I don’t think people are pro-democracy because they think democracy is guaranteed to produce moral results, MF.
In other words, I question the morality of any outcome of the democratic process. The morality of a question is independent of the democratic process that produces an answer.
“The morality of a question is independent of the democratic process that produces an answer.”
I’m glad to hear you say that, but then I think to myself that you have often defended the legitimacy of certain activities on the basis that they are the outcome of the democratic process, so I question the sincerity of what you are claiming now.
But it’s a separate issue MF. I think keeping the local library open is legitimate because the voters approved a mill rate increase on just this question. I undserstand you think public libraries are oppression; I wish you could understand some others don’t. Some decisions are collective and how we make those decision matters. Some decisions are neither particularly moral not particularly immoral, they just are. Or there are advocates and arguments on each side and we need a way to make decsisions without fighting over them. I think Obamacare is clearly uncosntitutional. Well tough for me; I ahve top play by trhe rules if I want the 4th amendment to protect me. Maybe not in Libertania, but in the USA I do. The process protects me.
It may indeed be more moral to drive on the left, but in any case you have to follow the process to change that. PROCESSES have legitimacy, not just DECISIONS.
Your inability to understand the distinction between legitimate and just is telling MF. Perhaps if you think in terms of satisficing you’ll get a glimmer.
I think Obamacare is clearly uncosntitutional. Well tough for me; I ahve top play by trhe rules if I want the 4th amendment to protect me. Maybe not in Libertania, but in the USA I do. The process protects me.
That is the funniest thing I have read in a month.
Why exactly Bob? Because you think the protection is eroding, or you find funny the idea that anyone could accept the notion that limits on government are a good idea?
If you think the protection is eroding, as I do, then I think you insist even more forcefully that the bill of rights, and the judgments that enforce it, be respected.
I kinda recall some Madison guy making exactly that point.
“I think unwarranted search at the airport is unconstitutional. Well tough for me; I have to play by trhe rules if I want the 4th amendment to protect me. Maybe not in Libertania, but in the USA I do. The process protects me.”
Does this help you realize how absolutely inane you sound? Limits on government DON’T EXIST. Especially when you talk about letting the government break them, so that they won’t break them(!).
Exactly, Matt. The people living in Big Bear had to let police search their homes without a warrant recently if they want the 4th amendment to protect them.
Does this help you realize how absolutely inane you sound? Limits on government DON’T EXIST. Especially when you talk about letting the government break them, so that they won’t break them(!).
And in a thread talking about the DOJ memo explaining why they can kill Americans with no trial.
The people living in Big Bear had to let police search their homes without a warrant recently if they want the 4th amendment to protect them.
THANK YOU, DAN!
I am so glad someone else noticed that one.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Actually yes Dan, and even you should be able to see that you cannot retry OJ because to do so would undercut the rights of the rest of us.
So yes I have to accept the OJ verdict as legally bindiong. Just as I have to accept Obamacare is the law of the land if I want to rely on the bill of rights.
Let’s ask Bob Roddis, who is a big fan of common law protections, about the other great corpusof law, as the same idea applies. Is common law perfect Bob Roddis, are all the decisions quite correct and to your taste, and if not do you abjure it?
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
And so you’d put the devil in charge of deciding whether he was obeying the law or not. And when he has decided that nothing he does is against the law, and he decided to throw you into the gulag to be executed, would you look to him to be a fair judge of your innocence?
d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I would deny that the devil is the one who is to decide the legality of his own actions, for my own safety’s sake.
This is actaully a good question KP. Well in part, the world does. I live in a country with certain structures in it. Some I’d like to change, but within that framework we collectivel;y decide things all the time. Like daylight savings time. Like whether to execute murderers. Maybe they order these things much better in Ancapistan (to amke a literary allusion MF won’t catch) but i don’t live there and don’t expect to. I’ll worry about real liberties for real people, and let the purists dream of Ancapia.
“Like whether to put my left sock on first, or my right.”
Property rights ethics. “My” socks, “my” feet, etc.
“Or whether to open my eggs at the wide or narrow end.”
Again, property rights ethics. “My” eggs, “my” hand, etc.
You are presupposing an ethic that consists of others respecting your decision to put your socks on the way you want, and for you to crack your eggs the way you want.
Yes, exactly. Legitimate (in the context of political legitimacy) things may be immoral and illegitimate things might be moral. We like democratic legitimacy tests with strong constitutional shackles on government because while I’m pretty sure of my own moral scruples others might not be (and the suspicion is mutual).
And of course there’s a range of things that aren’t really moral or immoral at all.
So when you were defending those outcomes, on the basis that they were the result of democratic processes, you weren’t saying they were morally just, but morally unjust?
And here we see the straw man. It’s DK and I who are defending constituional republicanism and the primacy of law and the bill of rights. Democracy is one aspect of how the system works, it is not the only one. And I am getting grief here explicitly and solely not for defending democracy but for ddefending legal restraints on democracy! Like the 4th amendment.
We all stem from Adam but I can still talk to just you. One advantage of the nesting of comments is you can indicate what you are replying to. As I did.
Oh for pity’s sake. I attached my comment to Sandin’s comment. It was directed at Sandin’s comment. I have saids so explicitly now repeatedly. You are turning into one of the fingers-in-ears nah nah brigade here KP, and you usually aren’t like that.
I’m just trying to point out where the confusion may lay. You keep going after posters here for misreading you (or not reading you at all), perhaps it’s the context that’s making things less clear.
While I’m fairly confident you are incorrect in your first claim, the fact that we agree on the second makes the time I spent trying to get through to you feel less wasted.
I wasn’t sloppy about context. You were sloppy in not realizing that you weren’t making an argument independent of morality, contrary to your insinuation that you were (claiming justice is different from legitimacy doesn’t say what you think it says)
You falsely claimed that because justice is independent of legitimacy, that somehow I was off base for calling into question DK’s statement that he believes morality is independent of democratic outcomes. And yet DK also has insinuated that democratic outcomes carry a moral component to them, which is why he defended some of the activities the government has done that some of the other posters here thought were unjustified.
I made an opening comment in the context of a democracy, and you have done nothing but tiptoe around the sidelines, nipping at the heels of the other posters who staunch anti-democrats, bringing up all sorts of irrelevant gobbledygook, and then you have the gall to accuse me of being sloppy with contexts, when it was precisely you who has been sloppy with contexts the whole time.
Both you and DK have zero clue as what the concept of “legitimacy” really means. You seem to believe that it is pure aggression in a historicist sense.
Activity X is “legitimate” because it occurred, and it was backed by force. Deal with it. Whether or not it is moral or immoral is another question. But that’s flat wrong. Legitimacy is not an ontological concept. Even though the Nazi regime during the 1930s “succeeded” in enforcing their laws, and even though it took place, it is absurd to regard their rule as “legitimate”. It was illegitimate. Why? Because the MORALITY of it was and is considered unjust by an ethical framework that is INDEPEDENT of the actual activity and rule of the Nazi party.
Legitimacy of a state is not based on what the state can get away with in the positive sense. It is based on whether or not its activity is considered morally just. That is what legitimacy means.
So when DK claimed before in some other post that some of the horrible outcomes of democracy are “legitimate”, he was making a statement as to the morality of them. He wasn’t solely playing show and tell and claiming that “It is legitimate because it took place.” He would just be saying “It took place because it took place.”
