Patterico's Pontifications

1/21/2008

Dale Franks’s Brush with the Anarchist Wing of the Libertarian Party

Filed under: Crime — Patterico @ 1:14 pm



Check out the comments to this post. Dale Franks must be enjoying his brush with the Anarchist Wing of the Libertarian Party.

It would be hard to find a more fanatical and self-righteous set of folks, even in the mountainous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Note that these people are essentially demanding that people like Franks commit perjury during jury selection. They want him to falsely claim, under oath, that he would enforce a law — and then deliberately refuse to do so. All to save an “innocent” man whose only crime was smuggling over half a ton of dope into the country.

Since Franks refused to commit perjury, he is scum — no better than a Nazi. So sayeth the Anarchists.

Via Xrlq, who has more links.

248 Responses to “Dale Franks’s Brush with the Anarchist Wing of the Libertarian Party”

  1. God, I remember those.

    Not fun. The anarc-libs really did come off like assholes. Except for Ron, who actually wanted to talk and debate. He was cool.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  2. Ooo! Dope! Scary scary dope!

    Vergil (ec0a96)

  3. I think this comment at Xrlq’s link in the post says it all:

    You say the law he broke was constitutional? OK, so it was. How does that make it right? Who gave the authors of the constitution the power to authorise Congress to make such a law?

    To SayUncle‘s credit, there was only one commenter who was such a big idiot on his first post.

    nk (a07608)

  4. Ah, the wisdom of Vergil. Y’all are in for a real treat.

    JD (75f5c3)

  5. To everyone who claims Franks is a hypocrite, I have one question: do you pay your taxes?

    Do you pay taxes to a government that uses your taxes to imprison dope dealers?

    If so, you’re a huge hypocrite.

    Answer the question.

    Patterico (4db022)

  6. i don’t think that quite adds up to perjury. perjury is misrepresentation/falsification of known, existing facts. can a promise to do something in the future, based on premises yet unknown, be enforceable by a perjury prosecution?

    assistant devil's advocate (681d6f)

  7. nk,

    I dunno. Over at QandO the loons showed themselves pretty damn quickly.

    And truly, I loved the debate tactic of “Well, I would explain it to you, but you’re so damned stupid I won’t even bother”.

    It is comforting that since they don’t appear to want to convince anyone to their side, when they die there won’t be any more of them.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  8. It’s interesting when a jury discovers something that wasn’t raised by the parties in the trial and uses that information as a basis to decide the case. I think juries do this fairly often, perhaps because it makes jurors feel like active participants in the process rather than (basically) observers who render a verdict.

    I call it the Perry Mason syndrome (which no doubt dates me) and in my jury trial days I occasionally toyed with “overlooking” a specific fact so the jury could discover it. I never had the guts to do it, though.

    DRJ (517d26)

  9. ADA, I think it gets down to voir dire. It’s been many years since I was on a jury, but I remember being asked by the prosecutor whether I was able to render a fair and impartial verdict based on the facts.

    If one is predisposed to nullification, a fair response would be, “I don’t think this is a fair law, and there’s no way I’d vote to convict anyone accused of it.”

    To say otherwise would be, to me, perjury. Whether you’d be prosecuted for it is a different story, it’s still wrong.

    Steverino (e00589)

  10. I don’t know, the parts with straightarrow were just priceless. I mean, OMG priceless. he must be related to Baghdad Bob.

    G (722480)

  11. another question: california has a law barring jurors from “cashing in” by selling accounts to the media for x amount of time after the trial is over (i suspect this law may be unconstitutional, particularly if the subsequent transaction happened in another state). i don’t know if this law only applies to state courts, or federal courts too, but if a juror publishes an account on a for-profit blog, couldn’t that be construed as “cashing in”?

    assistant devil's advocate (681d6f)

  12. That would require that Dale actually profit from the blog…

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  13. Funny, but I watched the several threads at Q&O develop over the days, and I don’t recall anyone advocating that Franks should have lied his way onto the jury. I’m not saying some idiot in there didn’t suggest it, but the more forceful critique was that Franks should have espoused any libertarian sentiments that he might have harbored at the outset. That he did not do so will be a lifelong mark against him.

    And with Patterico’s lie about the proceedings, he too loses my respect.

    MikeSoja (c7013a)

  14. No, they pretty much yel;led at him and swore that he should have hidden out so that he could nullify…

    Most of the repeat posters got to that point.

    And how did Pat lie, or is that just in your head too?

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  15. I suggest that Ron Paul submit a resolution proposing a libertarian island city/state where these jagoffs could all move and practice their principles. The rest of us could then set up a giant betting pool for how quickly the whole thing would self destruct.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  16. well, the blog had ads, which somebody presumably paid for (yeah i know, not enough for him to quit his day job). if dale franks was just a guest blogger doing this for love, then it wouldn’t apply.

    still unpersuaded that a perjury sanction attaches during voir dire to issues of this nature. ok, you claim in abstract that you can enforce the law, but the law is a lot more than just the statute charged, it’s constitutional and common-law tradition going back to william penn and john peter zenger-style jury nullification. like it or not, that’s what some of us were taught as kids; that there was a sedition act, an editor was charged under it, and the jury blew off the act and acquitted the editor, and the teacher of my youth presented this as a positive, patriotic thing for them to do. as natural as it is for prosecutors and judges to wrest as much power as they can from other players over to their positions, that alone is insufficient impetus for me to surrender part of my role as a juror.

    p.s.: i agree with the conviction in the linked case; coming in from mexico with a whole false-bottom trailer full of ganja and shitting himself – yow! this is not an appropriate case for jury nullification.

    assistant devil's advocate (681d6f)

  17. Now you’re lying, Jacobs. Anyone can go to the Q&O threads (of which there are three of four on the same matter) and read Nikoley, Beck, Sabotta, Schneider, Brown, and Bennett to find none of them advocating dishonesty. Franks himself early states that he’s not opposed to jury nullification, but then he gets confused about whether he’s against the government criminalizing elective behavior or whether he’s more for validating the laws on the books. It’s now obvious which way the wind blows for Franks, and I’m disappointed that people can’t be troubled to know what they’re talking about in the retelling of it.

    MikeSoja (c7013a)

  18. Perhaps you can give us the definition of “lie” that you are using, Mike.

    Uncle Pinky (c3d832)

  19. The “lie” is that “these people”, of which I am one, “demanded” that “Franks commit perjury”.

    It is entirely possible that someone in those hundreds of comments did suggest that, but the most vociferous and outraged commenters did no such thing.

    MikeSoja (c7013a)

  20. Anyone who wanted Franks to nullify wanted him to commit perjury.

    “Once in a position to actually affect someone’s life based on your supposed principles, without cost or risk, and you chose to support public policy on the principle that it is public policy.”

    I think that was Kyle Bennett. He called Franks a “piece of sh*t,” which is pretty vociferous. Another guy was mealy-mouthed but said he could applaud scamming one’s way onto a jury.

    I ain’t the liar here, Mike.

    Patterico (5fdeb4)

  21. If that is Bennett, then I don’t see Bennett demanding that Franks lie his way onto the jury.

    And I’ve already stipulated that some people may have “applaud[ed]” the idea of sneaking on to a jury, but those sentiments do not characterize the bulk of the criticism levelled at Franks.

    MikeSoja (c7013a)

  22. Yet another demonstration of why I always object when people try to call me a “libertarian”. It’s because self-identified “Libertarians” are loons.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  23. And I’m curious, do you think all attempts at jury nullification require perjury or some other dishonesty?

    If so, what’s the point? Why not just lie to get on the jury and hang it?

    Will I now be told that that’s what the anarcho-capitalists were suggesting Franks do?

    MikeSoja (c7013a)

  24. If someone goes onto the jury knowing they disagree with the drug laws and will vote not guilty regardless of the evidence, they will be committing perjury. Jurors take an oath to answer questions truthfully, and every juror is asked whether they can follow the law and the judge’s instructions.

    Patterico (90678f)

  25. What I understood them to be saying is that he was not obligated to follow the Court’s instruction even though he swore to do so. All right, they do not respect the law against perjury just as they do not respect any other law they do not agree with. We can just say that it is oathbreaking which is an immoral act under every moral code.

    nk (a07608)

  26. P.S. *Every western civilization moral code*.

    nk (a07608)

  27. nk, they would first have to respect and accept the court’s authority.

    They hold the constitution itself invalid because, as far as I can tell, none of them were alive when it was voted on.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  28. Yes, that’s what bothers me about their attitude towards the social contract. They say, “I never entered into any such contract”. They refuse to accept that we’re really trust fund babies, not self-made men, enjoying the legacy of the sacrifice of prior generations.

    nk (a07608)

  29. Patterico, let me repeat what was said in earlier comments: you completely misrepresented the real libertarian position, which was that Franks should have revealed he had a principled opposition to drug prohibition at voir dire, and allowed himself to be dismissed from the jury on that ground. The condemnation comes because he didn’t do that. Instead of refusing to serve, he actively participated in something which his previously declared principles declare to be completely immoral. In a similar way, shouldn’t you be condemned if you helped prosecute a man whom you believed to be innocent according to your understanding of the law?

    Obviously, given that you are a prosecutor, you have a very different opinion of the War on Drugs than I do, but I think you should at least have the integrity of stating the opinions of your opponents in an honest way.

    I pay taxes, by the way, because the IRS makes me do it: plain and simple government coercion. And since the US Constitution authorizes coercion far beyond the real needs of any validly functioning government, I would like to get rid of the whole thing and start over again. The very fact that our country prohibits recreational drugs, instead of confining itself to punishing crimes which drug users might commit under the influence, is a sign of how badly overgrown governmental power is.

    kishnevi (3952ed)

  30. Kish, that’s just it.

    Simply because he disagrees with it does not mean he does not accept the federal government’s (or the state’s) authority to make it illegal.

    The man who was convicted knew it was a crime, and thus should have to pay the penalty for his choice.

    The fact that Dale DID vote to convict suggests the State did a very good job presenting it’s case.

    I don’t agree with most drug laws either, but that does not prohibit me from judging a case on it’s merits when the law is both constitutional and equitably applied.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  31. kishnevi,

    I saw plenty of people on that thread advocating jury nullification. There is another position, which is that you should be unwilling to follow the law and openly declare that. I found one person advocating that on the thread, while simultaneously saying he would applaud scamming his way onto the jury.

