable to you.

It seems if you’re looking for that small a percentage then you’ll never achieve your goal of a free state, will you.

So, it really is just theory and words to you, because if you can’t sell it to the majority, it ain’t happening baby.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I think the term is, um, elitist.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
(me)But it’s not marketing, and I’m not looking for customers.

I think that’s part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.


If you understood why I think that is wrong, you might get the explanation you’ve been demanding from me.

Heh, of course. But if you overfilter, you’re not going to sell to anybody.

True. The balance is something that has to be arrived at by reason and experience.

Wait, you think that my being offended does justify a coercive response against you?

No, I don’t think that. Others do, however.

What happens when one definition of "justifiable coercion" meets a differing one?

You look for the answer in reality and reason and agree on a solution, or you fight over it. Passing a law about it is just a different kind of fight, settled on different ground.

 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Well, your new ’society’ will be interesting.
I mean, if only 1% of those of us alive right now are needed by you or acceptable to you.


You’re mistaking my purpose.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
This was explained to you weeks ago, now. At this point, you really are just being stupid.

If I recall, it was "explained" to me with a "I have my reasons". Forgive me, but that’s just not good enough.

if you can’t sell it to the majority, it ain’t happening baby.

I have to agree here. If the majority is what’s preventing the free exercise of your natural rights, then the best way to achieve liberty would be to market the concept.

And Billy, your marketing sucks.

Do you care? If not, that tells me you aren’t really serious.

If you understood why I think that is wrong, you might get the explanation you’ve been demanding from me.

Again with the knowledge hurdles. Does this Crucible never end?
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
SShiel:
"Where you may acquit, I may convict. Where you may convict, I may acquit. I answer not for your position nor do you answer for mine."
Your article of faith goes aground on the fact that the jury responds to an indictment in the name of The People. Do you understand? It does not discriminate, or ask who stands behind the complaint, offering an out for dissenters. If you would sit on a jury under that condition, then you have absolutely no standing to attempt distinguishing yourself from the people in whose name that action is taken.

That is a big part of what must be "answer[ed] for", in this.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Again with the knowledge hurdles. Does this Crucible never end?

Not even for me. Deal with it.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
You look for the answer in reality and reason and agree on a solution, or you fight over it. Passing a law about it is just a different kind of fight, settled on different ground.

So, when you fail to find an answer, violence is (of course) the only recourse.

People have chosen to give someone else (the State) the right to use the violence in their name.

It sucks, I know, but from where I am sitting, it doesn’t look like this outcome is avoidable.
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
You’re mistaking my purpose.
The purpose being what, to deride Franks for following the laws established?

To persuade others that we ought to change things and help establish a more libertarian way of life?

What is your purpose, or is it something I am not worthy or not smart enough to understand?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
To persuade others that we ought to change things and help establish a more libertarian way of life?

Not at all, not one bit.

What is your purpose, or is it something I am not worthy or not smart enough to understand?

You? No, you’re not.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Your article of faith goes aground on the fact that the jury responds to an indictment in the name of The People. Do you understand? It does not discriminate, or ask who stands behind the complaint, offering an out for dissenters. If you would sit on a jury under that condition, then you have absolutely no standing to attempt distinguishing yourself from the people in whose name that action is taken.

That is a big part of what must be "answer[ed] for", in this.
That’s because you’re not using the definition of ’The People’ in legal terms, but rather redefining it to suite your purpose. Because, by that very logic your using, the guy being prosecuted is actually prosecuting himself, since he is of ’the People’.

’The People’ are represented by their elected representatives who enforce the laws created by other representatives they created because they didn’t want to trust the same people with all the powers.

Again, if you chose to redefine terms on the fly, that’s intellectually dishonest and your arguing semantics, something that children resort to when being chastised by parents.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
And how would it be any different in your ’society’ - I mean, after all, most of you are going to be busy ’minding your own business, doing no harm’.
That’s what I’m counting on, looker. And while they’re thumbing through the Foxfire book trying to figure out how to churn butter or make hallucinogenics out of shoe-polish and day-old bread, I’ll be busy organizing.
And when the Empire of Jeff rolls up and rounds up people 5 cities over, I assume a lot of you are going to take a look at who got rounded up by Emperor Jeff, presume you’re not ’those kind of people’ and that there’s nothing you can or should do about it anyway.
Oh, it’s on. What they fail to realize is that I’m really on their side. The sooner they establish their Libertarian paradise, the sooner the Empire of Jeff will establish it’s benevolent reign, founded on the principles of Natural Rights.

Jeff’s natural rights.