Your ignorance on the meaning of basic concepts, your silly sanctimonious playing the victim card after being demolished multiple times by multiple people on this thread, and your false accusations of what context I am allegedly being sloppy with, is just evidence that you are more concerned with saving face than you are with truth. I just lost a ton of respect for you, what little there was.
I totally prefer no govt to a democratic govt but also prefer a (more) democratic govt to a less democratic / dictatorial govt.
The current US system is hardly democratic and quite dictatorial.
I blame that on the FPTP ‘winner takes all’ Presidential and Senate/House elections.
Hence, even while realizing the immorality of democracy, I campaign for more democracy (Proportional representation, decentralization, Westminster style parliament, etc.)
For me, I don’t much like going down the road of “the lesser of two evils”. For the evil will only have to stay one step ahead of you in terms of evilness, and you will always keep choosing one step behind them (the lesser of two evils), and so over time, while you may think you’re going in the right direction, you’re actually continually going down the road of evil by pretending that just because you’re one step behind the most evil, you’re not evil yourself.
Lesser of two evils is exactly how good societies gradually, step by step, turn more and more evil. It may seem a cliche, but turning society good really does start with you. You can get short term benefits, but your long term outcomes end up being more and more not good, until….we’re here talking about choosing the lesser of two evils between the executive assassinating people without trial or jury, or search and seizures without a warrant.
One of the 56,234 reasons why Ancap is better than democracy….
You have a binding contract with your fellow associates. You have a cause of action if they breach it. Their deciding to kill you in violation of the terms of the agreement is a breach that would be enjoined ASAP.
Of course, under democracy, the President, the government and, of course, the military and police can lie and lie and murder and murder. The miracle of democracy.
Hey Bob, that sounds like an argument for procedural and constitutional protections, and even *gasp* stare decisis. Why I bet you’d even give the Devil protection of the law, for your own safety’s sake. C’mon admit it, you would.
Why I bet you’d even give the Devil protection of the law, for your own safety’s sake. C’mon admit it, you would.
Ken, I know you like to write these fairy tales in which you are the lone ranger of reason against hordes of morons here. But this is really too much.
You *think* you are saying, “Hey, I thought that guy was guilty, but a jury of his peers found him not guilty, and so I have to respect that decision. We must have a rule of law, otherwise none of us is safe.”
But what you are *actually* saying is, “Hey, I thought that was weird when the jury found the guy not guilty, but the judge pulled out a gun and shot him in the head anyway. But, I have to accept this outcome, otherwise we won’t have a rule of law that protects our rights.”
Now you can say, “Oh come on Bob, there you go with your hyperbole. Nobody is suggesting that the gov’t be able to just start killing people without them being found guilty in a court.”
Except, yes, that is EXACTLY what this blog post was about.
I believe that Ken is actually trying to get a job as advocate for the Devil. Although, I doubt that particular character ever finds it difficult to get a lawyer, nor does he much care about being granted a fair trial for that matter.
Bob, it might be what your blog post is about, but its not what Dan’s comments are about. And Dan specifically disputed this kind of thing:
“Hey, I thought that guy was guilty, but a jury of his peers found him not guilty, and so I have to respect that decision. We must have a rule of law, otherwise none of us is safe.”
I mean look at the Man for All Seasons quote Bob (M) and Dan’s reaction.
And just to make sure there’s mo confusion, I asked Bob Roddis not you, as the context makes clear. So you are just wrong to think this rhetorical question was dirtected at you or the arguement in your post. I was pointing out how absurd Dan’s position on the law is, but noting that *even Roddis* will agree with me that legal procedure is one way we defend rights. Just look at my earlier rhetroicla invocation of Roddis as well.
Dan I am willing to stipulate that you did such a bizarrely bad job of making your real position clear that I might have misunderstood it. But your seeming deliberate misunderstanding of my explicit statements makes me doubt even that.
There is a fundamental logical problem with stare decisis as it is currently practiced, which is that it is a logically separate system of propositions that is independent of, and potentially inconsistent with, constitutional enactments.[3] [4] One who takes an oath to uphold the written constitution is bound to ignore precedents in conflict with it, and to rest decisions strictly on propositions that are logically derived from constitutional enactments, considering precedents only where they sharpen ambiguities in the language of the written enactments. To treat precedents as superior to constitutional enactments is to introduce contradictions into the law, and in any system of logical propositions, acceptance of a single contradiction accepts all contradictions, rendering every proposition logically undecidable. Contrary to the view of some judges, the law must be logical, or it is not law.
The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws. The true test, therefore, of a just application of them is its conformity to the source from which they are derived.
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
Under democracy, the police can extra-judicially murder by burning alive former cop Christopher Dorner without due process and lie and lie and lie about it despite their plans being recorded off police radio.
Social democracy in a multi-ethnic society invariably and quickly sinks into ethnic strife and potential genocide as ethnicity is always that most salient factor in elections where the government controls a substantial amount of the resources.
Democracies like the USA have special insight into the miracle of democracy which they freely spread to multi-ethnic places like Serbia and Kosovo making everything better:
A 2010 Council of Europe report [.pdf] stated that Thaci leads the so-called Drenica Group, which was accused of taking organs from Serb prisoners. Carla del Ponte, the head of the war crimes tribunal in the Hague, said she was prevented from investigating the organ-selling operation, but the recent appearance of a new witness has apparently given new life to the investigation. Leaked NATO documents describe Xhavit Haliti, leader of the Democratic Party’s parliamentary fraction and a close ally of Thaci’s, as heavily involved in drugs, prostitution, and weapons smuggling. Human trafficking is so endemic that the EU refuses to liberalize its visa requirements for Kosovo residents.
Thanks to the wise and benevolent aid of the USA to spread the miracle of democracy to Syria (and aid Al-Qaida —whooops!), ethnic strife has arisen. Who knew?
Do people here really think that in an anarchist society people wouldn’t be killed by drones? Or is it that this would be okay because it wouldn’t be government doing it?
What a pathetic and stupid question. There is no Ancap without the NAP in practice. With the NAP in practice there is no AGGRESSION. It’s not that complicated.
These dirty statists just don’t want what we propose to be true — just cuz. They have an emotional attachment to fighting us for no logical reason whatsoever. Thanks to the internet, we’ve been able to determine that without having to pay for an expensive public opinion survey.
Don’t you think that’s a little unfair? Maybe we can make a distinction between “pure ancap” and “ancap structure”, the latter of which Blackadder is asking a perfectly reasonable question about.
Because in practice, of course, pure ancap will never exist. It is a utopic notion.
I think you misunderstand “pure” ancap and make a false distinction. it isn’t “no violence,” it is equal punishment under the law of non agression. there is violence.
“With the NAP in practice there is no AGGRESSION.”
I am only making the distinction because of this. Based on my definitions, ancap structure is what you are referring to. There certainly is a distinction. A society in which every individual actually follows the non-aggression principle, without fail, (i.e., a “pure ancap” society) is a utopic vision.
If you think the names I gave to it were bad, let me know, but unless I misunderstood Roddis, I think I made a valid distinction.
No, you are missing what Roddis said. “There is no Ancap without the NAP in practice. With the NAP in practice there is no AGGRESSION.” Not equal standing before the law, but no aggression period. Bharat is quite right, that’s utopic.
Roddis wasn’t making a prediction that the world would cease to be violent.
He is making an analytical statement about the nature of ancap. It is peaceful by definition.
That’s why BA’s question was strange. He asked
“Do people here really think that in an anarchist society people wouldn’t be killed by drones?”