    Just because lying to get onto the jury is not *your* position doesn’t mean that it isn’t *others’* position. Nor does it mean I’m misrepresenting anything.

    Again, it’s clear that many people on the thread wanted to see Franks nullify. That means perjury if it’s known going in. They wanted Franks to *change* what happened — not to get off the jury and let other people do the same thing.

    The only way for him to change what happened would have required perjury.

    Read the thread before you accuse me of misrepresenting it, please.

    Patterico (1c0fcd)

  32. And since the US Constitution authorizes coercion far beyond the real needs of any validly functioning government, I would like to get rid of the whole thing and start over again.

    You will forgive me, of course, if I do my best to get rid of you before you can accomplish your goal? To enforce my right for the constitution and government of my choice as opposed to yours?

    nk (a07608)

  33. Bush “conservatives” arent worried about the Consitution or limited govt power- they love big govt and war making because they get to feel big and powerful when others rights are violated, and foreigners are killed wantonly. They live vicariously through the power of the allmighty state.

    Thats why Ron Paul and true libertarians and freedom lovers get them so angry. It highlights the fact that they have no political principles, cant think for themselves, and only stand for corporate welfare, warmongering, gay and immigrant bashing. And lets not leave out your hypocritical, empty, false “patriotism” and Bible-thumping.

    Jim (43734d)

  34. Again NK, it’s not the big of a worry. Since they are utterly unwilling – almost to the man – to attempt to convince people of their position through debate, it is unlikely they will be able to amass anthing more than a red-eyed, cheetoes-craving mini-mob that will wither and die as members age and pass on without new members being added to their ranks.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  35. E.g. Nikoley: “Franks may not have been able to let him go, but he could have, at minimum, hung the jury and delayed the process, which allows chance and circumstance to have its hand.”

    Nikoley wanted Franks to go hang the jury even though Franks thought the defendant was guilty.

    He’s not alone on that thread.

    Patterico (437aea)

  36. Thats why Ron Paul and true libertarians and freedom lovers get them so angry.

    considering the distain these people you speak of hold for the military, I can’t help but wonder exactly how long you plan on maintaining that freedom you claim to love.

    Without government, the US would rapidly devolve to 4th grade recess, but with guns.

    So it would look not unlike some 3rd-world hell hole.

    “Big Government” is the only thing that keeps people like me from kicking people like you in the nuts and stealing your lunch money.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  37. You know, Scott, you’re right. I used to think that “there can be no personal responsibility without personal freedom” was a libertarian idea”. It’s not. It’s a conservative idea. Libertarians do not recognize duty/ responsibility. They only demand their “rights”.

    nk (a07608)

  38. scott:
    Simply because he disagrees with it does not mean he does not accept the federal government’s (or the state’s) authority to make it illegal.

    But the point is that Franks supposedly rejects the authority of the government to make it illegal. He should have said so at voir dire. He didn’t. In fact, he’s renounced that position now on-blog. In doing so, he’s renounced the right to call himself a libertarian.

    Patterico:
    There were plenty of comments saying Franks should have said he opposed the War on Drugs at voir dire and let himself be dismissed. I do hope that you conduct your prosecutions in a less sleazy manner than you are conducting yourself in this post.

    kishnevi (db1823)

  39. There were plenty of comments saying Franks should have said he opposed the War on Drugs at voir dire and let himself be dismissed.

    In other words, he should have followed their consciences and not his. Not very libertarian, Kishnevi. But then, there is very little about libertarianism which is not self-contradictory.

    nk (a07608)

  40. a broken promise, as opposed to a false representation, is perjury? when did the perjury happen? couldn’t have been the verdict itself, otherwise a vote for an acquittal would be indistinguishable from perjury. must have been the voir dire. “do you agree to follow the law and the judge’s instructions?”

    well, i haven’t heard the judge’s instructions yet, and i share the general reluctance of many to sign a blank check. i’m generally sympathetic to the law, opposed to certain drug laws in certain instances, but since i don’t know what the case is about yet, how can i tell? i don’t want to be a smartass and say “well your honor, i haven’t heard your instructions yet, let alone any of the evidence, but why don’t you run them by me right now and i’ll tell you honestly whether i’m down with them.” does it make me a bad guy if i won’t blindly pledge to follow instructions i haven’t heard yet, applying to evidence i haven’t heard yet? what’s an otherwise public-spirited fellow to do in this situation? it’s probably a good thing i’ve never been called for jury duty, because there are some privacy issues in addition to this which i would be happy to take to the supreme court, and i do not fear the contempt predicate needed to enable me. finally, i think it’s an overstatement to equate nullification advocates with anarchists.

    assistant devil's advocate (ecd7ed)

  41. No, he does not, kish. If you would bother to even read his posts, would would have read his well reasoned and detailed reason WHY congress has exactly that expressed authority.

    What Dale believes, and he may feel free to correct me if I am wrong, is not only personal freedom, but the willingness to accept resonsibility for your choices.

    Dale served the US in the military, and his community as a cop. While he might not have agreed while WHY he was at war, or the exact law he was enforcing, it was his duty to enforce them all.

    The laws on the books are not secret. When you break one, you know what you are doing.

    If you do not LIKE the laws, you work to change them within the system you choose to live under, or you leave. Refusing to follow the rules while accepting all the benifits the rules give you is hypocritical and cowardly.

    Your kind claims to no longer respect Dale, and some even extend that to the rest of the bloggers at QandO.

    I say I respect them MORE.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  42. nk–my duty is to recognize your rights. But since you refuse to recognize my rights (something which you explicitly state in comment 32), why should I recognize your rights in particular?

    Just because you like the system does not mean you have the right to force me to accede to it. Otherwise, the colonists were wrong to rebel in 1776 and the negroes of the South were wrong to seek their own freedom in the 1850s and 1950s.

    kishnevi (3952ed)

  43. What it comes down to, ada, is that the law against smuggling pot is an already existant law. It wasn’t made while the guy was in Mexico.

    The aw is constitutional, and it is evenly applied. Dale may disagree with it, but it’s a law, and as such should either be upheld, or changed. There really aren’t any other options.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  44. Just because you like the system does not mean you have the right to force me to accede to it.

    You agree to abide by the system by remaining here and deriving benifit from it. If it so repugnant to you, there is little stopping you save your own (lack) or motivation.

    By remaining her, you accept the terms of the agreement – terms that are findable under your local penal code.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  45. “Nikoley wanted Franks to go hang the jury”

    No, Nikoley is offering alternatives to the action Franks settled on. A few comments down Nikoley says,

    “It would have cost him nothing to make his objections known, be dismissed, and not participate in doing the state’s business in a area of policy he claims to disagree with. And once on the jury, it would have cost him nothing to hang it, and it would have cost but a little extra effort and time had he tried to persuade the jury to acquit, with the potential of a really heroic story to tell on his blog.

    “Rather, he was directly instrumental, as a tool for the state, in a policy he disagreed with, where he had no moral or even legal obligation to participate, in sending a peaceful man away for 10 years, stealing his property, and wreaking havoc on his family.”

    The criticism of Franks is that he failed to object at any of the junctures where he might have.

    MikeSoja (c7013a)

  46. Scott and NK;

    Your moronic posts proved my point. I knew I could get some silly neo-cons fired up with by stating some basic, obvious truths on this lame website.

    But yes, Scott, Im sure you are a real tough guy who “would kick me in the nuts and steal my lunch money”. I bet thats why you get off on invading a tiny country with the largest military force ever known (financed, by the way, with my tax dollars against my will) and killing untold thousands of innocents. But if that makes you feel like a man, tough guy, its all worth it, right? You pathetic coward.

    Jim

    Jim (43734d)

  47. I said:

    You will forgive me, of course, if I do my best to get rid of you before you can accomplish your goal? To enforce my right for the constitution and government of my choice as opposed to yours?

    You said:

    But since you refuse to recognize my rights (something which you explicitly state in comment 32), why should I recognize your rights in particular?

    That’s just another way of saying, it’s my way or no way.

    I am not, in any way, asking you to recognize my rights. I am asking my fellow citizens, who agree with me, to punish you for violating the duty we have imposed on you in return for allowing you to live among us. You don’t like it, move away from home.

    nk (a07608)

  48. NK–perhaps you don’t understand it.
    Franks, had he acted according to his own principles, according to his own conscience, he would have admitted he opposed the War on Drugs. No one asked him to act according to any beliefs but those which he supposedly held previous to this case. The defense he now adopts is explicitly non-libertarian, since it conflicts with libertarian priniciples. It also conflicts with positions he apparently stated earlier. He believes in freedom for himself, but he now refuses to extend that to other people.

    The point is, Franks was supposedly a libertarian. He acted in a way that contradicts libertarian principles, and his posts since then have been based on non libertarian principles. He’s been condemned because he’s renounced those principles.

    kishnevi (3952ed)

  49. Your moronic posts proved my point. I knew I could get some silly neo-cons fired up with by stating some basic, obvious truths on this lame website

    Remember when I described their tactics?

    Yeah, it looks something like that. Insults, and not attempts at actual rebuttal.

    And they actually think they win when they do it, too. That’s what gets me.

    But Jim is quite correct. I wouldn’t “kick him in the nuts”.

    I would shoot him in the head, because who would stop me? I ask you quite seriously, who would stop me? The Police? No, you got rid of them. Your neighbors? Why should they, when hey get to pick through your stuff once I leave?

    As I said, the only thing that protects you from the monsters is that peice of paper that so enrages you.

    Again Jim, how long, without a standing military or exert our will to be free on those who don’t WISH us to be free do you expect to have this freedom you so long for?

    If you don’t like paying taxes to fund a military, stop paying, and leave. Renounce your citizenship, and depart.

    I most certainly will not lift a finger to stop you.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  50. But the point is that Franks supposedly rejects the authority of the government to make it illegal.

    Uh, no. He doesn’t. He specifically wrote otherwise in the proximate posts. he thinks the drug policy is stupid and, ultimately self-defeating, but not unconstitutional.

    And I think I know what he believes way better than you do.

