Banned Again
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.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.
Bruce did say in the new post that he would not extend commenting priveledges to you.
"And in fact, I backed off one of my strongest pronouncements…"
I wish you'd thought about it a bit more before you'd said it.
"Honesty, in all things, to every extent possible."
Yup.
It reminds me of nothing so much as Kim Du Toit all over again, honestly.
Power corrupts, but no less so than the quest for power.
crap, I mean no more so.
trev,
I'm not sure what you mean. I was saying that seeking power is at least as corrupting as actually having it, and I think an argument can be made that it is, or can be, more so.
I disagree, Trev. Yes; there is a lot of that.
And I might just have to resign myself to the idea that Bruce, for instance, never had the strength to walk the road that he once stepped out on, but I remember a man who did splendid work while he was on it.
I can afford a hell of a lot playing to that before I go broke.
Being busy and behind in a lot of this, I just found out there's quite a discussion over there…
…at what I might have meant by my "suicide" admonishment.
Let me clarify something: Franks taking that option would be a perfectly appropriate thing to do, given what he's done. Moreover, it would be totally up to him, it would be his own justice, to himself, by his own standards.
Have you ever used the expression "I'd have to kill myself?" Most people have. It means: I don't think I could live with myself.
Does anyone think that Franks ought to be able to live with himself, live with his own conscience, given the current state of things?
If you were to find that he had done so, would you say he did the wrong thing?
Depending on your answer to those, then, what is necessarily wrong with suggesting it? If I had said, "if I were you, I'd kill myself," or, "I'd have to kill myself," is that materially different from my anmonishment?
If you were to find that he had done so, would you say he did the wrong thing?
Yes. Because the same understanding that would lead him to consider it is the one that begins the process of making it unnecessary. Once you realize you can't live with yourself, you can begin to be able to live with yourself. Killing yourself then would then be a sacrifice.
There is always the possibility of redemption. Hitler could have made a go at redeeming himself, though I can't imagine how he could have accomplished it.
Suggesting it to someone in Dale's position when he hasn't come to that understanding is asking him to do so on your judgment alone. Do you really want that responsibility? I wouldn't. Asking him to do it after coming to that understanding is demanding a sacrifice.
I admit to a visceral feeling of justice done when somebody like that kills himself, but intellectually I think it's misplaced. I think it's because it's a sign that the person feels shame, and remorse, which is appropriate and necessary, but the actual suicide means that shame (an emotion produced by cognitive evaluation of actions) has become guilt (a cognitive evaluation of the self), and guilt is never, ever a good thing.
Mr. behind the scenes. What a pathetic coward.
He's stated his reasons for doing it, and you've been wholly justified in what you're said about him. The whole thing is overt in that respect, at least.
It reminds me of nothing so much as Kim Du Toit all over again, honestly.
Actually, Kyle, I think I liked the first way you said it better. The quest shows what your character is, to my mind.
I try to be civil in my discussion to give those who push me aside or try to silence my criticism no excuses. I wonder when they'll take my commenting privileges away? I fall short; that rat-bastard Jeff pushes the envelope into sheer madness. I don't have the history with McQuain that you guys do. I wasn't there for UseNet or any of that. The self-conscious neo-libertarianism red flag was helpfully raised for me a long time ago. I knew it was only a matter of time before something like this happened.
Ahh, they closed the thread again.
I'd agree with that. Anyways, I don't think there's any point in continuing this battle over there. It's just pearls before swine.
Profound self-disgust would be an appropriate reaction, if Franks had any shame. But killing himself would be an even bigger waste than what has happened already.
The way you just phrased it is wholly appropriate, that you would be completely unable to do that to another human being, and would be willing to sacrifice yourself first. But given that the majority of his cheerleaders find NOTHING wrong with what he did, of course they will regard it as inappropriate.
Suicide is an irreversible act that completely nullifies a man's potential from an atheist standpoint, and condemns him to hell from a Christian one. Which is no doubt why people saw your initial prescription for him as cold.
Then again, given their state of denial about what he has done to a morally innocent human being, their take on morality is fundamentally worth very little.
Billy:
"I wish you'd thought about it a bit more before you'd said it."
Me too. I guess that the thing about that sort of regret. There's no time machine.
Brian:
"I knew it was only a matter of time before something like this happened."
I know for a fact that both Billy and I warned Bruce that this was going to go very badly, once we saw what Franks and Henke were all about. Then franks has his conversion to Natural Rights, and it seems, briefly, that something might come out of it.
