I think what follows qualifies for the term.
I don’t follow QandO Blog on a daily basis. I check in every so often. Last night I did just that, and came across this entry documenting the federal jury service of Dale Franks, one of the principal self-described libertarian writers of that blog. "Free Markets, Free People;" so they say. Well, let’s see about that.
In short, "Mr. Rhett" got stopped at the San Ysidro border from Mexico into the U.S. while going about the affairs of his business: his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Without putting up any resistance, or doing harm to a soul, border agents discovered he was transporting a significant amount of an herb that "the public," according to Franks, has deemed "contraband." (It’s always convenient to have euphemisms close at hand; it really greases the skids when it comes to lying to one’s self, or others.) Here’s Franks:
So, essentially, we sent Mr. Rhett to a ten-year stretch on the federal pokey.
was really an interesting process—from my point of view, if not Mr.
Rhett’s. Especially the deliberations. We really did go through the
exhibits carefully, in some cases finding information that hadn’t been
mentioned in the trial. We had quite a bit of argument, and really
questioned one another’s assumptions and conclusions. And we did it all
It was a good experience. My only regret is that we
really couldn’t honestly find enough reasonable doubt to acquit Mr.
Rhett. We really doubted he was the mastermind behind all this. He was
just the driver. But, he was the one that got caught, and when you
assume the risk, well, you assume the risk.
Well, at least "[i]t was really an interesting process," and "…a good experience." There’s that. In my book, Franks is just engaging in a round-about way of describing a hard on, and hey, it only cost a peaceful man minding his own business 10 years of the time of his one and only life. Never discount the value of a hard on.
So, here are my three comments to the post, in rather quick succession (with an edit of two for correction):
I never imagined it could be such risky business running drugs with "libertarians" in the house.
well; you have traffic. There’s that. From the looks, little of it
libertarian. But I suspect you know they know, a long time ago.
to fancy "legal" arguments. Argue it up, Franks. A man is paying 10
years of his life for the sake of your technical arguing prowess (if
not hard on). I’m impressed.
"Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty,
property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political
leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and
are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because
men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life,
liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws
in the first place." — from The Law – Frédéric Bastiat
"Well, I’m not an opponent of jury
nullification, per se. I think I am, however, against its use to
operate against a policy with which I personally disagree. I would push
for it in a case of injustice, but, since I live in a country
where the public ultimately sets policy, policy disagreements aren’t in
my view, good enough to justify it."
First, nobody is or
should imply that you had any obligation to put yourself at risk by
scamming your way onto the jury so you could hang it. On the other
hand, I would applaud such monkey-wrenching, considering that 10 years
of an innocent man’s life is at stake — not to mention the disastrous
long-term effect on any children he might have, wife, and other family.
Did he employ people now out of a job? …And other ["unimportant"]
considerations like that.
You did, however, have a moral
obligation to make your "policy" view clear to the judge and
prosecutors, letting them know, in no uncertain terms, that if they put
you on the jury, then it’s an automatic not-guilty unless they can show
that Mr. Rhett actually objectively harmed somebody.
clearly implied by the quote, however, is that policy set in some
fashion by what you term "the public" can’t rise to the level of
"injustice." So, presumably, it would have been "unjust" had, for
instance, the prosecutors misapplied one of the charges against him,
or, say, demanded a lesser or greater penalty than "the book" called
So you’ve just redeemed Jim Crow laws, institutionalized slavery…hell, even the Nuremberg Laws. All "public policy."
guess the only way to achieve outrage, in your mind, is if the numbers
on your slide rule don’t work out just right and that exalted "public
policy" isn’t quite efficient enough for your tastes. Then again,
there’s also the hard-on element, as noted above.
In a sane, rational, and just world, you wouldn’t be able to live down taking 10 years of a man’s life in your entire lifetime without just
cause; and stepping into a voting booth to elect people to enact
"legislation" to assuage "public" irrational fear of "them drugs" —
exposing "public" foolishness in falling for any hysteria professional
liars dream up next — doesn’t count. I hope the few true libertarians
who still come around here never let you forget who is the innocent
man, and who is the guilty man. Wanna guess which one is which, and why?
Utterly disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself for the rest of your miserable life.
If you feel like chiming in, I’d suggest any comment you write would be better served over at that entry than here.