This is like saying “If people respected each other’s property rights, who would be so idiotic and claim that there would be no violations of property rights? Only a naive fool who is still wet behind their ears would deny that there would be murder all over the place in an ancap society.”
There is a difference between what ancap says people ought not do, and what people will and will not do in real life.
Ancap is an ethical proposal. It’s up to the people to abide by it. If people choose not to, it’s not proof ancap is wrong or untenable. Not obeying a proposed rule does not make that proposed rule something other than a proposed rule.
I know you have a rather negative view of humanity, so you cannot help but get sidetracked on “But who will act in these ways? It’s naive and silly to believe everyone will be angels.”
If you can’t see the problem with that thinking, then you probably never will. So just smell the roses or listen to some music or something, and give it up.
What a pathetic and stupid question. There is no Ancap without the NAP in practice. With the NAP in practice there is no AGGRESSION. It’s not that complicated.
This made me laugh. And it shows that Bob should spend more time teaching his readers the basics of libertarian philosophy.
The problem is that when private people or groups of people commit murder by drone strike it is called a crime and the actors are sought out for punishment. If caught they get a trial and…. oops, sorry, forgot trials are optional these days….
The point is this is how it should be, for everyone. In ancap, it would be. there is no one entity above the rule of law and the non aggression principle.
In todays world, governments murder without consequence, steal with impunity, and people think it is good or even godly. “I believe in deomocracy.” “I trust in the government.” that sort of crap. Don’t give them a pass. Demand your rights. trial, not be killed, etc.
you misunderstood. trials happen in private societies between private individuals using private arbitration and even private judges. a jury could still exist. but it isn’t government trial. private due process fits NAP.
To answer your question Blackadder, no, people could still kill in an anarchist society and drones would certainly be a possible weapon. (Although, it certainly may be better outside of the hands of government.)
Obama uses drones to kill darkies in Pakistan because:
1. It’s popular with voters to kill darkies with funny accents;
2. The street cred Obama gets from killing darkies helps him in his quest to destroy the US healthcare system which is supported by “progressives”. Destroying the health care system is so much more important to “progressives” than a few thousand dead darkies;
3. Murdering American darkies who have funny Arabic names in Yemen (where they all have funny names and accents) without due process is popular with the voters. Plus, it provides the US of Bankster state with a “stare decisis” episode to employ in the future in the event it becomes necessary to murder an American who doesn’t have a funny name or accent. Plus, it provides the bankster state with a test of whether either its judicial system and/or the public will put a stop to extra-judicial murder which is especially important for stare decisis purposes. The answer is obviously no.
4. I note that Obama hasn’t murdered anyone in Toronto with drones. That wouldn’t be popular with the voters because the voters see white Canadians as people.
5. I also think that the purported purpose of killing with drones (STOPPING AL QAIDA!!) is intentionally preposterous because we are allied with Al Qaida in Syria.
So, it’s just another test case by the government to see how much BS the public will swallow.
6. There should be no question that the entire US government and culture has been thoroughly Clintonized.
7. Or is it that this [killing with drones] would be okay because it wouldn’t be government doing it?
Obviously, libertarians and Austrians are constantly congratulating and celebrating mass murderers not employed by the “governmental sector”. What a brilliant and fair minded question.
8. You statists should run a victory lap. There’s slaughter and carnage anew all over the world with the NAP nowhere in sight. You’ve won. Be proud.
Wow you guys are amazing. Here’s a challenge. I will pledge another $50 to Bob’s Krugman debate fund if anyone here, can exhibit any single comment I made here, or on my blog, on over at Landsburg’s blog, or over at Henderson’s blog, where I argue for the unbridled power of democracy or against the limitation of that power by common law precedent, the bill of rights, the English constituion, Magna Carta, or the Petition of Right. My argument is simple: government power is dangerous, the best defence we ahve against it are legal limitations, and we must respect and charish that mechanism even if it sometimes falls short of what we’d like.
[W]e must respect and charish that mechanism even if it sometimes falls short of what we’d like.
I have no idea what that means in practice. Especially when the beloved “mechanism” is being completely undermined by the powers-that-be. Further, I’ve emphasized over and over that generally whatever regime is in place exists primarily due to the implicit support of the public. The current regime still has broad public support. An Ancap society could not exist without widespread support for its principles. If you want to repeat that truism over and over, that’s fine, but you aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know.
And I’m not backing off from“With the NAP in practice there is no AGGRESSION”. It’s a truism and the statists just want to constantly nit-pick about simple, self-evident definitions.
It means we don’t toss double jeopardy because OJ’s trial was unfair. It means we don’t pretend Obamacare is not the law and that supreme court decisions — like those on the 4th amendment — no longer bind because that one was wrong. It means we don’t let utopian fantasies drive us to abjure the most effective curb on repression we’ve been able to find yet.
That’s what I mean Bob, all that stuff many here reject.
I was talking about the intro of your post, which as I said is rich, considering, you know, the floor thing.
Just because I didn’t instantly jump on board and give you want you want, it doesn’t erase history, or put you in any better position.
You remind me of that guy in Monty Python who is getting his limbs lopped off, and yet he still has the gall to pretend that his opponent is retreating from the fight.
I’m pretty certain that you have never expressly argued for “the unbridled power of democracy or against the limitation of that power by common law precedent, the bill of rights, the English constituion, Magna Carta, or the Petition of Right” per se.
Right. You, Bob Roddis, might think I overestimate the effectiveness of those safeguards, and underestimate how effective Rothbardism might be at the same job, but that is not at all the point at issue here.
Major Freedom, Bob Roddis and some others here have chosen to follow the maxim: “Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it!” Those lads are amazing.
While you have some objections around the margins, you and yours are the ratcheting, incremental enablers. I’m an old coward and was a thorough-going fraud in my day, but that doesn’t stop me from hypocritically admiring the Nock’s Remnant who won’t concede an uncontested inch to the democratic/crony/interventionist tyrants that predominate. Oh, yeah, evil and illegitimate, too.
“government power is dangerous, the best defence we ahve against it are legal limitations, and we must respect and charish that mechanism…”
…until the government wants to go past those legal limitations, in which case we ignore it because we don’t want them to go past the other limitations, even though we know they will whenever they feel like it.
How do you people think Jim Crow was overthrown? The answer is by insisting on the bill of rights.
So when the UN tanks roll in to restore our Constitution, are you going to be cheering them on or throwing rocks? At this point I really have no idea what you will say, but I’m sure it will be snarky.
Completely off topic other than Krugman-related but I didn’t want to lose track of this. I had never before seen this Krugman piece from 5/27/05 (ht2 “Locus”, commenter @ Krugman-in-Wonderland):
As Mr. McCulley predicted, interest rate cuts led to soaring home prices, which led in turn not just to a construction boom but to high consumer spending, because homeowners used mortgage refinancing to go deeper into debt. All of this created jobs to make up for those lost when the stock bubble burst.
Now the question is what can replace the housing bubble.
Nobody thought the economy could rely forever on home buying and refinancing. But the hope was that by the time the housing boom petered out, it would no longer be needed.
But although the housing boom has lasted longer than anyone could have imagined, the economy would still be in big trouble if it came to an end. That is, if the hectic pace of home construction were to cool, and consumers were to stop borrowing against their houses, the economy would slow down sharply. If housing prices actually started falling, we’d be looking at a very nasty scene, in which both construction and consumer spending would plunge, pushing the economy right back into recession.