    Dale Franks (3422ce)

  51. And I think I know what he believes way better than you do.

    “pwned”, as the kids these days might say.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  52. Oh, thank you, sir
    I am not, in any way, asking you to recognize my rights. I am asking my fellow citizens, who agree with me, to punish you for violating the duty we have imposed on you in return for allowing you to live among us. You don’t like it, move away from home.
    You are gracious enough to let me live in my own home with my own family if I let the government rob and coerce me on your behalf. Thank you, your majesty.

    No, sir, the “duty we have imposed on you” does not exist. No more than a shop owner in Little Italy had the duty to pay protection money to the local capo. No more than John Adams had a duty to let the British government do whatever it wanted to him in 1776; no more than a slave in ante-bellum South had a duty to let his slaveowner do whatever the slaveowner wanted to do to the slave.

    kishnevi (3952ed)

  53. We’re starting to run around in circles. Does Franks have a duty to follow the rules of the society he lives in? Does he have a right to work to change those rules? Until they are changed, does he have a duty to follow them, or does his mere advocacy absolve him if he does not, or make him a hypcrite if hes does?

    nk (a07608)

  54. I knew I could get some silly neo-cons fired up with by stating some basic, obvious truths on this lame website.

    I didn’t see any “basic, obvious truths” in your #33 comment, Jim.

    If those are “basic, obvious truths,” then you should have no problem proving their validity.

    Agreed?

    Paul (dd77a9)

  55. Re 50
    Obviously you know better what you believe. You are only being asked not to claim to be a libertarian (or neolibertarian, for that matter), because if you did adhere to libertarian principles you would have acted, written, and believed differently.

    kishnevi (3952ed)

  56. I knew I could get some silly neo-cons fired up with by stating some basic, obvious truths inflammatory ad hominems on this lame website.

    There. Fixed it for you, Jim.

    Paul (dd77a9)

  57. Obviously you know better what you believe. You are only being asked not to claim to be a libertarian (or neolibertarian, for that matter), because if you did adhere to libertarian principles you would have acted, written, and believed differently.

    Again the hypocracy.

    You decry nk for what MIGHT have been him forcing a vauge ideal upon you, while you DEMAND that Dale do as you say.

    Your ideals are not his, nor mine, nor nk’s, nor anyone else’s for that matter.

    So much for the idea of personal freedom, eh?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  58. Cue the usual suspects. I can’t wait for Billy-boy to show up. There’s no language filter here.

    I’ll enjoy that.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  59. NK–re 53

    He has the responsibility to oppose things which are wrong when he encountered them. Drug prohibition is (because drug use by itself does not involved any force or fraud against others) contrary to libertarian principles. A libertarian should therefore oppose drug prohibition when and as he/she encounters the. A libertarian called to serve on the jury would have the responsibility to stand up and say, this is wrong. Mr. Franks did not. Mr. Franks instead co-operated in enforcing laws which are against libertarian principles.

    That is the problem in a nutshell.

    kishnevi (3952ed)

  60. I’m not going to bother to go read the spew; did anyone ask him if he would have convicted if there’d been an ounce of rather dry marijuana in an open ziplock baggie?

    Are prosecutors allowed to bluntly ask if a juror knows of, and if knowing of agrees with, jury nullification?

    htom (412a17)

  61. Scott–do us a favor and shut up. I politely asked Mr. Franks not to call himself by a term which does not fit his actions. NK, on the other hand, demands that I knuckle under to an immoral system solely because NK happens to like that system. There is a difference.

    And do us a second favor, and get a spell checker.
    H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y

    kishnevi (3952ed)

  62. kishnevi #59,

    Good. We can stop the civil war. Still, isn’t Franks really being tried for “heresy”? Or perhaps “schism”?

    nk (a07608)

  63. He has the responsibility to oppose things which are wrong when he encountered them. Drug prohibition is (because drug use by itself does not involved any force or fraud against others) contrary to libertarian principles. A libertarian should therefore oppose drug prohibition when and as he/she encounters the. A libertarian called to serve on the jury would have the responsibility to stand up and say, this is wrong. Mr. Franks did not. Mr. Franks instead co-operated in enforcing laws which are against libertarian principles

    “Your have a dizying intellect…”

    Not agreeing with something does not make it invalid at it’s face.

    As others said elsewhere, it is impressive how the only personal responsibility being spoken of here is Dale’s, and not that of the POS who tried to smuggle over half a ton of marry-jah-whanna.

    I doubt Mr Rhett was doing it because of a deeply help philisophical disagreement with US grug laws. He was doing because it was worth a lot of money.

    If shoe polish were illegal, he’d have been trying to sneak in some Kiwi Polish in that false bottom.

    So please, how about we stop pretending like Rhett was some sort of victim here.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  64. htom/60:

    They sure ought to be allowed to do so.

    I have done so in roughly 38 of my last 40 trials. On two occasions, I was barred from doing so. And I might have forgotten to do so here or there, so maybe fewer.

    I ask a series of questions depending on the case; those have evolved over the years.

    Usually, I start with:

    1. Does anyone support jury nullification, or belong to an organization which supports jury nullification? (No hands, usually) The largest such organization is probably the Libertarian political party. Anyone? OK, seeing no hands….

    Then:

    2. Suppose that after this case, you felt that The People had proved all the elements of the case, but you [didn’t like the victim/didn’t like the law/didn’t think he was treated fairly/case specific portion]. How would you vote? Mr. Smith, how would you vote? (Usually Mr. Smith is with the program, and ready to vote guilty.)

    3. Now, let me turn that around. Suppose that after this trial, you don’t believe The People proved all the elements of the crime, but you’re convinced Mr. Wifewhomper is a bad person and deserves to be punished. How would you vote? (If Mr. Smith got it right the first time, he gets another chance.)

    This is not always effective in screening nullifiers, but it’s something. Getting nullified on a case where the backstory is very bad for the defendant is annoying.

    –JRM

    JRM (de6363)

  65. Scott–do us a favor and shut up

    Yeah, I don’t think so, sparky…

    *chuckles*

    You’re cute when you’re indignant…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  66. Wow, fame.

    I pay my taxes for the same reason that I would give an armed robber what he wants. Because I have no choice. I recognise no moral obligation to pay, and if I could evade some or all of my taxes without fear of getting caught I would. Unfortunately, as a wage earner, there’s not a whole lot of scope for that.

    And yes, I think that while a libertarian has the option of telling the truth at voir dire and getting disqualified from the jury, it is perfectly moral to lie in order to get on the jury and save the defendant from an unjust punishment. When that armed robber asks whether I have any other money in the house I am under no obligation to tell him the truth, and may with perfect conscience deny it, because he’s not entitled to the truth.

    For the same reason I would lie without hesitation to a kidnapper, promising him whatever he wanted in order to free his hostage, with no intention of keeping my promise. And that’s the situation Franks was faced with. If he is a libertarian, as he claims, then it follows that the state had no right to imprison this defendant. By doing so it was acting as a kidnapper, and he was in a position to rescue the victim at the expense of his honesty. It would have been right and just to do so, and I’m disappointed that he didn’t, but had he stopped there I could condone his actions.

    He’s not obligated to put himself to any risk, however minor, in order to save someone else, especially a scumbag such as the defendant probably is. So washing his hands of the whole mess by getting off the jury might be a sort of moral cowardice, but clean hands are better than dirty ones. But instead he chose to get on the jury and convict – and for that I can see no moral justification. It is wrong to collaborate in a kidnapping, whether done by an individual or by the state. Once on the jury, and on being presented with no evidence that the defendant had actually done anything wrong, i.e. initiated force or fraud against any person, Franks had the obligation to vote against a conviction.

    PS: The one time I got as far as voir dire I was faced with a similar issue. The charge was illegal possession of a weapon. The NYC gun laws are clearly both unconstitutional and unjust, and there can be no moral justification for collaborating in jailing someone for violating them. But from what the judge and both lawyers were saying it was clear to me that there was more going on that we weren’t being told. I gathered that the defendant had in fact shot someone, but for some reason he wasn’t being charged with that. They were very carefully not telling us this, and I still don’t know the reason why, but I could see the shape of the empty area they were dancing around.

    This was a thug who had probably shot another thug, and he didn’t belong on the streets. And I didn’t want to be the one to release him onto those streets. I reasoned to myself that even if he was not charged with the shooting, if the evidence showed beyond reasonable doubt that he had in fact committed it, or even merely that he’d committed an assault by pointing the gun at someone with the intent of shooting them or of making them afraid that he would, then I could convict with a clear conscience. But if the evidence we would see did not show that, then I could not convict, even though I suspected that he had done so.

    So I took the hand-washing route. I told the judge exactly what I just said: that I could convict him if the evidence showed that he’d used the gun to commit another crime, but not if all it showed was simple possession. The judge clarified that in such a case I would ignore his instruction, and dismissed me as I knew he would. I hope the guy is in jail somewhere, but I could not be the one to put him there.

    Milhouse (f10fb3)

  67. is perfectly moral to lie in order to get on the jury and save the defendant from an unjust punishment.

    Yeah, right about there your opinion ceased to matter to me.

    If you have so little integrety, you aren’t even remotely someone worth talking or listening to.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  68. Milhouse,

    Your #66 surprises me.

    DRJ (517d26)

  69. So I took the hand-washing route. I told the judge exactly what I just said: that I could convict him if the evidence showed that he’d used the gun to commit another crime, but not if all it showed was simple possession.

    That’s fair. No juror is ever expected to be a lawbot. (Judges are, BTW.)

    nk (9ce1c0)

  70. Scott:
    If you have so little integrety, you aren’t even remotely someone worth talking or listening to

    I agree with you on this point. Milhouse’s solution is morally objectionable IMO. And armed robbery and kidnapping have nothing to do with it, despite his argument. Stand up at voir dire and say you couldn’t convict. (Which, come to think of it, is what Milhouse actually did.)

    But please PLEASE get a spell checker. I-N-T-E-G-R-I-T-Y.

    kishnevi (7a9e8b)

  71. Kishy dear, if all you can do is insult my spelling, I’m afraid you’ll find me less than impressed.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  72. kishnevi,

    You are the one off the wall on this. Nobody asks a juror to vote against his conscience. Nobody demands that a juror sit on a death penalty jury if he opposes the death penalty under all circumstances. All we ask is, “tell us that you cannot do it and go home with our thanks”.

