Dale Franks and Bruce McQuain: Liars and Cowards
[Update below]
Dale Franks, of QandO Blog, and his partner in crime, Bruce McQuain, have predictably banned me from posting comments on their site. Sure, I could easily get around it, but in fact I do respect their property rights — though they don’t deserve it; and after Franks’ locking up a peaceful innocent man for 10 years, then bragging about it, then both of them defending it…they both would deserve anything that came to them.
The man Franks stole 10 years from, in enforcing a public policy he disagrees with while being perfectly within his legal rights to delay process by hanging the jury, or doing his moral duty to stand up for his own stated principles as well as his policy disagreement by trying to sway the jury: Mr. Steven Rhett. Instead, he "followed his orders" and "just did his job," and put a peaceful man away who wasn’t hurting anybody. Ten years in federal penitentiary, a clear and direct violation of the man’s natural right to his own life and property.
Understand: It had to come to that. I was going to push it all the way, i.e., until they faced the music and at least engaged those so outraged by their criminality; until they copped to the crime like men (note: this is a moral crime, not a legal one: the state legalizes and "legitimizes" all sorts of moral crimes — slavery being the most famous — and relies on Good Germans like Dale Franks and Bruce McQuain to carry the water); or until they banned me from further comment.
Well, given the nature of the crime — and the braggadocio and belittling of the innocent man that ensued — it wasn’t difficult to predict what was going to come to pass. It’s all here at the original entry in the comments, and here as well, in another entry. My original posting on the matter (with comments as well) is right here. Sunday evening’s podcast, which opened on this topic, and wherein Bruce McQuain morally implicated and shamed himself to the maximum possible extent, is right here. Astute listeners will note that for one, this is a medium where they don’t have to face direct challenge. For another, it’s a lot of general hand waving and pretending that the outrage is merely a function of "usual suspects" and worthy of dismissal.
To those who might wonder: why the outrage? This stuff happens every day. Peaceful drug manufacturers, distributors, dealers and users get sent away every day. My answer is: where is the outrage? You expect the typical zombies who vote and sit on juries to do this sort of thing. You don’t expect so-called libertarians, with a so-called libertarian blog, with a tagline that reads "Free Markets, Free People," who write and publish reasonably sound essays on natural rights to be directly and causatively instrumental in advancing state injustice of the most illegitimate form, bragging about it, belittling the innocent, defending their actions, hiding from righteous outrage, then banning them for calling them to task. Disgraceful. Shameful.
Cowards, of the worst sort. I wish them all the worst and all the bad that can possibly visit them. In a rational world, Franks would suffer shame that would haunt him for the rest of his life. Unfortunately for Steven Rhett, this is irrevocable. He’ll serve out ten years of his one and only life for violating the arbitrary whim of the majority public lynch mob, enabled by Dale Franks; not for causing any actual harm to anyone. Millions of dollars worth of his property has been stolen, his life and the life of his family shredded.
As I see it, there’s really only one option for Dale Franks. He needs to take his own life. Honorable men that committed irrevocable injustice, bringing irredeemable shame upon themselves and their families used to do that sort of thing. I mourn its passing from modern culture. Failing that, he could do something significant and long term to educate people about how they ought to avoid the same fate as himself, with any funds raised in such an endeavor donated to his victim and family.
That’s how I see it. While this same suggested remedy could apply to anyone, it’s unreasonable to expect it of them because of simple ignorance. Calling one’s self a libertarian, publishing a blog, and so forth, implies responsibilities. They have failed miserably.
Update: Over the course of the day I’ve had time to consider my admonition that Dale Franks take his own life as the honorable thing to do. I think most people react on the raw unabashed radicalism, and not on the merit of the idea itself; but in any case, I’ve come to think it was too extreme a suggestion this early in the process. I think my error is a cart-before-horse kind of thing. For instance, if you opened the paper and found that a man had taken his life over causing irrevocable and real, substantial harm to someone, as Franks has caused Steven Rhett, then you would likely be totally at peace about it. Maybe you’d not have done the same thing, but most people "get it." Well, kook that I am, I simply think that if that’s the case, there’s no essential difference between that and suggesting that as a possible option for someone. The timeline doesn’t change anything. But I think I’m quite a minority in thinking of it that openly, and that much I get. Anyway, if I was writing this post right now, I would leave that part out.
Update 2: Banned Again.
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.
I just wrote to Bruce — my oldest friend and ally online — and told him that he'd better ban me, too, if he's going to stand with Franks.
This is it with those people.
As I see it, there's really only one option for Dale Franks. He needs to take his own life.