And believe me looker, as one of my early supporters, you will be rewarded, oh, yes. If Kyle will not tell us the Ultimate Truth, we will extract it from him like a wisdom tooth. Likely, we will all be too ignorant to understand the Ultimate Truth, but like you, I do not have the time to sit at his knee, receiving wisdom until I am finally ready to snatch the pebble from his hand.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Dale,

On policy - what do "free markets" mean to you if any commodity can be outlawed as a matter of public policy?
 
Written By: John T. Kennedy
URL: http://www.no-treason.com
The problem is that you utterly refuse to comprehend the fact that he is manifestly innocent of any moral crime. I.e., he initiated force upon NO ONE.
Is your idea of a moral crime limited to initiating force upon someone? Because I can come up with all kinds of moral crimes that don’t involve force.

How about drunk driving? Or is it your position that you haven’t actually committed a crime unless you’ve run someone over or damaged property? I’d say you’re misguided there, because the potential for a drunk driver to maim or kill makes it imperitive that he be apprehended before he can do so.

How about treason?
How about theft by con? The thief is often willingly given money by his marks.
How about vote fraud (on a grand scale, like turning in hundreds of falsified ballots)?
How about bribery?

Those are all legal and moral crimes, and none of them involve initiating force.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
To persuade others that we ought to change things and help establish a more libertarian way of life?
Not at all, not one bit.
So you aren’t here to debate civily. Good to know. I can skip over your vitriol now without worry that I miss something that actually might be profound.

Thanks for the time saver.

I have to ask though why you are spending so much of your time here when it angers/annoys you. Why is it that you just don’t go away, since at least half of the people who run this blog have so disgusted you?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
So you aren’t here to debate civily. Good to know. I can skip over your vitriol now without worry that I miss something that actually might be profound.
That’s a good skill to have — just ignore vitriol and insults as irrelevant, look for substance, and focus on the argument, not the person. I’ve yet to see a real argument on why people should accept the view of reality that is being put forth by the anarcho-types, it seems a kind of secular dogmatism. I’m trying to read through all that to see just what the argument is, but it seems a mix of assertion and moralizing.

Also, the ultimate argument against anarchism is that people have chosen something different. Get rid of government tomorrow, and it would almost certainly resurface, because people would choose to construct it. It seems as unachievable as Marxian utopianism. The only way we can possibly have such an all voluntaristic society with no government or institutions of governance is if we slowly moved in that direction and people chose to work together to construct such a system. That won’t happen any time soon, so it seems a waste to let the fact we live in a particular place and time with a particular set of injustices (and all times and places in history have had various injustices) cause so much rage and anger.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So you aren’t here to debate civily. Good to know. I can skip over your vitriol now without worry that I miss something that actually might be profound.

That’s quite a leap. And don’t worry, you’d make sure to miss it in any case.

Get rid of government tomorrow, and it would almost certainly resurface, because people would choose to construct it.

That’s true, Ellesworth, in no small part because people like you would tell people whatever it took to get them to offer a new tit for you to suckle from.

It seems as unachievable as Marxian utopianism.

I know, you prefer the achievable kind of Marxian utopia.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
Oh, I don’t think I mistoook your blather sir. I believe I caught it quite rightly.

You are not here to discuss your view of Libertarianism. "Not one bit" were your exact words.

So, pray tell, what are you here for, besides to insult Dale?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"That’s because you’re not using the definition of ’The People’ in legal terms, but rather redefining it to suite your purpose."
If by "legal terms" you have in mind something other than the plain English referents of the term, then I’m not the one redefining anything at all. And this...
"’The People’ are represented by their elected representatives who enforce the laws created by other representatives they created because they didn’t want to trust the same people with all the powers."
...will never be rote-quoted into reality. That winky-quote around the words is not a definition, and the rest of it is "creat[ive]" bloody gibberish, handwaving around the original nonsense. Get hold of yourself.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
So, pray tell, what are you here for, besides to insult Dale?

To discuss my view of Libertarianism, with those capable of it. I’m still looking.

My "not one bit" was in response to a question about persuading

That’s besides insulting Dale. There’s a little bit of persuasion attempted in that. If I could get him to feel an iota of shame, I’d consider my quota of good deeds for January fulfilled.
 
Written By: Kyle Bennett
URL: http://www.humanadvancement.net/blog
My "not one bit" was in response to a question about persuading
So you have no interest in attempting to grow the ranks of those who believe as you do.

Thank god. That means when you grow old and die, there will be less of you. I find this idea comforting, if only because you’re so damned rude.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"It seems as unachievable as Marxian utopianism."
"You know... I think I’m beginning to see..." (Kid Sheleen)

That must be why it was necessary to send Steven Rhett to prison for ten years.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php

 
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