    I averred earlier that the prohibition against oathbreaking is a western concept. In Islam, it is acceptable to deceive nonbelievers. Apparently it is acceptable in the libertarian religion too.

    nk (9ce1c0)

  73. The only reason that libertarians scare me on this is that the really moral decision when chosen for jury duty is to participate fully. Yes, they can say that they don’t believe in the laws, and believe them wrong, but, if they do that, aren’t they rejecting the rest of the laws that, like our drug laws, are already tested constitutionally? So, in my eyes, they are then rejecting the Constitution, and don’t deserve the privilages of that sacred document. I like the concept that Mr. Franks uses, that he may disagree with the laws, but accepts their constitutionality, and participates in the trial accordingly.

    He seems to me to be a real American.

    reff (99666d)

  74. I do hope that you conduct your prosecutions in a less sleazy manner than you are conducting yourself in this post.

    Leave my job out of this. You get one warning, kishnevi, and only one.

    I don’t care whether you think it’s relevant and I don’t care if you think I’m being unreasonable. I don’t allow people to say/suggest/imply that I am a bad prosecutor because of things I blog. Period.

    One more offense and you are banned. No more offenses and we’re cool.

    As to the substance of the matter:

    You started this quarrel by suggesting that I misrepresented the libertarian position:

    [Y]ou completely misrepresented the real libertarian position, which was that Franks should have revealed he had a principled opposition to drug prohibition at voir dire, and allowed himself to be dismissed from the jury on that ground.

    I pointed you to examples of people supporting jury nullification and saying Franks should have changed the result despite his belief in the defendant’s guilt. It’s nice that some of the posters take a more reasonable position and simply say that Franks should have stayed off the jury. The fact remains that they did not all say that, and that I did not misrepresent anything. Please stop with false accusations of misrepresentation.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  75. 70. I only got out of it because I knew that the defendant was a thug who had hurt someone and belonged in jail. Had he been (to the best of my knowledge) an honest person who had a weapon for self defense, as is his right, then I’d have had no hesitation in lying my way on to the jury.

    72. It isn’t just Islam. I don’t know of a religion that puts telling the truth above saving someone’s life, liberty or property from anyone who would unjustly take them. Even Catholicism, which dabbled with such a notion, eventually came up with the doctrine of mental reservations.

    73. I don’t worship the constitution. I admire and support it, because it’s a mostly libertarian document, and if it were adhered to this country would be a lot freer than it is. But I don’t confuse what is constitutional with what is right. Liberty is not good because it’s enshrined in the constitution, the constitution is good because and to the extent that it enshrines liberty.

    When New London took Ms Kelo’s property in order to put up some unspecified commercial development, that was both unjust and unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court decision was wrong. But suppose the property had been taken in order to build a new city hall. There can be no question that the taking would have been perfectly constitutional, but would it have been any more just? What exactly gives us the right to take someone’s property – just compensation or no – just because it’s for a public use?

    The Fugitive Slave laws were explicitly constitutional; would you have complied with them? If put under oath, would you have told where a slave was hiding? Would you vote to convict someone of harbouring fugitive slaves? Or would you, by telling the truth at voir dire, stand by and let him be convicted and punished, when it was in your power to save him? Or do you think truth-telling is more important than saving the innocent from an unjust fate?

    Milhouse (e249d0)

  76. And is there no place for duty? For loyalty to something greater than yourself? For recognition that the nation of 300 million people that you belong to may be smarter than you even if you would do things diferently if you were king for a day? Just some ideas, philosophy if you wish, that you would impose on your fellow 300 million citizens because that’s what you like best?

    nk (9ce1c0)

  77. 76: So you would collaborate with the Fugitive Slave laws, or with the Nuremberg laws? Because they represented the collective wisdom of the majority, and you shouldn’t impose your philosophy on them? What about Canada’s “hate speech” laws – do you think Mark Steyn ought to obey them, because they’re the law? What gives a majority, even a 99.9% majority, the right to forcibly take someone who has done nobody any harm, and hang or imprison or fine him?

    Milhouse (e249d0)

  78. The Fugitive Slave laws were explicitly constitutional; would you have complied with them?

    At the time? No. But you’re missing the point. The fugitive slave laws weren’t “equally applied”, in that only black peole could be guilty.

    If the drug laws said “BLACK people can’t smuggle drugs”, there’s a problem. When they say “no one can smuggle drugs”, there is less of a problem.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  79. The first thing people need to understand is that if you go into jury service with the intention of nullifying, you will be committing perjury. Franks knew he was going to be on a drug case, and these people wanted him to nullify based on pre-existing attitudes about the drug laws that he would have been obligated to disclose in questioning under oath. So everyone who wanted Franks to nullify — and plenty in that thread did — wanted him to commit perjury.

    Now, to address with specifics the charge that nobody, or hardly anybody, in that thread wanted Franks to nullify. Why, they just wanted him to get off the jury — and if I say anything otherwise, I’m a dirty misrepresenter who misstates things and is probably sleazy in my job.

    Lovely thing about comment threads: they’re right there and they don’t go away. So you can go grab language.

    So here’s a few quotes. Now, keep in mind, some of these people ALSO SAY that Franks could have simply gotten off the jury. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t also suggest nullification would be a good idea too.

    Many of them support it as “judging the facts and the law.” Here are just a few quotes from people who support nullification in that thread:

    Richard Nikoley:

    It would have cost him nothing to make his objections known, be dismissed, and not participate in doing the state’s business in a area of policy he claims to disagree with. And once on the jury, it would have cost him nothing to hang it, and it would have cost but a little extra effort and time had he tried to persuade the jury to acquit, with the potential of a really heroic story to tell on his blog.

    This isn’t simply advice to get off, kishnevi. This is a) be dismissed or b) lie your way on and hang it up. Either one is good with this commenter. Keep in mind, this same guy in another comment says: “Franks may not have been able to let him go, but he could have, at minimum, hung the jury and delayed the process, which allows chance and circumstance to have its hand.”

    Kyle Bennett:

    And how many lives were destroyed in those seventy years? Would you have looked a fugitive slave in the eye and told him you were sending him back to be whipped, separated from his family, stripped of not only all possessions, but also of the capacity for having possessions, and then worked to an early death? Would you have looked a member of the underground railroad in the eye and sent them to jail for saving him? Because it was public policy and you had no moral choice but to uphold others’ judgment?

    The state supposedly derives its authority from the people, and the purpose of having juries is to individualize that authority pursuant to authorizing the forcible action of the state against a specific individual. None can convict unilaterally, but the authority of each juror is that he has direct veto power over the immediate verdict. No-one who fails to use that veto when it is morally demanded can hide behind the authority of the state, because they individually are the means of checking that authority.

    Sounds like he supports jury nullification to me. Here’s another quote from the same fellow:

    That’s *exactly* what jury nullification is for, to judge the law as well as the facts. There was no personal risk to you in doing so, or at least in stating during voir dire that you would consider doing so.

    Once in a position to actually affect someone’s life based on your supposed principles, without cost or risk, and you chose to support public policy on the principle that it is public policy.

    See? He *wants* him to nullify — because he and all the others see this as essentially the same principle, on a smaller scale, as the Holocaust. A soldier asked to help load the Jews on the trains, they are arguing, should (at a minimum) refuse — and what’s more, if he has a chance to stop it, even if he has to lie to do so, he should affirmatively stop it.

    I.e. Franks should stay off the jury, at a minimum — but we’d really prefer to see him lie his way on and hang the jury.

    Almost all the comments are consistent with that point of view.

    More, from Ted:

    If this is the moral equivalent of slavery, you should be doing more than blogging, waving signs or simply ignoring the law.

    I don’t think he’s talking about getting off the jury. He’s talking about getting *on* the jury to throw the case.

    Anyone who denies that these people are supporting nullification — which means perjury — has his head in the sand.

    And it’s particularly offensive to be told that I’m misrepresenting their views when I’m simply noting them.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  80. You’re throwing up strawmen, Milhouse. My government has not asked me to enslave black people nor to send Jews to the ovens. It has not even asked me to stop someone from saying bad things about Islam. It does not even ask me to agree that Mexican smugglers are selling poison to our children. All it asks me is that if called for jury duty I will either refuse to give my word, or if I should chhose to give it I will keep it.

    nk (9ce1c0)

  81. kishnevi,

    When you said in #29 that I “completely misrepresented the libertarian position” — what about when Radley Balko said:

    Patterico wants to know if nullification supporters would lie to get on a jury to nullify an unjust charge.

    I’ve said before that I most certainly would. Moreover, I think we need a test case to invalidate the perjury trap judges and prosecutors in some jurisdictions set when they ask potential jurors if they’ll judge only the facts and not the law. It creates a situation where potential nullifiers are either dismissed or must put themselves in legal jeopardy to get selected for the jury. Given nullification’s rich history in American criminal jurisprudence, and the fact that the founders intended it to be an extra layer of protection from unjust laws and laws applied unjustly, these attempts by courts and prosecutors to take nullification off the table need to be challenged.

    . . . .

    I’ll happily preach the gospel of nullification — even to the point of advocating misleading the court to get into a position to nullify –as one small way to stem the tide.

    Then, after I criticized him for this position, he backed off slightly and said instead that he would use “misdirection” instead of an outright lie. (I think he has less faith in judges’ ability to spot slippery answers and to ask direct questions.)

    Plenty of libertarians believe in lying to courts/”misdirecting” courts to further their radical quasi-anarchist agenda.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  82. Milhouse,

    As I noted in my comment to you at XRLQ’s blog, you have a choice: Civil disobedience or jury nullification. I think the first is appropriate in those cases where you genuinely disagree with a law – so go ahead and protest, stage a sit-in, go to jail, start a hunger strike, write letters to Congress, or other non-violent actions that moral citizens use to remedy wrongs.

    Jury nullification is akin to anarchy because it is secret and can’t be remedied. It’s a game you play on society at your fellow citizens’ expense. To me, the only just and moral use of jury nullification is when the legal proceeding is void on its face, e.g., when the prosecution is clearly corrupt, contrived, or a sham.