*************
So what happens if the housing bubble bursts? It will be the same thing all over again, unless the Fed can find something to take its place. And it’s hard to imagine what that might be. After all, THE FED’S ABILITY TO MANAGE THE ECONOMY MAINLY COMES FROM ITS ABILITY TO CREATE BOOMS AND BUSTS IN THE HOUSING MARKET. If housing enters a post-bubble slump, what’s left? [emphasis added]
That quote is right up there with the Keynes quote MF provided awhile back regarding “not one man in a million” (paraphrase) being able to understand the destruction that occurs with currency debasement.
Well I think that perfectly sums up how the Keynesian framework works. And always when I ask, how in the world do you transition from an artificial bubble (be it housing, alien defense industries, or whatever that is pumped up by deficit financing or/and low interest rates) to a real self sustaining economy, I do not get an answer. I mean I think I know why. Because it is just impossible except having lots of wishful thinking there isn’t much. I mean just look at the last paragraph of Krugmans piece that you didn’t quote:
“Mr. Roach believes that the Fed’s apparent success after 2001 was an illusion, that it simply piled up trouble for the future. I hope he’s wrong. But the Fed does seem to be running out of bubbles.”
He says “I hope he is wrong”…. Wishful thinking and nothing more.
It amazes me that this doesn’t bother them at all, they don’t even admit that they can’t answer this question. And if they cannot answer that simple question or point to me where it is answered, does it really pay for me to work through lots of Keynesian books to maybe find the answer there somewhere? This is really frustrating…
Back in the days when Krugman was right about stuff… ahhh it’s been a while.
You have to wonder if deep inside Krugman still knows what is going on but has decided better not to talk about it, or whether he has convinced himself that what he writes today is real.
A dialogue.
K: we should insists on the bill of rights and other limitation on state power. Even if we lose some cases and some elections this insistence on legal procedure, and constitutional framework has proven historically to be the most effective guarantor of freedom we have developed yet. I’d rather defend real freedoms for real people than rant about Utopia.
FA: statist troll!
Ken, you are a troll because you constantly attack strawmen arguments that none of us make. Then when some of the people on here try to clarify their position, so that you can actually deal with their actual points, you just keep setting fire to your strawmen. I have given up on playing your game. I don’t think you are interested in honest debate. You simply try to stir shit up, and crack terrible jokes. I get nothing on an intellectual level from having conversations with you. From now on I’m just going to content myself with knowing that you freely expose your ignorance of our ideas on a daily basis.
You repeat this often enough Dan that I think we make take your opinion as read. I do suggest then you refute my OLG posts, which should be easy for you, even if not for Bob. After all, you tell me they are devoid of content.
In any case the straw men are aimed at me as I have never argued that for instance a wrong judgment made obamcare just, only that it made it law. Just as plessy made an outrage law. That’s how law works. I never argued as you have implied that Iowa makes anything just.
A question for Bob Murphy. Which approach is more likely to stop cops searching without a warrant, appealing the case in court, or attending Porcfest? Which is more likely to see the rights of those folks vindicated? Because the arguments of Dan et al imply that appealing in court is not just useless, but somehow complicit in the oppression. It proves one is a statist they imply. That’s certainly the implication directed at me.
Which approach is more likely to stop cops searching without a warrant …
…
Because the arguments of Dan et al imply that appealing in court is not just useless, but somehow complicit in the oppression.
Federalist 28
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
Or to Porcfest. Because Murphy is certainly not suggesting a rush to arms.
Plus of course you will note the supreme power bit. The cops in that case are not that. That’s why an appeal to a court can be useful here. Or do you cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war when any cop anywhere overreaches?
Plus of course you will note the supreme power bit. The cops in that case are not that.
This is very true, and worth highlighting. It’s specifically talking about our representatives, here, and not the enforcers. Although, if they get in the way of our attempt to kill our representatives, then we have no choice but to defend ourselves from them, as well.
That’s why an appeal to a court can be useful here.
A legitimate court ruling has already said that representatives may not do such and such. If representatives want to violate our rights, then we have to kill them.
For pro-democracy readers:
At what point do you question the morality of the outcomes of the democratic process?
The only cure for this is more democracy.
Shut up and take my money!
I don’t think people are pro-democracy because they think democracy is guaranteed to produce moral results, MF.
In other words, I question the morality of any outcome of the democratic process. The morality of a question is independent of the democratic process that produces an answer.
“The morality of a question is independent of the democratic process that produces an answer.”
I’m glad to hear you say that, but then I think to myself that you have often defended the legitimacy of certain activities on the basis that they are the outcome of the democratic process, so I question the sincerity of what you are claiming now.
But it’s a separate issue MF. I think keeping the local library open is legitimate because the voters approved a mill rate increase on just this question. I undserstand you think public libraries are oppression; I wish you could understand some others don’t. Some decisions are collective and how we make those decision matters. Some decisions are neither particularly moral not particularly immoral, they just are. Or there are advocates and arguments on each side and we need a way to make decsisions without fighting over them. I think Obamacare is clearly uncosntitutional. Well tough for me; I ahve top play by trhe rules if I want the 4th amendment to protect me. Maybe not in Libertania, but in the USA I do. The process protects me.
It may indeed be more moral to drive on the left, but in any case you have to follow the process to change that. PROCESSES have legitimacy, not just DECISIONS.
By “legitimate” here you are invariably claiming that people ought to regard it as just.
We’re really not talking about something other than morality here.
“I think keeping the local library open is legitimate because the voters approved a mill rate increase on just this question.”
This is just another way of saying that it is morally just to keep the library open because it was the outcome of a democratic process.
Your inability to understand the distinction between legitimate and just is telling MF. Perhaps if you think in terms of satisficing you’ll get a glimmer.
Legitimacy and justice are two concepts within the same category of morality.
I wasn’t conflating them. I was rejecting your implicit assumption that you were talking about something other than morality.
Neither legitimacy nor justice are purely ontological concepts. Both concern how things ought to be and ought not be.
Ken B wrote:
I think Obamacare is clearly uncosntitutional. Well tough for me; I ahve top play by trhe rules if I want the 4th amendment to protect me. Maybe not in Libertania, but in the USA I do. The process protects me.
That is the funniest thing I have read in a month.
Yes, that one cracked me up.
Why exactly Bob? Because you think the protection is eroding, or you find funny the idea that anyone could accept the notion that limits on government are a good idea?
If you think the protection is eroding, as I do, then I think you insist even more forcefully that the bill of rights, and the judgments that enforce it, be respected.
I kinda recall some Madison guy making exactly that point.
The first sentence you typed would have satisficed.
“I think unwarranted search at the airport is unconstitutional. Well tough for me; I have to play by trhe rules if I want the 4th amendment to protect me. Maybe not in Libertania, but in the USA I do. The process protects me.”
Does this help you realize how absolutely inane you sound? Limits on government DON’T EXIST. Especially when you talk about letting the government break them, so that they won’t break them(!).
Exactly, Matt. The people living in Big Bear had to let police search their homes without a warrant recently if they want the 4th amendment to protect them.
Matt Tanous:
Does this help you realize how absolutely inane you sound? Limits on government DON’T EXIST. Especially when you talk about letting the government break them, so that they won’t break them(!).
And in a thread talking about the DOJ memo explaining why they can kill Americans with no trial.
THANK YOU, DAN!
I am so glad someone else noticed that one.
Fourth Amendment:
Case closed. troll fail.