Well, we now know how that went.
Here's what this all illustrates, and I'm working up a post in my head about it: these are the consequences of non-extremism.
I wonder when they'll take my commenting privileges away?
Cause that would be a real badge of honor, wouldn't it?
I fall short; that rat-bastard Jeff pushes the envelope into sheer madness.
That's too bad, Brian, because you almost had me convinced that your view was correct. Now I'm afraid that we're not going to be friends, after all.
With all the banning, opening, and closing of threads, I wanted to see if I was still banned. Yep. So here's what I was going to post here. Might as well not let it go to waste.
It was in response to a anonymous cowardly dumbfuck who calls himself "Cargosquid" and maintains your typically Republican Collectivist screed blog for fucking anonymous collectivist Republican morons and assorted fuckfaces here.
***
Setting aside the fact that Mr., Rhett "agreed" to no such thing, that's circular and begging the question, which is to say that it relies upon the law under which Rhett was convicted and sentenced (with the gloating help of Franks) being right as a function of "We hold these truths to be self-evident…"
You have to show how the law doesn't violate and offend the spirit, intent, and letter of The Declaration when it authoritatively asserted that all men are endowed with inalienable rights and that the only legitimate function of a government is to protect and ensure them.
If you can't do that, then the law is wrong and Mr. Rhett's "responsibility" is impertinent.
If you could do that — show that the law doesn't violate America's founding ideal — then Rhett's "responsibility" is superfluous.
Just because you know and understand what a thug will do to you if fail to heed his unjust command, it does not absolve the thug.
***
I've never found formal logic to be the strong suit of Republican collectivists, usually having to do with the religious-right-patriot, God Created America crowd.
"Cause that would be a real badge of honor, wouldn't it?"
No, Jeff, it would prove that L. Neil Smith was even more right about these disingenuous frauds trying to posing as libertarians. Which makes their act all the more ugly; they've been called on it for years now.
"Now I'm afraid that we're not going to be friends, after all."
Now that's a badge of honor. I don't think Harry Anslinger would have liked me much either.
I do not claim to be a libertarian, so you'll have to explain this more fully:
Who owns the franchise on "Libertarianism?" Because as far as I can tell, you cannot put together a group of any size that will even agree that most of the others in the group even DESERVE to wear the moniker.
For example, I consider myself a conservative. It's quite common to hear conservatives referred to in degrees – more conservative, less conservative. Or even half-measures like "fiscal conservative, but social liberal."
But these things are more or less terms agreed to by conservatives. Why are there no matters of degree in your camp, but instead an insistence on stripping their self-identified political philosophy from them?
"Perhaps. But then we have to decide if putting them in jail for personally using drugs is any less destructive to their lives than allowing them to run the course of an addict. Using and quiting drugs are two PERSONAL decisions, and they should be left at that. How we interact with addicts is OUR personal decision, and if we're disapproving, and make that disapproval known in social and employment settings, we're more likely to have much more of an effect on addicts than all of these absurd drug laws.
Addiction is a social problem, NOT a political one, and it ought to be handled socially and not politically."
Guess who?
I don't know, Ernest – another one of your obscure libertarian authors? It doesn't really matter, since I disagree with the premise that drug addicts exist in a vacuum, affecting no one's lives but their own.
Don't any of you have a point to make using your own words?
That post wasn't addressed to you, Jeff.
"drug addicts exist in a vacuum"
Strawman.
"Don't any of you have a point to make using your own words?"
Plagiarism is a sin, Jeff.
I'm guessing Dale Franks or Bruce McQ wrote it. Am I right?
How is that a strawman, Brian? It directly addresses what I thought Ernest was pointing out to me – the very heart of the matter being raged over the last few days – that the government has no right to jail people over drug use, possession or smuggling, because after all, it's harmless.
I disagree. I think it is harmful. Therefore, since I was responding to what I thought was a continuation of the same argument.
So how is that a strawman? Do you even know the meaning of the term? Obviously you don't know the proper usage.
I don't get where you're going with the plagairism crack, but please don't explain, as I have no desire to sit through another pedantic fit-throwing.
"I'm guessing Dale Franks or Bruce McQ wrote it. Am I right?"
Yes, it's McQ, from Usenet:
Newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement, alt.politics.libertarian, talk.politics.libertarian, talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.drugs
From: mcqu…@ix.netcom.com (McQ)
Date: 1999/01/29
Subject: Re: Visualize a post-drug war society
"How is that a strawman, Brian? It directly addresses what I thought Ernest was pointing out to me – the very heart of the matter being raged over the last few days – that the government has no right to jail people over drug use, possession or smuggling, because after all, it's harmless."