    DRJ (517d26)

  83. Milhouse and all the others:

    Do you think it’s possible for a good man/woman of conscience to support the Fugitive Slave laws?

    I don’t and I doubt you do either.

    Do you think it’s possible for a good man/woman of conscience to support any laws criminalizing drugs? I know you disagree with them; that’s not the question. Is it possible for someone who is a good person — someone whose heart is in the right place, and who is intelligent — to simply disagree with you? And to honestly and sincerely believe that their support of the drug laws is the right way to go?

    I do think it’s possible.

    If you don’t, I suggest that your levels of ideological commitment and self-righteousness are approaching dangerous levels.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  84. Incidentally, this is one reason I have never trusted Balko. If he admits he’d misdirect a court to serve his libertarian agenda, why wouldn’t he misdirect his readers?

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  85. Milhouse…first, I thought the Constitution gives the power to the government to take property with fair compensation.

    Second, lying under oath is unacceptable in any case. Now, the example you give is invalid as Scott Jacobs stated since the law was applied unequally. Give us an example of where we should lie if the law is applied equally. You can’t. You will give examples where you disagree with the law, but, that means you are committing perjury, and, that is applied equally.

    I’m an idealist in all this; if everyone simply followed the laws, and then fought the good fight against those laws they didn’t like, the system works, and everyone gets an equal chance. But, we have people like you, who freely admit they will lie to get a desired result because THEY DON’T THINK THE LAW IS RIGHT. The system as established by that same Constitution you want interpreted one way fails when you do it that way, instead of the way it is set up.

    That was Bill Clinton’s excuse when he lied; he wanted to do it his way, instead of the right way.

    reff (99666d)

  86. I’m still in favor of my island city/state idea from earlier. Stash all these jokers some place together. Let them see if they can agree if there should be any laws at all, what laws there will be, if police and fire protection will be based on voluntary contributions, etc., etc. These intellectually lazy dorks can’t even agree among themselves what appropriate libertarian behavior calls for under a given scenario. I wonder how long a libertarian “utopia” would take to self destruct? Have there been any such expperiments?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  87. I offer them New York…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  88. Why should it matter whether a law is equally applied? A law is either constitutional or not, and it is either just or not — and those are two separate questions. Which is more unjust: a law imposing a one-year sentence on anyone who criticises Islam, or one that imposes only a one-day sentence, but that applies only to people born in leap years? Equal application is necessary for a law to be just, but it is not sufficient.

    Patterico, yes, I do think it was possible for people of good conscience to support the Fugitive Slave laws. I think the legislators who passed those laws were probably, by and large, good people. I think the majority of those who supported the institution of slavery were good and well-meaning people. They happened to disagree with the new and radical philosophy which held that it was wrong for one person to own another. They had millennia of history behind them, in almost every culture in human history, and probably the vast majority of people then living believed in the justice of slavery. For most of history even most slaves believed in slavery – they didn’t want to be slaves, but they accepted the institution as just, and they aspired to gain their freedom, become rich, and buy themselves some slaves. So it would be perfectly reasonable for a person of good faith to believe that slavery ought to be abolished through the democratic process, but that while it was still legal escaped slaves ought to be returned to their owners, just like a lost coat or a strayed cow.

    That didn’t make the laws right, though. Were I to find myself thrown back in time, and in voir dire for a jury to try a member of the Underground Railroad, I would tell whatever lies were necessary to get on that jury and get the defendant off. Because saving that person from jail would be more important than telling the truth. And because when the state is seeking to lock someone up who has done nobody any harm, it is in the same moral position as a kidnapper or an armed robber, and is not owed the truth.

    Milhouse (f10fb3)

  89. I offer them New York…

    They can have everything south of Poughkeepsie.
    Most of New York is actually comprised of normal people, and cows.

    Taltos (4dc0e8)

  90. They happened to disagree with the new and radical philosophy which held that it was wrong for one person to own another.

    By the time the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, there had been organized opposition to slavery for at least a century. I suppose you could call the idea “new” when viewed against the sweep of human history . . .

    I think that slavery is fundamentally against basic human rights. Drug laws? Not so much.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  91. Jurors take an oath to answer questions truthfully, and every juror is asked whether they can follow the law and the judge’s instructions.

    That’s why I can’t be on a jury. As a citizen I have more power in that courtroom than the judge does when it comes down to why we’re all stuck in the same room all day – the verdict – and my only guide is the law. Not the instructions of the judge. If the judge gave me instructions as a juror that I thought would make it impossible for me to render a fair verdict, I’d get myself expelled from the jury.

    And since judges treat “jury nullification” like it is a death threat, that’s no juries for me. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the only voice the people have in the law is through the Legislature. The Constitution specifically gives the People the power to make legal rulings through jury verdicts.

    Everywhere else in the Constitution, it is crystal clear: freedom of speech, period. Of assembly, period. Of religion, period. Etc. But I’m supposed to believe that the powers explicitly and implicitly granted to juries in the Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Amendments need specification, so to speak, just so we all understand that jury nullification is not included in those powers. I don’t buy that. Nowhere in Article III is the power given to the Judiciary to decide that you can’t acquit someone because you disagree with the law. The text is very plain: Trial of all Crimes, except Impeachment, shall be made by Jury;…

    It is the only time the word jury is used in the entire Constitution. It all seems really easy to understand, but apparently Amendments V and VI are really murky (who knew?) and there is actually a valid legal argument against jury nullification under the US Constitution.

    The Courts have acknowledged that jury nullification is a de facto right of juries, rooted in common law. It boggles the mind that you can acknowledge the existence of a right but say that it is okay to do everything possible to deny the people knowledge of that right when they are in a capacity to exercise it. Now that I’m thinking about it, since jury nullification is an acknowledged right, how can judges dismiss jurors who profess to possessing knowledge of it, who inform other jurors about it, or argue for an acquittal based on the grounds of it?

    US v Moylan’s reasoning was:

    …by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.

    And US v Thomas said:

    We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their authority to prevent. Accordingly, we conclude that a juror who intends to nullify the applicable law is no less subject to dismissal than is a juror who disregards the court’s instructions due to an event or relationship that renders him biased or otherwise unable to render a fair and impartial verdict.

    Categorically reject, huh? Why? Because you can. There’s no reasoning behind it at all. And the statement comes very close to saying that jury nullification is not a right, which would be a neat little overturning of 800 years or so of precedent.

    A legal right undermines the rule of law? That’s absurd.

    I understand the point the Courts are making. There is something to it. But it’s coming from an attitude that is basically “if we let you people know about jury nullification you’ll stick it to us, or you’ll be too dumb to not be taken in by defense arguments that have nothing to do with the facts of the case.” And the hell with that.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  92. It’s one thing to engage in jury nullification. It’s quite another to insist that someone else do it “for the common good.”

    You would think that Libertarians, of all people, would understand the difference. Talk about hypocrisy.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  93. I can’t believe people are analogizing drug laws to slavery and the Holocaust. Can you be any more offensive?

    tired (d8ee41)

  94. Why bother with the jury at all if it’s nothing more than a pawn of the the judge and the process? Given that in the prosecution of the INSANE War on Some Drugs™, the laws have been deemed constitutional (until they’re not), and many times, the facts are not in dispute, why shouldn’t the defendant go to jail – Go directly to jail – Do not pass Go – Do not collect $200.00.

    Hell, let’s make the penalty for drug laws summary execution. Since the facts aren’t in dispute – you’re “holding the bag” so to speak, and the laws are “Constitutional”, if the police catch you with them, BANG – you’re dead, and the State is going to harvest your organs until the only thing left is your final utterance of “WTF?!?”.

    I will never be selected for a jury – I won’t agree to the blank check that is demanded of me re: evidence presented and the monarch’s, er… judge’s instructions. I won’t be a pawn to the process.

    A question for the lawyers – why did it take a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the sale of alcohol, and only a statute to prohibit some drugs?

    Horatio (55069c)

  95. NK:

    Yes, that’s what bothers me about their attitude towards the social contract. They say, “I never entered into any such contract”.

    And they’re right. The real problem, though, is not with the libertarians’ attitude toward the social[ist] “contract,” but with the smarmy phrase itself. There’s nothing contractual about laws, and less to be gained by pretending that there is.

    Shift-challenged troll:

    #

    a broken promise, as opposed to a false representation, is perjury? when did the perjury happen?

    When the juror made a promise he had no intention of keeping. Franks was a libertarian long before he was called on to that jury, so if he had voted to nullify, it would defy reason to suggest that this happened as a result of a post-empanelment epiphany (unless, of course, he was reading outside materials while serving on the jury, another no-no).

    Scott Jacobs:

    At the time? No. But you’re missing the point. The fugitive slave laws weren’t “equally applied”, in that only black peole could be guilty.

    If the drug laws said “BLACK people can’t smuggle drugs”, there’s a problem. When they say “no one can smuggle drugs”, there is less of a problem.

    Under today’s constitution, sure, given the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. But what’s the equality objection under the antebellum Constitution?

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  96. Yes, that’s what bothers me about their attitude towards the social contract. They say, “I never entered into any such contract”.

    And they’re right.

    No, they aren’t really.

    By this point, they have gained benifit from the system under which we live. By gaining that benifit, they accept the terms of the contract, which are neatly written and codified into criminal statutes.

    You don’t have to sign your name for it to be a valid contract. By remaining here at this point, they are assumed to have considered the terms, and accepted them. There is little stopping them from departing.

    I hear Canada’s nice. Unless you want, you know, timely medical treatment…

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  97. “Dale served the US in the military, and his community as a cop.”

    Ah, that explains a lot.

    My own issue with Franks was not so much what he did as a juror, though that reflects no glory. It was that he was on a “free markets, free minds” blog bragging about his role in crushing a free market. If we believe that a juror is answerable to no one in his decision (which is the essence of the jury system, and the thing that makes jury nullification even a possibility), it also follows that Franks is not answerable for convicting (at least in this world). But he’s answerable for what he blogs. OK, he’s a Republican. Shrug. Another blog I don’t have to read.

    As for the issue of nullification itself, I’m not going to bother to argue it here, given the professional prejudices of the owner.