“I think Obamacare is clearly uncosntitutional. Well tough for me; I ahve top play by trhe rules if I want the 4th amendment to protect me.”
Awesome. Yeah, you have to accept unconstitutional policies if you want protection under the constitution.
Actually yes Dan, and even you should be able to see that you cannot retry OJ because to do so would undercut the rights of the rest of us.
So yes I have to accept the OJ verdict as legally bindiong. Just as I have to accept Obamacare is the law of the land if I want to rely on the bill of rights.
Let’s ask Bob Roddis, who is a big fan of common law protections, about the other great corpusof law, as the same idea applies. Is common law perfect Bob Roddis, are all the decisions quite correct and to your taste, and if not do you abjure it?
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
And so you’d put the devil in charge of deciding whether he was obeying the law or not. And when he has decided that nothing he does is against the law, and he decided to throw you into the gulag to be executed, would you look to him to be a fair judge of your innocence?
d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I would deny that the devil is the one who is to decide the legality of his own actions, for my own safety’s sake.
Wow. Really, if you even misunderstand that quote from Robert Bolt …
Oh yes, I almost forgot Ken is just trolling. Whew, I couldn’t wasted more of my day responding to him.
Ken B,
Who determines what questions are collective and what aren’t? Ballotmakers?
This is actaully a good question KP. Well in part, the world does. I live in a country with certain structures in it. Some I’d like to change, but within that framework we collectivel;y decide things all the time. Like daylight savings time. Like whether to execute murderers. Maybe they order these things much better in Ancapistan (to amke a literary allusion MF won’t catch) but i don’t live there and don’t expect to. I’ll worry about real liberties for real people, and let the purists dream of Ancapia.
I really have no idea whether my question was answered or not.
It’s a collective decsion KP. We’ll let you know.
You’re right. I would only have laughed at your bad joke if you had sad “Ancapomalia” instead.
Real liberties for real people, huh? That sounds like the title of Dick Cheney’s next book.
That’s a relief, I mean, who could know better than the world?
“Some decisions are neither particularly moral not particularly immoral, they just are.”
This is flat wrong. All decisions presuppose an ethic associated with them.
Like whether to put my left sock on first, or my right.
Or whether to open my eggs at the wide or narrow end.
“Like whether to put my left sock on first, or my right.”
Property rights ethics. “My” socks, “my” feet, etc.
“Or whether to open my eggs at the wide or narrow end.”
Again, property rights ethics. “My” eggs, “my” hand, etc.
You are presupposing an ethic that consists of others respecting your decision to put your socks on the way you want, and for you to crack your eggs the way you want.
Come on Ken, this shouldn’t be difficult.
someone put out the fire. ken b is getting roasted!
re: “But it’s a separate issue MF.”
Yes, exactly. Legitimate (in the context of political legitimacy) things may be immoral and illegitimate things might be moral. We like democratic legitimacy tests with strong constitutional shackles on government because while I’m pretty sure of my own moral scruples others might not be (and the suspicion is mutual).
And of course there’s a range of things that aren’t really moral or immoral at all.
Only on FA can you spout James Madison straight up no chaser and get called a running dog beast of statist imperialism.
I CTRL+F’d the terms “dog”, “beast”, “statist”, and “imperial”, and your post is the only one that showed up.
Only from one of Ken B’s posts can we see the lady doth protesting too much.
you said it, not anyone else. that’s like giving yourself a blackeye and calling the cops to investigate.
“Legitimate (in the context of political legitimacy) things may be immoral and illegitimate things might be moral.”
Explain.
“We like democratic legitimacy tests with strong constitutional shackles on government”
Tests of what?
So when you were defending those outcomes, on the basis that they were the result of democratic processes, you weren’t saying they were morally just, but morally unjust?
Well it wouldn’t be an MF post if you didn’t question someone’s sincerity would it?
Democracy- Where 51% of the population can vote to destroy the rights and liberties of the other 49%
And refer to their actions as “legitimate”.
And here we see the straw man. It’s DK and I who are defending constituional republicanism and the primacy of law and the bill of rights. Democracy is one aspect of how the system works, it is not the only one. And I am getting grief here explicitly and solely not for defending democracy but for ddefending legal restraints on democracy! Like the 4th amendment.
Wasn’t MF’s question explicitly about democracy though?
Wasn’t my comment explicitly attached to Dean T Sandin’s though?
Or perhaps you want to tell me his comment wasn’t directed at what DK and I say about legitimacy?
Did those not all stem from MF though?
We all stem from Adam but I can still talk to just you. One advantage of the nesting of comments is you can indicate what you are replying to. As I did.
Unfortunately, unlike Adam in my opinion, they still appear to be in a larger context – so it’s a bit less clear.
Is that last comment directed at MF? if not, I win.
MF’s question looks to be in-line with the post, so I’m afraid you don’t.
Oh for pity’s sake. I attached my comment to Sandin’s comment. It was directed at Sandin’s comment. I have saids so explicitly now repeatedly. You are turning into one of the fingers-in-ears nah nah brigade here KP, and you usually aren’t like that.
Uh Ken,
I’m just trying to point out where the confusion may lay. You keep going after posters here for misreading you (or not reading you at all), perhaps it’s the context that’s making things less clear.
So relax.
But KP that thing you did is just exactly what the misinterpeters do.
If your point is “Well MF and some others are sloppy about context”, then we agree again!
While I’m fairly confident you are incorrect in your first claim, the fact that we agree on the second makes the time I spent trying to get through to you feel less wasted.
I wasn’t sloppy about context. You were sloppy in not realizing that you weren’t making an argument independent of morality, contrary to your insinuation that you were (claiming justice is different from legitimacy doesn’t say what you think it says)
You falsely claimed that because justice is independent of legitimacy, that somehow I was off base for calling into question DK’s statement that he believes morality is independent of democratic outcomes. And yet DK also has insinuated that democratic outcomes carry a moral component to them, which is why he defended some of the activities the government has done that some of the other posters here thought were unjustified.
I made an opening comment in the context of a democracy, and you have done nothing but tiptoe around the sidelines, nipping at the heels of the other posters who staunch anti-democrats, bringing up all sorts of irrelevant gobbledygook, and then you have the gall to accuse me of being sloppy with contexts, when it was precisely you who has been sloppy with contexts the whole time.
Both you and DK have zero clue as what the concept of “legitimacy” really means. You seem to believe that it is pure aggression in a historicist sense.
Activity X is “legitimate” because it occurred, and it was backed by force. Deal with it. Whether or not it is moral or immoral is another question. But that’s flat wrong. Legitimacy is not an ontological concept. Even though the Nazi regime during the 1930s “succeeded” in enforcing their laws, and even though it took place, it is absurd to regard their rule as “legitimate”. It was illegitimate. Why? Because the MORALITY of it was and is considered unjust by an ethical framework that is INDEPEDENT of the actual activity and rule of the Nazi party.
Legitimacy of a state is not based on what the state can get away with in the positive sense. It is based on whether or not its activity is considered morally just. That is what legitimacy means.
So when DK claimed before in some other post that some of the horrible outcomes of democracy are “legitimate”, he was making a statement as to the morality of them. He wasn’t solely playing show and tell and claiming that “It is legitimate because it took place.” He would just be saying “It took place because it took place.”
Your ignorance on the meaning of basic concepts, your silly sanctimonious playing the victim card after being demolished multiple times by multiple people on this thread, and your false accusations of what context I am allegedly being sloppy with, is just evidence that you are more concerned with saving face than you are with truth. I just lost a ton of respect for you, what little there was.
