In the continuing saga of "neolibertarian" political prisoner Steven Rhett, it looks like my unbanning at Q and O was short lived (see Franks’ comments, there), and curiously, I only made one or two comments since reinstatement, neither of which were volatile in the slightest. And in fact, I backed off one of my strongest pronouncements — copped to it, because I no longer thought it reflected my actual considered view of the thing. Honesty, in all things, to every extent possible. That’s what this blog it about; and I endeavor to walk it, as well as talk about it.
So here’s the comment I was trying to post on the newest of the entries, since Franks couldn’t stand the heat and shut this one down.
Jon Henke, normally the most offensive of the "libertarian" lot over there, says:
I would have chosen differently. Whether I would have voted for jury nullification or simply explained beforehand that I could not vote to convict in the absence of harm or fraud, I do not know. Nevertheless, I would have done so because of personal moral ideals, not because I reject the very premise of government itself.
You know what, Jon? I could give a hoot about what you think of government. Love it, for all I care, and it is not and has never been my intention or purpose in any of this to convince you or anyone else otherwise.
What you would have done, for what ever reason, would simply have been the right thing to do. Period. Franks did the wrong thing, a deeply injurious wrong thing. Period.
Then he bragged about it. Then he and McQuain got together to wave hands and defend it — as if a man’s life is theirs to sacrifice for the sake of their notion of law & order, for "the system." You all do realize that’s what’s meant by the outrageous pretense of "objective justice" in the context of statutory law, especially criminal law, right? The lives of human being are daily fodder for the "practice" of law & order. And it’s all for the sake of maintaining "a legal system." Mankind is a sacrificial animal to a rulebook.
McQuain should get no more of a pass on this than Franks. Listen to the podcast. Listen at how "stupid" you all are if you choose to do the right thing and condemn the wrong thing.
I don’t know if the rebanning was unintentional (system hiccup), or if McQuain — who appears to have initiated it according to Franks — put his foot down. If the latter, then McQuain deserves even more scorn than I’ve already dished out. He’s playing it all coy, isn’t he? Mr. behind the scenes. What a pathetic coward.
Update: I hadn’t see this yet, so this pretty much explains it:
And I certainly don’t have to extend them to clueless cretins who repeatedly crap on my name.
Well it’s certainly true that you don’t. Moreover, you’ve known for many a year, going back to that Taxation is Theft thread ten years ago where we were allies, that I’m anything but "clueless." And neither are you, McQuain, which is the essential problem. You could be partially excused, if you were.