    Jeffrey Quick (22ec75)

  98. A question for Patterico and other prosecutors:

    What percentage of your office’s resources are spent prosecuting drug related offenses? Please include prosecution for offenses that are related to the violation of drug laws – for example – prosecuting a gang member for the murder of another gang member as a result of a drug distribution dispute, but where you didn’t prosecute said gangbanger for possession or distribution.

    Horatio (55069c)

  99. It was that he was on a “free markets, free minds” blog bragging about his role in crushing a free market.

    I would like to sell your children into the child sex slave. Would that be ok with you?

    no? But what about free trade?

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  100. OK, he’s a Republican.

    I don’t think so, but it’s obvious he isn’t your flavor of Libertarian.

    And thank god for that, I say. If nuts like you and Billy Beck are the norm, I’m going to have to stop using that label for myself.

    It’s too shameful to be lumped in with you lot.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  101. Oh, and another thing: your oxymoronic heading shows how much you don’t get this…or else how much you’re out for the LP. Guys like Beck et al DON’T VOTE. And they certainly don’t participate in the attempt to “take over the whorehouse” (as Frank Chodorov memorably put it.)

    Jeffrey Quick (22ec75)

  102. Xrlq #95 and Scott #96,

    “Social contract” has a valid metaphorical meaning even if does not meet the literal definition of contract. Most of our societal interactions are by agreement — express, tacit or implied — and reasonable expectations of mutual performance. That’s why we have white stripes at crosswalks and not gates. My “trust fund babies” analogy is even stronger in the context of anarcho-libertarian arguments. We are, mostly, the beneficiaries of the blood and sweat of previous generations. If we want more than the “trust agreement” provides, we should earn it for ourselves instead of every beneficiary claiming a right for more than his allotted share or, like some, to liquidate the trust.

    nk (9ce1c0)

  103. I would like to sell ***your*** children into the child sex slave. Would that be ok with you?

    no? But what about free trade?

    Scott, I think you answered your own question. But even if you wanted to pimp your own children, there’s a certain issue of self-ownership here. And it’s that same principle that’s at the roots of libertarian disgust with Dale Franks. If it’s my body, I can feed it what I want to, be it Ho-Hos, vitamins or cannabis. And any attempt to restrict trade supply of those items is a restriction on my self-ownership. The “constitutional border control” red herring is just about a means to the ultimate end of MJ prohibition.

    Jeffrey Quick (22ec75)

  104. And any attempt to restrict trade supply of those items is a restriction on my self-ownership.

    You might be right, Jeffrey, if you had built the road that truck is bringing the marijuana in on; and if you had mined the ore and smelted the steel and built the guns of the police who will protect you if those marijuana smugglers decide to rob you instead of trade with you; and if you had built the emergency room you will go to and the medical school of the doctor who will treat you if the marijuana you smoked turns out to have been sprayed with Agent Orange, etc., etc., etc..

    nk (9ce1c0)

  105. Guys like Beck et al DON’T VOTE

    So they basicly don’t even wantto take the CHANCE of changing things.

    Apparently bitching and moaning is more fun that I had previously been led to believe.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  106. NK-
    I don’t see CVS trying to rob me, or any private entity putting paraquat on dope (which, BTW, I don’t use…which is why I also used 2 other things that some folks want to ban). If government ownership of roads etc. justifies banning a substance, then, because you were probably born in a government hospital and taken home via government roads, the government owns your butt, and the best you can hope for is to cut a better deal for yourself by seeking to be “put with the master.”

    Jeffrey Quick (22ec75)

  107. Scott –

    It’s not about changing things, it’s about withdrawing moral sanction. I’m not an Objectivist, but I do know that God said, “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not kill”, and I increasingly think the Amish have the right idea, because it’s impossible for any government to exist without violating those two commandments, on a daily ongoing basis.

    Jeffrey Quick (22ec75)

  108. If government ownership of roads etc. justifies banning a substance,

    Is that what I wrote? Or did I write that the other 99.9% of the population, who are not libertarians and who support this society with their talent, sweat and sometimes their blood, have no obligation to be the facilitators of your pot party (with or without hookers)?

    nk (9ce1c0)

  109. If it’s my body, I can feed it what I want to, be it Ho-Hos, vitamins or cannabis.

    Jeffrey unwittingly displays the heart of the issue: it’s about marijuana.

    I doubt very much that we’d have seen this level of rancor from the anarchists if Rhett had been smuggling disease-ridden rats or elephant tusks. But because he was smuggling pot, and the anarcho-libertarians think pot should be legal, it is a wrong on par with the Holocaust to prosecute someone smuggling pot.

    I have news for that wing: what Rhett did was wrong. Even if pot were legal, he was still smuggling.

    Steverino (e00589)

  110. NK-
    Who’s asking you to facilitate a pot party? All I expect is that you don’t block them. Social contractarians have this fantasy that the government = “the people” and that “the people” own the infrastructure. Very well, I am a person; I’m just asking to use my own infrastructure. What’s so unfair about that?

    Jeffrey Quick (22ec75)

  111. I’ve got a question that’s been bugging me since I served on a jury in OC. What is an honest juror to do when other jurors bring their agenda into the jury room? Can you ask to see a Bailiff in private to detail the misconduct you are seeing? Do you have to be the jury foreman to talk to the Bailiff?

    PCD (f14ddd)

  112. This thread is a pretty good example of why I no longer describe myself as being a libertarian but only has having conservative beliefs informed by libertarian principles… outside of left wing revolutionaries I’ve never met a meaner acting, more absolutist group that the people pushing the various flavors of Rothbardian / Randian anarcho libertarianism. Yep, they’re in favor of every individual right, except for the right of individuals to decide that individual rights might, in fact, have some terminus. Radical individualism of this sort has a lot more in common with a 5 year-old’s temper tantrum over toys-not-purchased than it does with Hayek or Mill or Friedman.

    Al Maviva (89d0b6)

  113. PCD #111,

    The bailiff or the court clerk should always be within call. Just tell him that you need to talk to the judge. And, no, any juror can do it, not just the foreman.

    nk (9ce1c0)

  114. nk,

    Is walking into the jury room and immediately announcing, “We can go home now because I’m voting not guilty and I’m not listening to anyone here or changing my vote!”, jury nullification or juror misconduct that a judge will sanction and remove said juror from the jury?

    PCD (f14ddd)

  115. Very well, I am a person; I’m just asking to use my own infrastructure.

    As honestly and as fairly, I can answer: Because an individual’s contribution is so miniscule in proportion to the contributions of past and present members of society that he cannot truly be said to have his “own infrastructure”. How much right to the infrastructure of General Motors does the owner of one share have? Can he order the production of only Corvettes to be sold at $10,000.00 each?

    nk (9ce1c0)

  116. A juror who completely refuses to deliberate can be removed. But the record has to be clear and the judge has to have courage.

    Patterico (0023bd)

  117. 116, Thanks for the answer, Patterico.

    I wish more jurors would stand up when people come in like this.

    My gripe is that we are there to hear the case and give BOTH sides a fair hearing. Don’t bring in your “Legalize Drugs” or “I ain’t putting no more Black Boys in Prison” crap into the jury room.

    PCD (f14ddd)

  118. It’s not about changing things, it’s about withdrawing moral sanction.

    Which makes for great conversation over your expensive scotch, but doesn’t actually do anything.

    So are you lazy, or have you merely accepted your own incompetence?

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  119. “Social contract” has a valid metaphorical meaning even if does not meet the literal definition of contract.

    It’s worthless as a metaphor because it doesn’t just fail to meet a hyper-literal definition of a contract, it bears no reasonable relationship to contracts whatsoever. If anyone actually tried to contractualize the so-called “social contract” (here’s a pretty good example) it would easily be struck down as unconscionable. Laws, particularly of the criminal variety, are not supposed to be contractual in any way, shape or form. Even contract laws, to the extent that they limit the power of contract rather than merely supplying default rules, are not contractual in nature, nor are they supposed to be. It’s past time to retire this lame analogy, along with everything else Rousseau wrote about the joys of big government, or anything else.

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  120. As honestly and as fairly, I can answer: Because an individual’s contribution is so miniscule in proportion to the contributions of past and present members of society that he cannot truly be said to have his “own infrastructure”.

    Then nobody owns it. If so, who are the people calling the shots?

    I think you’re confusing this with the necessary restrictions of collective ownership. If it were “my” road, I could litter it, I could close it down, I could make the speed limit 200 mph. Other owners would object. The problem in practice is that some owners own the thing more than others. The problem with representative democracy in deciding ownership rights, because the information transmitted by vote is garbled. I doubt seriously whether 50% + 1 of the American electorate actually cares whether their fellow citizens smoke dope. But we’ve got an infrastructure of law, and a few people who care about dope, and most people don’t care enough to change the law. And even when they do, their vote for a pro-legalization candidate might be blocked by other considerations (consider otherwise pro-freedom voters’ objections to Ron Paul based on the war issue.). If we’re going to stipulate that majorities have the right to run others’ lives in matters that do not directly concern them (and that is what you’re arguing here), why don’t we go to direct computer-assisted democracy and make the matter more efficient?

    Jeffrey Quick (22ec75)

  121. DRJ said, some while upthread:
    To me, the only just and moral use of jury nullification is when the legal proceeding is void on its face, e.g., when the prosecution is clearly corrupt, contrived, or a sham

    That’s the heart of the matter. All drug prosecutions are corrupt and contrived, even if prosecutors and police and all others involved think themselves idealistic, honest, etc. Because drugs, unlike tainted food or toys, don’t present a harm to the user (or more precisely, don’t present any harms the user would not know about beforehand). Which is why preventing the import of tainted food or lead encrusted toys is morally a completely different matter from preventing the import of marijuana, and enforcement of the drug laws is enforcing a power no government should legitimately have.

    Patterico–your original post made no reference to the comments that argued Franks should have avoided serving on the jury; you made it sound like ALL libertarians wanted him to engage in jury nullification. You only admitted the latter when challenged in the comments. That’s how you engaged in misrepresentation.

    kishnevi (7d84fb)

  122. Patterico–your original post made no reference to the comments that argued Franks should have avoided serving on the jury; you made it sound like ALL libertarians wanted him to engage in jury nullification. You only admitted the latter when challenged in the comments. That’s how you engaged in misrepresentation.