Peace.
I think the anarchist (not necessarily capitalist) intellectual community is growing and is actually fairly large already.
Leon Czolgos lives!
Snarkity Snark Snark Snark!
MF:
not answering your question specifically but:
I totally prefer no govt to a democratic govt but also prefer a (more) democratic govt to a less democratic / dictatorial govt.
The current US system is hardly democratic and quite dictatorial.
I blame that on the FPTP ‘winner takes all’ Presidential and Senate/House elections.
Hence, even while realizing the immorality of democracy, I campaign for more democracy (Proportional representation, decentralization, Westminster style parliament, etc.)
Understood.
For me, I don’t much like going down the road of “the lesser of two evils”. For the evil will only have to stay one step ahead of you in terms of evilness, and you will always keep choosing one step behind them (the lesser of two evils), and so over time, while you may think you’re going in the right direction, you’re actually continually going down the road of evil by pretending that just because you’re one step behind the most evil, you’re not evil yourself.
Lesser of two evils is exactly how good societies gradually, step by step, turn more and more evil. It may seem a cliche, but turning society good really does start with you. You can get short term benefits, but your long term outcomes end up being more and more not good, until….we’re here talking about choosing the lesser of two evils between the executive assassinating people without trial or jury, or search and seizures without a warrant.
“Hence, even while realizing the immorality of democracy, I campaign for more democracy”
Called it!
Shailesh,
Perhaps I’m being too much of a cynic but what makes you think that more democracy will necessarily produce better results?
How do you fight speech you don’t like KP?
Good I don’t live in the US. … oh wait …
One of the 56,234 reasons why Ancap is better than democracy….
You have a binding contract with your fellow associates. You have a cause of action if they breach it. Their deciding to kill you in violation of the terms of the agreement is a breach that would be enjoined ASAP.
Of course, under democracy, the President, the government and, of course, the military and police can lie and lie and murder and murder. The miracle of democracy.
Under democracy, the government can torture heroic whistle blowers because “being tough” is popular with voters.
http://scotthorton.org/2013/02/21/22013-nathan-fuller/
Hey Bob, that sounds like an argument for procedural and constitutional protections, and even *gasp* stare decisis. Why I bet you’d even give the Devil protection of the law, for your own safety’s sake. C’mon admit it, you would.
Ken B. wrote:
Why I bet you’d even give the Devil protection of the law, for your own safety’s sake. C’mon admit it, you would.
Ken, I know you like to write these fairy tales in which you are the lone ranger of reason against hordes of morons here. But this is really too much.
You *think* you are saying, “Hey, I thought that guy was guilty, but a jury of his peers found him not guilty, and so I have to respect that decision. We must have a rule of law, otherwise none of us is safe.”
But what you are *actually* saying is, “Hey, I thought that was weird when the jury found the guy not guilty, but the judge pulled out a gun and shot him in the head anyway. But, I have to accept this outcome, otherwise we won’t have a rule of law that protects our rights.”
Now you can say, “Oh come on Bob, there you go with your hyperbole. Nobody is suggesting that the gov’t be able to just start killing people without them being found guilty in a court.”
Except, yes, that is EXACTLY what this blog post was about.
Good catch.
Or, at least, that’s charitable of you.
R.I.P. Ken B’s arguments. May they never return.
I believe that Ken is actually trying to get a job as advocate for the Devil. Although, I doubt that particular character ever finds it difficult to get a lawyer, nor does he much care about being granted a fair trial for that matter.
Bob, it might be what your blog post is about, but its not what Dan’s comments are about. And Dan specifically disputed this kind of thing:
“Hey, I thought that guy was guilty, but a jury of his peers found him not guilty, and so I have to respect that decision. We must have a rule of law, otherwise none of us is safe.”
I mean look at the Man for All Seasons quote Bob (M) and Dan’s reaction.
And just to make sure there’s mo confusion, I asked Bob Roddis not you, as the context makes clear. So you are just wrong to think this rhetorical question was dirtected at you or the arguement in your post. I was pointing out how absurd Dan’s position on the law is, but noting that *even Roddis* will agree with me that legal procedure is one way we defend rights. Just look at my earlier rhetroicla invocation of Roddis as well.
Ken, my position either went way over your head, or you’re just being your typical troll self.
Dan I am willing to stipulate that you did such a bizarrely bad job of making your real position clear that I might have misunderstood it. But your seeming deliberate misunderstanding of my explicit statements makes me doubt even that.
Don’t feed the troll.
This is Ken B. being merciful:
Dan I am willing to stipulate that you did such a bizarrely bad job of making your real position clear that I might have misunderstood it.
You should see him on a bad day!
How stare decisis Subverts the Law
http://constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm
The Federalist No. 83
http://constitution.org/fed/federa83.htm
The Federalist No. 78
http://constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
Under democracy, the government can lie and lie and lie about the efficacy of its boondoggle “anti-missile” system.
http://scotthorton.org/2013/02/20/21913-kingston-reif/
Under democracy, the police can extra-judicially murder by burning alive former cop Christopher Dorner without due process and lie and lie and lie about it despite their plans being recorded off police radio.
http://scotthorton.org/2013/02/16/21513-max-blumenthal/
With Ancap, a community might simply ban the presence of non-residents which would completely eliminate the necessity of police drones.
Social democracy in a multi-ethnic society invariably and quickly sinks into ethnic strife and potential genocide as ethnicity is always that most salient factor in elections where the government controls a substantial amount of the resources.
http://tinyurl.com/ab22ejy
The miracle of democracy.
Democracies like the USA have special insight into the miracle of democracy which they freely spread to multi-ethnic places like Serbia and Kosovo making everything better:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/02/17/kosovos-unhappy-anniversary/
A 2010 Council of Europe report [.pdf] stated that Thaci leads the so-called Drenica Group, which was accused of taking organs from Serb prisoners. Carla del Ponte, the head of the war crimes tribunal in the Hague, said she was prevented from investigating the organ-selling operation, but the recent appearance of a new witness has apparently given new life to the investigation. Leaked NATO documents describe Xhavit Haliti, leader of the Democratic Party’s parliamentary fraction and a close ally of Thaci’s, as heavily involved in drugs, prostitution, and weapons smuggling. Human trafficking is so endemic that the EU refuses to liberalize its visa requirements for Kosovo residents.
Thanks to the wise and benevolent aid of the USA to spread the miracle of democracy to Syria (and aid Al-Qaida —whooops!), ethnic strife has arisen. Who knew?
http://tinyurl.com/aspd3ln
That silly NAP is superfluous and unnecessary. It’s just a hindrance to progress. Who needs it?
Do people here really think that in an anarchist society people wouldn’t be killed by drones? Or is it that this would be okay because it wouldn’t be government doing it?
What a pathetic and stupid question. There is no Ancap without the NAP in practice. With the NAP in practice there is no AGGRESSION. It’s not that complicated.
These dirty statists just don’t want what we propose to be true — just cuz. They have an emotional attachment to fighting us for no logical reason whatsoever. Thanks to the internet, we’ve been able to determine that without having to pay for an expensive public opinion survey.
Don’t you think that’s a little unfair? Maybe we can make a distinction between “pure ancap” and “ancap structure”, the latter of which Blackadder is asking a perfectly reasonable question about.
Because in practice, of course, pure ancap will never exist. It is a utopic notion.