That's not what's been argued.
"Next up: why we need to enforce seatbelt and helmet laws with jail time."
Pay attention, Brian – THAT was a strawman.
"By the way. Do you think any of you have me fooled for a single second that you have even a gram of concern for drug addicts? They're merely sacrificial animals to your God Bless America hard ons."
Wow. That's a whole lot of crazy in just two sentences. Not to mention, paranoid. If by "concern" you mean "concern for their well-being", then no, I have none. The second part of that was just completely incomprehensible spittle-flecked bile-spewing to me. Is there any way you could clarify how drug addicts are "sacrificial animals"? I get that you hate this country, but I don't understand "God Bless America hardons."
Do you mean that I am sacrificing drug addicts to my patriotic penis? That doesn't makes sense, but it DOES sound a lot catchier my way. It's got that whole alliteration thing going for it.
It was a reductio ad absurdum. Look it up.
"…L. Neil Smith was even more right about these disingenuous frauds trying to posing as libertarians."
When their intellectual integrity plunges below that of Scott Erb (who doesn't hesitate to trash the whole concept of natural rights), then "fraud" is a mild term for their actions.
Mr. Nikoley, I didn't say it was fallacious, merely demonstrating the logical and absurd conclusion of the principle of his argument. If I'm in error, where am I?
Alright, look, I'm going to explain myself, because I'm willing to admit error, but I don't know as I've made one. I'll show the process of thought that led to my calling that statement a reductio ad absurdum on his argument, and if you would be so collegial to point out the error, I'd be glad.
The whole matter starting with the issue of drugs, Jeff said he favored the present system because drugs are harmful. There were no qualifications as to whom, in what fashion, etcetera. Your response called precisely for those qualifications, and you then pointed to seat belt laws, which provides a reduction to the absurd of the original, unqualified statement, which amounts to a blanket defense of every nanny-state act on the books, and any to be enacted in the future, with the only litmus test for legitimacy of such being the issue of 'harm' again, still undefined. If that wasn't your intention, it certainly satisfied the useful purpose of such all the same. Where have I stumbled, exactly?
"I think it is harmful."
So, what's your point? Be explicit.
Next up: why we need to enforce seatbelt and helmet laws with jail time.
Oh, and when you get around to "the children," which is a forgone conclusion, keep in mind that locking their parents in jail is really going to do a lot of good. Not "harmful" at all.
This is all beside the point anyway, of course, but it's instructive to understand that even beyond the implications of shredding someone's rights and their lives, there's not even any reasonable practical considerations.
By the way. Do you think any of you have me fooled for a single second that you have even a gram of concern for drug addicts? They're merely sacrificial animals to your God Bless America hard ons.
Read some of Sabotta's posts on those threads at Q and O. He nails the psychology of this precisely.
"THAT was a strawman"
Yea, just like it would have been back in, say, 1960 when seatbelts & helmets were just hitting the scene, and someone would have cautioned that "protecting" people for their own good as a matter of principle would lead to laws compelling their use.
It's always a "strawman" right up to the moment where it's reality and nobody can remember when it would have been ridiculous and unthinkable.
Or how about in the early 1900s when a child could walk into any pharmacy and buy heroin, and then later, when some prohibitions were considered as a matter of law. "Before you know it, they'll be locking people up in the Federal Pen for 10 years." Stop! Strawman!
"…reductio ad absurdum"
You don't know what you're talking about, but Ernie can probably explain it better to your pea brain than I.
You both are fucking idiots.
"Do you mean that I am sacrificing drug addicts to my patriotic penis?"
Honestly, I don't know. Then again, you're the one that came up with that particular metaphor.
Hey you cowardly dumbfuck!
Yeah, you. Fuck you.
I bring up a political point and you get personal.
I even came here to see what kind of ideas you might have. But you put out this crap. Because I'm a "republican" you say shit like that? Yeah, some of my guys are GOP. Some aren't. I'm not a Republican. I voted libertarian in the last Virginia election. But I'll vote GOP this time if its Thompson. He's the closest thing to a smaller govt politician than anyone else.