I can't go there with you. While it's true that any man who felt the same contempt for himself that I feel for Franks might not survive it, should he ever attain the knowledge of what he's done sufficient to evoke considerations of seppuku, he'd have other more constructive alternatives available. Ones that could lead to redemption. It may be too Christian of me, but I never want to see someone die before they can redeem their lives, and death redeems nothing.
What Dale must do is to apologize publicly and remove himself from politics entirely. Then he should devote all his life and resources to righting the wrong. First, look Rhett and his family in the eye and elocute his crimes. Then do whatever it takes to get Rhett out of prison. Not overturn the laws that put him there, but to right the wrong in the context it was made: one man, one concrete verdict, one very real set of prison bars.
If he begins and pursues that process, my contempt might slowly turn into sympathy.
Precisely how would Dale right that wrong?
He can't, not in the sense of fully returning what was taken. Rich was right in one sense, a wrong this monstrous means Dale's life is essentially forfeit. But what that means to me is not that it should end, but that it should be placed entirely in the service of undoing as much of the damage as he possibly can – that doing so becomes the highest value in his life, to which all else is subject.
Only Dale can make that decision, and only on the basis of his own recognition of what he's done. Going through the motions in order to regain favor means that he has failed to make unrolling the damage the highest value of his life, and thus has no redemptive value.
It is to us only to judge the extent to which he has fulfilled that moral obligation, and to gradually allow his return to society with decent men to the extent he meets it.
I meant how would Dale ever right ANY of that wrong?
That's his problem. He made his bed…
As I said, all we can do is judge whatever effort he makes. If he does all that is possible, however much or little that is, we should take that into account. I'll grant you that when I said "not work to get the laws changed", that might have been unnecessarily limiting, if indeed that is the only course open.
But merely writing on Q&O about how the laws should be repealed won't cut it – for me at least.
Just to be clear, I didn't ban you.
I really don't care whether you post comments there or not. If Bruce banned you, then you can take that up with him.
Push it all the way?
We did, man. We did, and the chimps, especially Shark, outright applauded sending a peaceful man to prison for ten years. They think we care about getting stoned- hell, I don't even smoke weed anymore. It's the thought of it that matters, to me.
They have to legitimize the state's fiat, that "it's the law." The lot of them, with few exceptions, are basically conservatives without the chops to be full on Jesus-freaks, assuming that they already aren't, and could give a fig about the suffering of anyone that doesn't follow their narrow world-view. They wouldn't recognize liberty if it bashed them over the head.
Of course Fred Thompson and Ronald Reagan would be their perfect candidates. The Constitution tells you what rights YOU have, remember? If there's nothing about drugs in there, clearly you don't have those rights. Quite clear, yes?
L. Neil Smith was dead on about the neo-libertarians. He was dead on years ago and I'm glad I listened to him. Turtle-neck of Erb can do whatever he likes to that place. He's in welcome company there.
I didn't ban you.
This, he wants to dispute. Oy, vey.
Precisely how would Dale right that wrong? He is right that from a legal standpoint, the case is open and shut. The conviction was made by a unanimous jury, and the legal system doesn't take moral rights into account… and more than likely, Rhett would get out of prison more quickly than the laws responsible for his incarceration would be repealed.
The easiest and most plausible point at which a man like Dale Franks could have acquitted Mr. Rhett was before the conviction. Richard Nikoley was communicating frustration more than a solution with any plausible chance of being attained. At this point, I'd consider holding Franks in any moral regard whatsoever if he sincerely acknowledged the gravity of what he has done.
I'm not holding my breath.
He can't, not in the sense of fully returning what was taken.
I suppose I wasn't clear. I meant how would Dale ever right ANY of that wrong? Mr. Rhett won't be spared prison by anything short of a pardon, and hoping for one is optimistic to the point of foolishness. Even providing for Mr. Rhett's family doesn't come close to remedying the injustice done to him personally.
You have to ask for redemption to have hope for any redemptive value to be gained. As it is, I'd feel far more charitable towards Dale Franks if he showed any contrition at all, never mind a workable solution.
I just finished reading through the thread at QandO (which I found from Mr. Beck's blog). You did a wonderful job. For the life of me, I will never understand why some people hold government to a different moral standard than they would their neighbor. It's like they understand theft and kidnapping is wrong, unless they vote for people to do it for them.
<>
Actually, it is. Bruce is out of town, so I can't call him.
In any event I've unbanned you, so fire away.
Dales rough draft:
In any event I've unbanned you, so fire away.
It's not like I'll engage the real argument anyway, so what do I have to lose.My apologies, I hadn't seen the new post.