I think you misunderstand “pure” ancap and make a false distinction. it isn’t “no violence,” it is equal punishment under the law of non agression. there is violence.
Roddis stated:
“With the NAP in practice there is no AGGRESSION.”
I am only making the distinction because of this. Based on my definitions, ancap structure is what you are referring to. There certainly is a distinction. A society in which every individual actually follows the non-aggression principle, without fail, (i.e., a “pure ancap” society) is a utopic vision.
If you think the names I gave to it were bad, let me know, but unless I misunderstood Roddis, I think I made a valid distinction.
No, you are missing what Roddis said. “There is no Ancap without the NAP in practice. With the NAP in practice there is no AGGRESSION.” Not equal standing before the law, but no aggression period. Bharat is quite right, that’s utopic.
Because non-governmental violence has never existed.
You’re conflating non-government with (Rothbardian) Anarcho-Capitalism. (Violence under the latter really has never existed.)
Of course it’s certainly possible.
Well KP, I think we both disagree with Roddis, who seems to think the violence will disappear by definition.
And I think we agree on another thing too: violence has never existed in a society organised as a Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism. I for one am glad.
I’m glad we agree as well.
(I think Roddis is well aware of the possibility – and likelihood – and has just written too hastily, but who knows?)
Roddis wasn’t making a prediction that the world would cease to be violent.
He is making an analytical statement about the nature of ancap. It is peaceful by definition.
That’s why BA’s question was strange. He asked
“Do people here really think that in an anarchist society people wouldn’t be killed by drones?”
This is like saying “If people respected each other’s property rights, who would be so idiotic and claim that there would be no violations of property rights? Only a naive fool who is still wet behind their ears would deny that there would be murder all over the place in an ancap society.”
There is a difference between what ancap says people ought not do, and what people will and will not do in real life.
Ancap is an ethical proposal. It’s up to the people to abide by it. If people choose not to, it’s not proof ancap is wrong or untenable. Not obeying a proposed rule does not make that proposed rule something other than a proposed rule.
I know you have a rather negative view of humanity, so you cannot help but get sidetracked on “But who will act in these ways? It’s naive and silly to believe everyone will be angels.”
If you can’t see the problem with that thinking, then you probably never will. So just smell the roses or listen to some music or something, and give it up.
Because a murder free world has never existed.
So let’s claim murder must be institutionalized by a central power. Because we don’t want to be “purity test” demagogues.
What a pathetic and stupid question. There is no Ancap without the NAP in practice. With the NAP in practice there is no AGGRESSION. It’s not that complicated.
This made me laugh. And it shows that Bob should spend more time teaching his readers the basics of libertarian philosophy.
The problem is that when private people or groups of people commit murder by drone strike it is called a crime and the actors are sought out for punishment. If caught they get a trial and…. oops, sorry, forgot trials are optional these days….
The point is this is how it should be, for everyone. In ancap, it would be. there is no one entity above the rule of law and the non aggression principle.
In todays world, governments murder without consequence, steal with impunity, and people think it is good or even godly. “I believe in deomocracy.” “I trust in the government.” that sort of crap. Don’t give them a pass. Demand your rights. trial, not be killed, etc.
” Demand your rights. trial,….”
Exactly right. Welcome to the dark side.
you misunderstood. trials happen in private societies between private individuals using private arbitration and even private judges. a jury could still exist. but it isn’t government trial. private due process fits NAP.
bob murphy discusses thos.
and demand that no one be above the law. you know, founding fathers sort of stuff…. distaste for kings and all that.
To answer your question Blackadder, no, people could still kill in an anarchist society and drones would certainly be a possible weapon. (Although, it certainly may be better outside of the hands of government.)
I suggest it is only a matter of time before such weapons pop up outside the hands of government. Every year they get easier to build.
Obama uses drones to kill darkies in Pakistan because:
1. It’s popular with voters to kill darkies with funny accents;
2. The street cred Obama gets from killing darkies helps him in his quest to destroy the US healthcare system which is supported by “progressives”. Destroying the health care system is so much more important to “progressives” than a few thousand dead darkies;
3. Murdering American darkies who have funny Arabic names in Yemen (where they all have funny names and accents) without due process is popular with the voters. Plus, it provides the US of Bankster state with a “stare decisis” episode to employ in the future in the event it becomes necessary to murder an American who doesn’t have a funny name or accent. Plus, it provides the bankster state with a test of whether either its judicial system and/or the public will put a stop to extra-judicial murder which is especially important for stare decisis purposes. The answer is obviously no.
4. I note that Obama hasn’t murdered anyone in Toronto with drones. That wouldn’t be popular with the voters because the voters see white Canadians as people.
5. I also think that the purported purpose of killing with drones (STOPPING AL QAIDA!!) is intentionally preposterous because we are allied with Al Qaida in Syria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21529634
So, it’s just another test case by the government to see how much BS the public will swallow.
6. There should be no question that the entire US government and culture has been thoroughly Clintonized.
7. Or is it that this [killing with drones] would be okay because it wouldn’t be government doing it?
Obviously, libertarians and Austrians are constantly congratulating and celebrating mass murderers not employed by the “governmental sector”. What a brilliant and fair minded question.
8. You statists should run a victory lap. There’s slaughter and carnage anew all over the world with the NAP nowhere in sight. You’ve won. Be proud.
You would almost get to thinking those voters don’t appreciate the value of a good lawyer.
Wow you guys are amazing. Here’s a challenge. I will pledge another $50 to Bob’s Krugman debate fund if anyone here, can exhibit any single comment I made here, or on my blog, on over at Landsburg’s blog, or over at Henderson’s blog, where I argue for the unbridled power of democracy or against the limitation of that power by common law precedent, the bill of rights, the English constituion, Magna Carta, or the Petition of Right. My argument is simple: government power is dangerous, the best defence we ahve against it are legal limitations, and we must respect and charish that mechanism even if it sometimes falls short of what we’d like.
You guys are amazing.
“Wow you guys are amazing.”
That’s a rich introduction, considering the Ken B smeared floor that now has to be cleaned up.
That’s what is so clarifying about bets Tex. (Ask Bob about bets.) I am offering you infinite odds, and you still can’t produce anything.
[W]e must respect and charish that mechanism even if it sometimes falls short of what we’d like.
I have no idea what that means in practice. Especially when the beloved “mechanism” is being completely undermined by the powers-that-be. Further, I’ve emphasized over and over that generally whatever regime is in place exists primarily due to the implicit support of the public. The current regime still has broad public support. An Ancap society could not exist without widespread support for its principles. If you want to repeat that truism over and over, that’s fine, but you aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know.
And I’m not backing off from“With the NAP in practice there is no AGGRESSION”. It’s a truism and the statists just want to constantly nit-pick about simple, self-evident definitions.
It means we don’t toss double jeopardy because OJ’s trial was unfair. It means we don’t pretend Obamacare is not the law and that supreme court decisions — like those on the 4th amendment — no longer bind because that one was wrong. It means we don’t let utopian fantasies drive us to abjure the most effective curb on repression we’ve been able to find yet.
That’s what I mean Bob, all that stuff many here reject.
“It means we don’t pretend Obamacare is not the law ”
Unconstitutional “laws” are not laws.
You should stop pretending the constitution is not the law of the land.
I don’t care about your bets.
I was talking about the intro of your post, which as I said is rich, considering, you know, the floor thing.