You have a problem with me being anonymous? Too bad. You don't know my reasons and you don't know me. How someone that was a US Navy officer treats visitors like that, just makes me feel ashamed that you associate yourself with my Navy. You may have strong feeling about the Quando situation. Ok. What's that got to do with me. I asked valid questions and put out an opinion and you act like this? All I ask is for civility. No wonder the Libertarian movement only attracts nutjobs like Ron Paul.
You know, I think I've found the perfect coda to this whole Franks mess:
"principles mean nothing—in fact, they mean less than nothing—when adhering to them is easy. Adhering to them when it's hard is what principles are all about, and the determination to do so is called integrity." — L. Neil Smith, Immigration and Integrity
"Alright, look, I'm going to explain myself…"
Fair enough. Listen: I just arrived in Oceanside, CA after an 8-hr drive and I'm not up to looking at this tonight.
But Ill certainly get to it tomorrow.
That wasn't so hard, was it? If you had posted that you would have been reasonable. I understand that you think all other political philosophies are the next thing to communism. I understand that you think Rhett did something harmless. I also know that no matter what argument that I come up with, even if I resurrected the Founding Fathers to get their ideas, you won't change your mind.
I won't waste your bandwith trying to do so since you religiously believe that you have the truth.
I happen to believe Rhett's actions were harmful. I'm not a believer in "natural rights" as you describe them. I believe that the laws DO need to be changed and would not have been on that jury. I don't believe that the "weed" was harmful. I believe Rhett's actions in ignoring the law was harmful. I believe that you can't pick and choose which to follow and that if one disagrees with a law, get it changed.
Debate is civilized. Insults are not. Doing it over the net is childish and cowardly.
I'm happy to talk about any subject. All I ask for is civility. You could have changed my mind, maybe, but you turn off any potential converts by the way to talk to people.
Thank you for your answer.
As a different topic, and definitely not a "dig", how do you reconcile your belief about the validity of the Constitution to the oath you took upon becoming an Officer?
If you don't wish to answer, of course, that is your business, but, I've never "met" anyone that believes the way that you do about the Constitution.
How does the "natural rights" philosophy work in conjunction with service in the Navy?
Thank you.
I forgive you Mr. Nikoley.
"I even came here to see what kind of ideas you might have."
Yea, and then got your widdow feewings hurt. Look, if I hadn't had to resort to posting that comment here, it'd be over on QandO. I didn't even write it for here. I wrote it there, and then found I couldn't post it.
Whatever.
"Because I'm a 'republican' you say shit like that?"
No. Because of what you say in the face of a disgusting outrage that no decent person ought to be standing up for.
I simply bring up "republican" as a point of reference. As a whole and a trend, republicans are becoming less honest. You hold the same "principles" as the commies, but won't admit it, and worse, you blather pretense to concepts like "freedom" and "liberty" that actually have important meanings. Commies will just be honest and tell you that yea, they own your ass, so whatever the heard decides is perfectly alright.
So, if that doesn't represent you, then I invite you to tell us precisely how Rhett's "responsibility" to obey a law having nothing to do with causing harm to others doesn't reduce to the exact same principles the commies hold, only at least have the virtue of honesty.
…And here, I'll expound on this, a bit. It would be the easiest thing in the world for me and the others to engage in the cheap smear of saying something like, "we'll we can all agree that Rhett is stupid. He knew the laws and the risks, and even if the law is wrong…" and so on.
But I don't know Rhett's values, and what he's willing to risk in his life to obtain them, so long as he's not hurting anyone. That's entirely up to him.
Would I undertake such a risk? No way. But I can't make that determination for him, and there's nothing in the world just about locking up a man for doing something that is by your values "stupid," but not evil or harmful, and Rhett's actions were neither.
In the final analysis, this is nothing to do with right and wrong, but the flat out assertion that you and your buddies make the rules around here, and Rhett had the audacity to disregard them. If you all have shown anything at all, it's that.
You sense of right, wrong, and justice is based on the particular scraps of paper the U.S. maintains — as differentiated from the scraps of paper maintained by other jurisdictions — along with guns, clubs, and jails to enforce them.
How far America has drifted from the ideal laid out in The Declaration.
Brian N:
Before I delve further into this, I owe you an apology. In my haste in preparing that coment, above, I thought you were someone else ("those guys"), so I reflexively took your "reductio ad absurdum" challenge as one of their attacks.
Of course, the rightness or wrongness of what's posted has nothing to do with the identity of people or the "camps" they're standing up for, but we all have limited time, so we (me) take some reasonable assumptions and either go straight to the attack when it's "those guys" or extend the benefit of the doubt when it's "us guys" (within limits, of course).