Kyle:
You're right and I agree with you. I suppose what I was trying to get at is that such an act would regain some honor, in the sense that it's really the most a person can give.
But your suggestion is superior, and it places the focus on the victim.
I'll say here what I said there –
What amazes me is the attitude of Mr. Frank’s colleagues on this blog.
I would have read that post, pulled it the very next second, and informed Mr. Franks that his writings were no longer welcome.
If that was not an option, I would simply resign and explain why I was resigning. This is shameful, disgraceful, a grotesque mockery of the word "libertarian." How dare that filth get up there and boast in our faces about throwing someone in the slammer for ten years on such a charge? How can McQ accept sharing blog space one minute with that swine?
You know what? Franks enjoyed doing it. He enjoyed sitting on that jury. He loved every detail, including the poor guy crapping his pants. Franks identified with the cops every moment and he was proud to be their little jury helper.
And he posted that unspeakable post to keep the thrill alive. Franks knew damned well exactly the reaction he’d get, and how he could just sit back and get off on the absolute powerlessness of the people who he knew would be repelled and outraged by his actions. Giving him the opportunity to pontificate about "dominance hierarchies" and "extremism" – all the time with a secret, smug little smile.
Franks gets off on it. He gets off on flaunting his shabby, second-hand "power"
in front of people who have no appeal or recourse to stop him and his kind. He gets off on identifying with the State. People like Franks are no great mystery. The mystery lies in why he is allowed to indulge his creepy fetishism on a supposedly "libertarian blog."
Save it, Dale.
I made absolutely certain I was banned, first of all. And it's not like you couldn't have checked with McQuain prior to posting this to get the straight story and stand up for what happens on your own blog.
Yea, point fingers. That'll absolve you.
For the record: I would be happy to see as much redemption out of this as you can muster. Not holding my breath, by any means, but I do believe you can manage to mitigate this situation substantially — though you can never really make it up to Steven Rhett.
"Yea, point fingers. That'll absolve you."
The measure of a man…
"In any event I've unbanned you, so fire away."
Yes, that would make it easier for you, eh?
But anyway, I'll accept that you yourself didn't initiate the ban, and since my focus is you, that's the main factor. I'll consider coming back online over the next few hours.
I served on a jury about 10 years ago, and I get pangs of regret every time I think about it.
Thing is, we (the jury I was on) convicted this guy, and he was clearly guilty; I don't have a shred of doubt about it. But the trial was a sham; the judge had made up his mind about the defendant and made damn sure there was only one verdict we'd reach. I wanted desperately to find a way to acquit that guy, just for the way he'd been treated by the court. But at the end of the day, the guy did break into someone's house in the middle of the night and tried to sexually assault a kid he found sleeping there.
So as much as I hated to do validate the crap that passed for a "fair trial" that I'd witnessed, I voted with everyone else to convict. I couldn't look at that kid's family and say, "yeah, the guy broke in and molested your kid, but I didn't like the judge's attitude." 10 years later, I'm no closer to knowing whether it was right or wrong; he was guilty, but he got an unfair trial. I've never written about it before, and I'd never ever brag about the role I played.
We sent that guy to prison; I believe he served 3 years. Seven fewer than Mr. Rhett will. And the guy we convicted tried to _rape a kid_.
At any rate, the process wasn't "a good experience," by a long shot. I'll never sit on a jury again, because I'll tell them flat out what I thought of my previous experience and what it taught me about our justice system.
—Astute listeners will note that for one, this is a medium where they don't have to face direct challenge.—
Unless they, you know, call in.
It is a call-in show, you know. Regularly scheduled, every Sunday at 5:00 PM. Live. we even put the call in number up on the blog every Sunday prior to the podcast.
We host a live, call in show, because we don't have to face a challenge.
*sigh*
Yeah. You're as astute as all hell.
The observant will note that even Mr. Henke's less-than-ringing semi-endorsement of Franks has the comments thread cut short at 49 comments.
Is there a problem, Franks? You can dish out ten years in a cage to someone who harmed no one, but a few adverse comments on a blog sends you into a tizzy? Well, as Solzhenitsyn observed about Trotsky and others, writing death warrants and camp sentences takes no courage at all.
But, as you proudly noted, Franks, you did look that poor man in the eye when you helped send him away. Did that give you a special little secret thrill?
Yep. I looked him in the eye when the Clerk read the verdict, and I did it again when the Jury was polled. – Dale Franks
Those shameful words, if there were any justice in the world at all, Dale Franks, would hang around your neck like a millstone for the rest of your rotten life. It's true that you represent, I suppose, the winning side, the side with more guns and more thugs. But that makes no difference to any decent person.