Just because I didn’t instantly jump on board and give you want you want, it doesn’t erase history, or put you in any better position.
You remind me of that guy in Monty Python who is getting his limbs lopped off, and yet he still has the gall to pretend that his opponent is retreating from the fight.
Oh MF, if I made a bet and you could humiliate me by winning it does ANYONE here doubt you’d be all over it?
I recommend you don’t flatter yourself. I for one don’t think it is even worth it.
I’m pretty certain that you have never expressly argued for “the unbridled power of democracy or against the limitation of that power by common law precedent, the bill of rights, the English constituion, Magna Carta, or the Petition of Right” per se.
I am all in favor of X, as long as X doesn’t exist.
I am all in favor of real arguments from MF.
Right. You, Bob Roddis, might think I overestimate the effectiveness of those safeguards, and underestimate how effective Rothbardism might be at the same job, but that is not at all the point at issue here.
@ Ken B
Major Freedom, Bob Roddis and some others here have chosen to follow the maxim: “Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it!” Those lads are amazing.
While you have some objections around the margins, you and yours are the ratcheting, incremental enablers. I’m an old coward and was a thorough-going fraud in my day, but that doesn’t stop me from hypocritically admiring the Nock’s Remnant who won’t concede an uncontested inch to the democratic/crony/interventionist tyrants that predominate. Oh, yeah, evil and illegitimate, too.
“government power is dangerous, the best defence we ahve against it are legal limitations, and we must respect and charish that mechanism…”
…until the government wants to go past those legal limitations, in which case we ignore it because we don’t want them to go past the other limitations, even though we know they will whenever they feel like it.
This is incoherent.
How do you people think Jim Crow was overthrown? The answer is by insisting on the bill of rights.
Ken B. wrote:
How do you people think Jim Crow was overthrown? The answer is by insisting on the bill of rights.
So when the UN tanks roll in to restore our Constitution, are you going to be cheering them on or throwing rocks? At this point I really have no idea what you will say, but I’m sure it will be snarky.
Huh?
At this point I have no idea what you mean, but I’m sure it deserve snark.
Jim Crow was overthrown through nullification and civil disobedience.
Bet’s still on Bob.
Completely off topic other than Krugman-related but I didn’t want to lose track of this. I had never before seen this Krugman piece from 5/27/05 (ht2 “Locus”, commenter @ Krugman-in-Wonderland):
As Mr. McCulley predicted, interest rate cuts led to soaring home prices, which led in turn not just to a construction boom but to high consumer spending, because homeowners used mortgage refinancing to go deeper into debt. All of this created jobs to make up for those lost when the stock bubble burst.
Now the question is what can replace the housing bubble.
Nobody thought the economy could rely forever on home buying and refinancing. But the hope was that by the time the housing boom petered out, it would no longer be needed.
But although the housing boom has lasted longer than anyone could have imagined, the economy would still be in big trouble if it came to an end. That is, if the hectic pace of home construction were to cool, and consumers were to stop borrowing against their houses, the economy would slow down sharply. If housing prices actually started falling, we’d be looking at a very nasty scene, in which both construction and consumer spending would plunge, pushing the economy right back into recession.
*************
So what happens if the housing bubble bursts? It will be the same thing all over again, unless the Fed can find something to take its place. And it’s hard to imagine what that might be. After all, THE FED’S ABILITY TO MANAGE THE ECONOMY MAINLY COMES FROM ITS ABILITY TO CREATE BOOMS AND BUSTS IN THE HOUSING MARKET. If housing enters a post-bubble slump, what’s left? [emphasis added]
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=0
HE WAS ONLY JOKING!!!!!!!1111!!!111!!1!
No wait…
HE WAS ONLY TALKING IN THE DESCRIPTIV….uh oh
That quote is right up there with the Keynes quote MF provided awhile back regarding “not one man in a million” (paraphrase) being able to understand the destruction that occurs with currency debasement.
Well I think that perfectly sums up how the Keynesian framework works. And always when I ask, how in the world do you transition from an artificial bubble (be it housing, alien defense industries, or whatever that is pumped up by deficit financing or/and low interest rates) to a real self sustaining economy, I do not get an answer. I mean I think I know why. Because it is just impossible except having lots of wishful thinking there isn’t much. I mean just look at the last paragraph of Krugmans piece that you didn’t quote:
“Mr. Roach believes that the Fed’s apparent success after 2001 was an illusion, that it simply piled up trouble for the future. I hope he’s wrong. But the Fed does seem to be running out of bubbles.”
He says “I hope he is wrong”…. Wishful thinking and nothing more.
It amazes me that this doesn’t bother them at all, they don’t even admit that they can’t answer this question. And if they cannot answer that simple question or point to me where it is answered, does it really pay for me to work through lots of Keynesian books to maybe find the answer there somewhere? This is really frustrating…
Back in the days when Krugman was right about stuff… ahhh it’s been a while.
You have to wonder if deep inside Krugman still knows what is going on but has decided better not to talk about it, or whether he has convinced himself that what he writes today is real.
A dialogue.
K: we should insists on the bill of rights and other limitation on state power. Even if we lose some cases and some elections this insistence on legal procedure, and constitutional framework has proven historically to be the most effective guarantor of freedom we have developed yet. I’d rather defend real freedoms for real people than rant about Utopia.
FA: statist troll!
Yep, that summarizes it well.
Ken, you are a troll because you constantly attack strawmen arguments that none of us make. Then when some of the people on here try to clarify their position, so that you can actually deal with their actual points, you just keep setting fire to your strawmen. I have given up on playing your game. I don’t think you are interested in honest debate. You simply try to stir shit up, and crack terrible jokes. I get nothing on an intellectual level from having conversations with you. From now on I’m just going to content myself with knowing that you freely expose your ignorance of our ideas on a daily basis.
You repeat this often enough Dan that I think we make take your opinion as read. I do suggest then you refute my OLG posts, which should be easy for you, even if not for Bob. After all, you tell me they are devoid of content.
In any case the straw men are aimed at me as I have never argued that for instance a wrong judgment made obamcare just, only that it made it law. Just as plessy made an outrage law. That’s how law works. I never argued as you have implied that Iowa makes anything just.
Ken,
I am still missing an answer from you. If you maybe haven’t seen it so far:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/01/thoughts-on-glenn-beck.html#comment-55377
And the second link:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/01/potpourri-128.html#comment-56038
A question for Bob Murphy. Which approach is more likely to stop cops searching without a warrant, appealing the case in court, or attending Porcfest? Which is more likely to see the rights of those folks vindicated? Because the arguments of Dan et al imply that appealing in court is not just useless, but somehow complicit in the oppression. It proves one is a statist they imply. That’s certainly the implication directed at me.
Federalist 28
Or to Porcfest. Because Murphy is certainly not suggesting a rush to arms.
Plus of course you will note the supreme power bit. The cops in that case are not that. That’s why an appeal to a court can be useful here. Or do you cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war when any cop anywhere overreaches?
This is very true, and worth highlighting. It’s specifically talking about our representatives, here, and not the enforcers. Although, if they get in the way of our attempt to kill our representatives, then we have no choice but to defend ourselves from them, as well.
A legitimate court ruling has already said that representatives may not do such and such. If representatives want to violate our rights, then we have to kill them.
Which approach is more likely to stop cops searching without a warrant, appealing the case in court, or attending Porcfest?
A false dichotomy, as usual Ken B. If you attend Porcfest, you will likely end up appealing your case in court.