    Patterico’s post title:

    Dale Franks’s Brush with the Anarchist Wing of the Libertarian Party

    Now what were you saying about Patterico commenting on ALL libertarians?

    Maydayog (ce4e17)

  123. “I doubt seriously whether 50% + 1 of the American electorate actually cares whether their fellow citizens smoke dope.”

    J.Q. – Aren’t there some public opinion surveys which might quell your doubts?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  124. Kishnevi – “Because drugs, unlike tainted food or toys, don’t present a harm to the user (or more precisely, don’t present any harms the user would not know about beforehand).”

    That junk, plus the myth that they are only harming themselves is what makes me laugh about these positions. Some of the fucked up bong monkeys I have seen in my day I wouldn’t want out in public, operating a car or other heavy equipment, regardless of what you say.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  125. Like I said, it’s all about drugs. The libertarians here wouldn’t get their panties in a twist about smuggled elephant tusks. But just try to prosecute someone for smuggling pot, and they unleash their fury upon you.

    I’m a registered Libertarian, and it’s hard to take these yahoos seriously.

    Steverino (e00589)

  126. The US has a long tradition of people getting together and forming their own communities based on what ever rules they can mutually agree on.

    A few of the religiously based ones have survived for a long time. A lot of the others dissolve in less than a generation.

    So, if the libertarians find society so morally objectionable, then why haven’t they gone off and formed their own communities?

    LarryD (feb78b)

  127. All drug prosecutions are corrupt and contrived

    It’s like we’re talking to a wall, only the wall is also mildly retarded…

    If you dislike the law of the land, work to change the law, or leave the land.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  128. So, if the libertarians find society so morally objectionable, then why haven’t they gone off and formed their own communities?

    Because, Larry, that would be work.

    It is far easier to simply take the benifits they gain from our society, and sit around and bitch about it while smokin’ a phat one.

    Hell, the Beckites don’t even VOTE they are so damned lazy. What makes you think they would rist having to fend for themselves in Libertopia?

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  129. Kishnevi:

    “Because drugs, unlike tainted food or toys, don’t present a harm to the user (or more precisely, don’t present any harms the user would not know about beforehand).”

    My college roommate’s 18-year-old son overdosed last Fall from drugs given to him by a friend. Now one is dead and the other faces charges in connection with his death.

    I agree they both should have known better but there are hundreds (and maybe thousands) of cases like this. These cases make it hard for me to agree that drugs are harmless when it comes to minors.

    DRJ (517d26)

  130. kishnevi – The idea that drugs only harm the user is beyond laughable.

    DRJ – Sorry for your loss.

    daleyrocks – Spot on.

    JD (fc7319)

  131. . Some of the fucked up bong monkeys I have seen in my day I wouldn’t want out in public, operating a car or other heavy equipment, regardless of what you say.

    And supposed they were screwed up from alcohol (I’ve known a couple)? Would they be okay in public then?

    IOW, alcohol is as dangerous, or more dangerous, than many of the drugs that are prohibited. So why isn’t it prohibited? Why don’t we go back to the days of Prohibition?

    If drugs harm other people than the user–for cases of direct harm, we have laws in place for alcohol and other drugs (DUI, etc.). If you mean “destroy families” etc when you say drugs harm other people–yes, they do. But again, so does alcohol–and possibly more people are harmed that way by alcohol than other drugs. So why is alcohol okay and marijuana not?

    And please note what I said in my comment:
    Because drugs, unlike tainted food or toys, don’t present a harm to the user (or more precisely, don’t present any harms the user would not know about beforehand)
    I put that “more precisely” in there for a reason.
    Someone who takes drugs knows–or at least can be presumed to know–about the dangers of overdose, addiction, etc. That’s why they are different from tainted food or leaded toys. The young man mentioned by DRJ knew he was playing with fire.
    [Which doesn’t keep me from offering, like JD, my condolences.]

    And, btw, if it were elephant tusks, I would be just as knicker-knotted.

    kishnevi (fe3da4)

  132. Yes, people operating cars and equipment is dangerous, and it is against the law to do so. Point? While alcohol can be devastating in and of itself, you rarely find the level of dehumanization with alcohol alone that you find with severe and habitual drug use. But this argument is really just a diversion. Drugs are illegal. If you want to make them legal, there are mechanism in place for you to do so. In fact, they are the same mechanisms used to make it illegal.

    JD (fc7319)

  133. DRJ:

    I agree they both should have known better but there are hundreds (and maybe thousands) of cases like this. These cases make it hard for me to agree that drugs are harmless when it comes to minors.

    I don’t know that anyone is arguing that drugs are harmless for adults, let alone minors. That said, I think it’s a safe bet that a fair chunk of the deaths caused by overdoses are attributable in large part to prohibition. Anyone who read the label on a bottle knows exactly how much of Drug X he is taking. Not so for illegal drugs purchased on the street, which vary widely by concentration, and are frequently adulterated, to boot.

    Granted, the fact (or possibility) that the government helped cause the drug problem doesn’t make illicit drug dealers any less complicit in the matter. It may, in Rhett’s case, as the only drug he was caught with was marijuana, which accounts for how many annual O.D. deaths, exactly?

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  134. Kishnevi,

    No need to offer condolences although I appreciate it. (You, too, JD.) My point was I think there should be drug laws, if only to protect minors. If an 18-year-old should know better, and I think we can agree he should, at what point is that not so clear? 15? 10? 5?

    Your argument relies heavily on the theory that people who use drugs should know better. As a matter of law, minors are not held to the same standards as adults and thus they aren’t presumed to know the legal and practical ramifications of most illegal behavior. I don’t particularly want to live in a world where 5-year-olds are held to the same standards as adults, nor do I want laws that make it easy for 5-year-olds to get drugs. Most voters agree with me and that part of why we have laws that make drugs illegal.

    People don’t have to agree with these laws but I’m sure most people realize they have to abide by them. Similarly, people have to accept the consequences of those laws, i.e., that there will be drug prosecutions. It’s a disconnect to accept drug laws but not drug prosecutions – and while I don’t think you’ve ever taken that position, others have by suggesting it is appropriate to use jury nullification in drug trials.

    DRJ (517d26)

  135. XRLQ,

    Then how do you explain drug overdoses from paint thinners and other legal products?

    DRJ (517d26)

  136. IOW, alcohol is as dangerous, or more dangerous, than many of the drugs that are prohibited. So why isn’t it prohibited? Why don’t we go back to the days of Prohibition?

    Simple. The majority of the people, despite its negative aspects, decided it was worth having available. This is not the case as yet with most other drugs.

    Taltos (4dc0e8)

  137. DRJ–
    We do have laws limiting the supply of alcohol to under 21 year olds. We don’t ban alcohol for everyone just because teenagers can’t drink safely.
    Why should other drugs be different?

    JD–I’ve seen people utterly dehumanized by alcohol; I don’t think it’s any better than any other drug.
    So I ask you just about the same question: why should other drugs be treated differently from alcohol when alcohol can produce the same bad effects as any other drug?

    kishnevi (fe3da4)

  138. Taltos–
    you’re saying we base legality on popularity and/or political influence of the distillery lobby?
    That’s not exactly the principled difference we should be looking for.

    kishnevi (fe3da4)

  139. Quoth JD:If you want to make them legal, there are mechanism in place for you to do so. In fact, they are the same mechanisms used to make it illegal.

    Exactly. I’m trying to convince other people that these (and many other laws) are bad laws. Convince enough of them, and the laws will be changed. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to be done?

    But at the same time, I don’t think that I am obligated to actively assist in prosecuting people who violate the drug laws, unless they are involved in other criminal activities.

    kishnevi (d50358)

  140. Kishnevi,

    You are obligated — as a citizen.

    EDIT: I’ll expand on this to make it more clear. You are obligated to recognize laws that are valid on their face because you are a citizen. Remember Socrates? He accepted a legally-imposed death sentence at the hands of his fellow citizens, even though he could have escaped it and even though there was an argument he was unfairly tried/convicted. I’m not arguing that citizens have a duty to die for their country but they have a duty not to be anarchists who recognize only those laws they like.

    FWIW I think it would be a bad decision to legalize drugs but I’m not terribly opposed if some drugs – like marijuana – are legalized for adults. But your comment 29 and (as far as I can tell) your subsequent comments suggest that you think recreational drugs should be legalized. Since you didn’t limit that to adults, I pointed out what I think are the drawbacks of laws like that insofar as they would also presumably legalize use by minors.

    DRJ (517d26)

  141. you’re saying we base legality on popularity and/or political influence of the distillery lobby?

    You asked what the discrepency was, I told you what it was. The temperance movement caught on bigtime and 18th amendment was ratified. Afterward people thought “Gee, this really sucks.” and it was repealed. Not very hard to understand.

    The law has always been and likely always will be based to a certain extent on the relative popularity or lack thereof for a given act. Afterall, laws are drafted and passed by people, they don’t just spawn from the void.

    Taltos (4dc0e8)

  142. I don’t think that I am obligated to actively assist in prosecuting people who violate the drug laws, unless they are involved in other criminal activities.

    Are there any laws with which you personally disagree but which you would consent to cooperate with as a juror? I can’t tell if you’re saying that every citizen has an obligation to not cooperate with the legal system for any law they disagree with, or if it’s just certain especially eqregious laws that you think require this.

    kenB (88b394)

  143. So, if the libertarians find society so morally objectionable, then why haven’t they gone off and formed their own communities?
    Not only would it be too much like work; but, from my (self) limited experience with the L’s, they would have a very hard time getting along with each other enough to organize anything beyond a cluster …. (and that might be a stretch).

    Another Drew (758608)

  144. I’ve always been troubled by the jury selection process. It seems like a system designed to create jury pools of maleable jurors. I guess the question I have for practitioners is whether or not nullification is a valid option for a juror, and if so, isn’t that option being taken away by judges and prosecutors who dismiss jurors who might be tempted to judge the law?

    What is the purpose of having a jury of laymen if not to inject a layman’s sensibilities into the application of state power?

    Eric (09e4ab)

  145. Eric, if you continue to display such common sense, the State will have no choice but to commit you for psychiatric evaluation.