It is a call-in show, you know. Regularly scheduled, every Sunday at 5:00 PM. Live. we even put the call in number up on the blog every Sunday prior to the podcast.
Sorry Dale, most of us don't mark our calendars for that brief window in which we can wait in line to offer a soundbyte response. And for me, I don't find your blog worth following closely enough to see the alert. I didn't before, and now, I only would for, as trev says, the examination of pathologies.
Besides, you don't have time for podcasts. You've got wrongs to right. And until that happens, and since I can write it out here the way it is meant to be spelled, Fuck You, Dale. You're a piece of shit, and a threat to decent men everywhere.
Well, Franks, since you (or someone in authority there) completely shut down comments on posts about this matter, I'd say yes, you do fear direct challenge. Probably you feel safer on a podcast because you can cut comments short more easily.
Like any bootlicking cop, you are a coward. As I said, you'd sell us all out to either foreign invaders or domestic tyrants in a heartbeat, just as long as there was a "law" somewhere justifying it.
Now Henke's thread is open again.
(8:01 AM CST)
It's like a clown college over there.
I am not tickled with delight, but filled with trepidation at the prospect of wrestling one more line with amoral Jeff.
I've come to think it was too extreme a suggestion this early in the process.
You're a magnanimous fuck. My life is better just knowing you're out there, doing good.
What risk am I flirting with here, exactly? That some obscure, self-anointed high priest of libertarian thought is going to — wait for it — delete my comments on his blog? Does ANYONE on the planet except yourself give a shit?
Obviously, the reason they opened up comments again on those posts at QandO is in order to keep on displaying the high intellectual level of Frank's supporters.
Thanks Richard, thanks for letting me know that I'm welcome to my opinion. You just keep impressing with the magnanimity.
John Sabotta – you're deeply confused if you equate all disagreement with Richard and his Order over at QQ to support for Dale Frank's actions. And here you all keep telling everyone that you're the smart ones.
A word of warning, Anderson. I don't ban people, I just delete comments at my complete and total whim, without apology or explanation. And I've never denied it.
Proceed at your own risk.
"What risk am I flirting with here, exactly?"
Having a comment deleted. If that doesn't bother you, then good for you. It's just that simple.
Everyone posts comments and puts work into them at their own risk, knowing I have exclusive authority to zap it out of existence (here).
It's simple and straightforward, and I prefer everyone understands it. You may think it's a bad policy for a blog, and you're perfectly welcome to that opinion. I invite you to judge me and this blog according to your own values, and to conduct yourself accordingly.
"You just keep impressing with the magnanimity."
It's easiest when you nothing to hide, or anything to be ashamed of.
"To those who might wonder: why the outrage? This stuff happens every day. Peaceful drug manufacturers, distributors, dealers and users get sent away every day. My answer is: where is the outrage?"
I'm not sure I get what you mean by outrage. The identification is easy – what Franks wrote is monstrous. I didn't expect anything better of him, though I was mildly surprised by the way he so openly mocked his victim. Of course it's disgraceful and shameful.
So I identify the actions as evil. Am I supposed to have a sustained emotional response? Who would that serve? Maybe you mean something else.
He's got a fresh post up explaining how he's not what we've all been saying he is. So now he's a liar, as well as a hypocrite and a thug.
"Am I supposed to have a sustained emotional response?"
Well I suppose you're welcome to take it in stride like a David Friedman, but why? Do you wish to deny yourself outrage?
For myself, I somewhat consider outrage an indulgence that's only fittingly experienced if one is in the moral right.
On the other hand, it's not essential by any means. If that's what you're getting at, then I agree.
"Well I suppose you're welcome to take it in stride like a David Friedman, but why? Do you wish to deny yourself outrage?"
I feel no impulse for sustained outrage in this. On Main Street in Anytown USA you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who would do what Franks did, or the moral equivalent.
Do you have any friends or loved ones who aren't anarchists? If they aren't anarchists doesn't that mean they endorse the moral equivalent?
Granted, they may not act like ginning jackals the way Franks has, but it's really the claim over the lives of others that's the issue, isn't it?
Sure, and I'm not saying that having outrage over this is a moral imperative. Understanding right and wrong is the moral imperative, or at least acting rightly vs. wrongly, but how one chooses to feel about it is certainly their own business.
I suppose I grant a bit more qualitative weight to the one who's in the right and morally outraged at the wrong (if the wrong rises to this level we're talking about), but quantitatively, if you're right, your right and that's the more important.