There's a risk in being wrong and having to cop to it. in this case, there's also a risk in misidentifying the parties. You were owed the benefit of the doubt, even if I ultimately disagree with you (which I'm not sure about, yet).
So, I'm sorry and about that, and now I will see what this is all about.
…OK, Brian, you're right. It was reductio ad absurdum, but as you imply, a properly constructed one.
I often see it used fallaciously, particularly by republicans and the Christian "right," which is, in many cases, to repeat myself.
They'll show, for instance, that acceptance of some premise leads to the "horrible" and "absurd" logical rejection of one of their articles of faith. Of course, for the argument to work, the arrived at point needs to be clearly absurd, which as I show in the subsequent post is precisely the case (it could happen; it's absurd). Hell, there's even talk (if it hasn't already happened) for locking up parents for not explicitly following the letter of a 25-point safety procedure when strapping thier kids in the car. (That's not to imply I take lightly a parent's duty to employ proper and reasonable safety in all things with their kids.)
Wikipedia explains best what I as getting at, which of course combined with my mistaking your identity:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
"There is a fairly common misconception that reductio ad absurdum simply denotes "a silly argument" and is itself a formal fallacy."
That's how I quickly assumed you were using it.
Thank you for your answers about the Navy.
Have a good week.
That wasn't so hard, was it?"
Save your lectures for someone who cares. I suggest that someone who can't take a little righteous outrage and vitriol in the comments section of a mostly political blog might want to consider alternative means of voicing his political ideas.
"I understand…"
Not really, you don't. You're not digging at the true underlying principles, premises, and their consequences.
"…since you religiously believe…"
Bullshit. Now, I'm not going to call you a liar over that, just yet, because I'm holding out some notion that you arrive at this view through honest ignorance. So, we'll see.
"I happen to believe Rhett's actions were harmful."
Bullshit. You can dance around that all you want, and then you can explain, for instance, the implicit contradiction in not advocating for the locking up of alcohol and tobacco importers because harm can and does come from their products. But you aren't going to call for their being locked up, are you? And the reason you're not, in spite of the fact that the scale of harm associated with those products is on a qualitative scale roughly equivalent to pot — though quantitatively far, far worse in the case of alcohol and tobacco — is that their importation activities are legal, i.e., sanctioned by the representatives of the biggest mob.
"I'm not a believer in "natural rights" as you describe them."
I would be surprised if you could honestly describe how I describe them; even more surprised if you could give and honest complete accounting of my argument for natural rights.
"I don't believe that the "weed" was harmful. I believe Rhett's actions in ignoring the law was harmful."
Do you have any idea what sort of mindless ethical contradiction that is, and it's awful, awful implications in political practice, where a mob's whim rules the day?
I don't think you do, but you really need to stop and play that down every rabbit hole you can think of, because that's the only way you're going to get it.
…"how do you reconcile your belief about the validity of the Constitution to the oath you took upon becoming an Officer?"
Well, when I took the oath I was a conservative Reagan republican. That was 1984. My libertarianism and leanings toward anarchy came about in 1990-91. When my contract was up in 1992, I left, and I made a clean break, i.e., no reserves to stack up points toward a retirement check.
I don't know I explicitly recognized the invalidity of the Constitution back then, though I held all the principles necessary to eventually be honest with myself and stop being contradictory — there is no way, no way to call one's self a "libertarian" in the only meaningful sense of the term and accept the validity in the U.S. Constitution. It's simply impossible. You can be a libertarian or you can support the constitution.
That said, I do place some value the integrity of upholding one's oaths. So, if we had the experience of politicians who, taking such oath, followed the letter of the Constitution, they'd get some minimal credit for that, though not a lot, since it's a rights violating document. I can applaud Paul for his integrity to his oath, for example, but if he was just one of many, then I'd be condemning them all. Paul gets some credit because he stands alone.
"How does the "natural rights" philosophy work in conjunction with service in the Navy?"
It depends upon which functions. I was a volunteer, and I agreed to be bound by the terms, so it was my obligation to behave accordingly, short of violating the natural rights of others. Now, the way that service is defined is that anything the US and the Navy tells you to do is a priori within the bounds of natural human rights with respect to the people you're killing. That's not good enough for me. I want to make that call, when it comes to it, exclusively on my own authority (and be willing to stand by it or suffer the consequences). So, I really had no choice but to leave the Navy, in spite of the fact that there was never a job like it, and I loved every minute of it.