    …Move along now, nothing here to see…

    Another Drew (a28ef4)

  146. DRJ–Ultimately, I think that drug and alcohol use for minors should be decided by the parents according to their judgment of their child’s level of maturity, etc. But I would have no problems with a law that made selling or giving a drug to a minor by anyone other than the parents a crime. And since I live in the real world, I would accept a ban on drugs for minors (but not for adults) as reasonable, just as I accept the ban on alcohol for minors that now is universally law.
    My earlier comments didn’t make the distinction between minor and adult for the simple reason that I wasn’t thinking about that aspect at the time–only after you mentioned it in comment 128.

    Ken B: To answer your question, I would need to differentiate between laws I disagree with because I think the legislating authority exceeded its proper jurisdiction, and laws I disagree with because I think the results are bad, but which I view as being within the proper jurisdiction of the legislating authority.

    I think drug prohibition is wrong, and I think the death penalty is also wrong. I think that banning use of recreational drugs (absent something which results in harm to other people, such as driving while under the influence) falls under the first category, so I would not cooperate in their enforcement. Such laws are null and void, in the moral sense at least. Capital punishment falls into the second category: I think it doesn’t really work, and would prefer solitary imprisonmnet for life without possibility of parole as a better alternative. But enacting capital punishment as the penalty for certain crimes is something appropriate to the authority of the legislature, and I would serve on a jury in such a case–though I probably would vote for life imprisonment, and I would feel obligated to make my disagreement with capital punishment known at the initial voir dire.

    As to what is proper for the legislating authority–I take the classic libertarian definition of limiting it to force or fraud. That renders a lot of laws improper in my opinion, but not as many as you may think. A person who imports or produces or sells tainted food is committing fraud or negligence, and would therefore be properly criminally sanctioned.

    kishnevi (fe3da4)

  147. Eric #144,

    You may be interested in reading these Patterico posts that address jury nullification … especially this one.

    DRJ (517d26)

  148. Eric, the jury’s job is to decide the facts of a case, not the law of the case.

    By presuming otherwise, the jury is substituting the rule of a minority of 12 for the rule of the democratic political process.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  149. kishnevi – You are not convincing anyone. You are not even doing a good job making your case, unless your case boils down to … “but, but, but … what about alcohol?!”

    What gives you the right to think that because you do not agree with a law, you are not obligated to uphold it? How arrogant. Since you opted for hyperbole, what if a murder decides that he does not agree with the murder laws, or a juror finds that life without parole is cruel and unusual?

    The whole me, me, me way of thinking is insidious, and destructive. You have chosen to live is a society governed by man, and by their laws. You reap incredible benefits from doing so, more benefits than any other place on this planet at any point in history. In exchange, you live under the rule of law.

    Alcohol and drugs are not the same. Period. Despite your attempts to compare and conflate, they are not. They are not the same under the law, and have never been treated as such. This line of argument is merely a diversion from you actually having to defend people being allowed to snort herion of of the craft table in grade school.

    JD (fc7319)

  150. kishnevi – The whole jury nullification process also reeks of incredible selfishness as it results in depriving others who may not share your beliefs the benefits of a fair trial under our justice system and/or imposing your beliefs unwillingly on 11 other jurors. The tyranny of the minority!

    daleyrocks (906622)

  151. JD, you took the point I wanted….thank you because you make it better than I may…but I’ll try anyway…

    kishnevi, a child molester has taken your 11 year old child’s heart, and in winning over your child’s affections, takes advantage of her, has multiple sexual encounters with her, none of which you know about, until one day a year later, when the truth is discovered…

    Evidence is gathered, proof made positive, the molester is arrested, placed on trial…

    I’m on the jury, and I’m a member of NAMBA, and my membership is not in my name. I am not asked if I am a member, but I am asked in voir dire if I have any problem with applying the laws involving child molestation, and my reply is no, I have no problem with applying the laws. My belief, however, is that I don’t have to apply the laws if the child consented. In the trial, the child testifies that, at first, they believed that the molester loved them, but they weren’t sure if they should be doing what they were doing.

    That is my opening; the child didn’t say no, so the child consented. That is my moral belief. I become the holdout, and my argument is that the child knew what they were doing, but believing they were “in love.” I’m not even nullifying the law, but applying my moral belief, which as a citizen, I don’t have the right to do.

    This is the problem with saying you have a moral problem with a law. Many MANY of our laws have been vetted through the courts, and upheld as Constitutional, and, with that, as a citizen, you are bound by the law to apply the law as written, not as you morally think it should be.

    Hope that helps….

    reff (99666d)

  152. Hishnevi – I also agree with JD that you should try to make the case for legalizing drugs on a standalone basis, not with the red herring comparison to alcohol. If you could make it clear what drugs you are talking about – weed, coke, crack, heroin, crystal, ecstasy or other designer drugs it would be helpful. If you are talking about the thriving illegal trade in prescription medications such as vicodin, oxy, xanax, codeine, fentanyl, clonopin or others, that would also be useful.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  153. reff – I cannot imagine that I could ever say anything better than the other commenters around here, but thanks. I have been trying that whole not cussing/civility thing that Patterico and DRJ mentioned last week.

    vicodin, oxy, xanax, codeine, fentanyl, clonopin, X, shrooms, acid, uppers, downers, coke, crack, meth, heroin, alcohol. All the same thing, daleyrocks. If one is legal, why not all?

    JD (fc7319)

  154. JD – People already voted on alcohol as has been pointed out. The dopers have to make their own case for their drugs of choice. Where are those public opinion polls I asked about?

    Raise your hands if you want to legalize crystal meth!

    No majority on that one? How about heroin?

    I wonder where a majority can be achieved?

    crapweasels.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  155. 1) Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol is a drug. I am a sobered alcoholic. My father is a sobered coke addict. My grandfather was an non-sober alcoholic to the day of his death. I know a little about these things. So let me say it again: alcohol is a drug. The fact that people have voted to allow its legal consumption does not mean it is not a drug. It merely means the difference between alcohol and other drugs is an arbitrary one. If drugs should be prohibited, alcohol should be prohibited right along with them. If alcohol is not prohibited, then those other drugs should not be prohibited. Referring to alcohol is not a red herring: it is a demonstration of the fact that drug prohibition laws are ultimately simply arbitrary prohibitions of non violent acts.

    2) Child molesters and murderers hurt people. They have victims. That makes them completely different from drug users.

    kishnevi (d50358)

  156. I am a sobered alcoholic. My father is a sobered coke addict. My grandfather was an non-sober alcoholic to the day of his death.

    The alcohol did not make you alcoholics. What made you alcoholics were the demons that drove you to its solace. If not for alcohol you would have looked for something else to help you tolerate your lives. I’m glad you found a new solace but in a way you should be grateful for the solace it did provide you when you were drinking.

    I’m sorry, but alcohol is mostly not abused. Most people who drink do not become drunks. Cannabis, alkaloids and opiates, of wonderful medicinal value to relieve extreme physical pain, are by definition abused when used recreationally.

    nk (9ce1c0)

  157. I’m anything but libertarian, nk, but that’s an extremely fine line to toe.

    Leviticus (9f07da)

  158. Kishnevi – Do you know very many recreational crack users?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  159. On the other hand…

    kishnevi – it seems a tad disingenuous to say that because drug use has no *direct* victims, drug use should be legalized. There are way too many outside factors to consider for that comparison to be made.

    Leviticus (9f07da)

  160. Kishnevi – The alcoholics I know do not advocate banning alcohol, because not everyone who drinks becomes an alcoholic. There is a pretty a substantial body of evidence to that effect.

    Is there a good body of evidence surrounding the long-term use of drugs? Are there opinion polls supporting legalization? Can you defend legalization on a stand alone basis without reference to alcohol?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  161. Alcohol is first and foremost a food. Seven calories per gram. Just behind fats at nine calories per gram. It has been used for thousands of years to concentrate calories and make them more portable. It’s also a central nervous system depressant — dangerously above a certain level. Most people stay below that level.

    nk (9ce1c0)

  162. #156 nk Cannabis, alkaloids and opiates, of wonderful medicinal value to relieve extreme physical pain, are by definition abused when used recreationally.

    Maybe. I have known people who managed to use those without abuse. Not many, I’ll grant you (and I’ve known some who used the latter two and abused them once the medical necessity had passed.) Tobacco is at least as likely to be abused.

    I’d rather than the druggies had good products and price competition; drug abuse carries its own, built-in life sentence.

    htom (412a17)

  163. kishnevi – I you are in recovery, and think that dabbling around with a little meth or just a bit of crank now and then is a good idea, then I fear for your recovery.

    I am several years clean and sober now, and cannot find a semblence of logic in your position, other than, you want drugs to be legal.

    JD (fc7319)

  164. Kishnevi, arguing definitions is no argument at all. Aspirin is a drug, too, but it doesn’t follow that if we ban crack, we must ban aspirin, too. Alcohol is used responsibly far more than it is abused, and when used in moderation, will increase your life expectancy. What “moderate” amount of crystal meth can accomplish the same?

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  165. kishnevi, I noticed you didn’t even come close to defending YOUR OWN ARGUMENT in responding to my post about child molestation.

    It was an exact parallel of your argument.

    Why???

    reff (99666d)

  166. Just to make it clear, I don’t use any drugs. I think I smoked marijuana perhaps seven times, all of them back when I was in college. The only drug I ever used was alcohol. I’m arguing on the principle, not because I would benefit if the drug laws were changed.

    In terms of use and abuse, and danger to people, there is no real difference between alcohol and other drugs, except perhaps that some have more intense effects and make their damage to people’s lives apparent more quickly. Some drugs can have beneficial effects, if used in a limited manner. But that doesn’t meant they aren’t drugs. If you pick up a beer or a martini or a shot of bourbon and think you’re not holding an addictive drug in your hand, then you are a fool.

    And since alcohol is a drug like marijuana and others, it should be treated the same as them–if it is legal for adults, then the other drugs should be legal for adults as well; if they are not illegal, then alcohol should be illegal too. Whether a particular substance is beneficial is a decision to be made, for good or for ill, by the person who is considering its use, not the legislature.

    Child molestation–I answered that one. Child molestation has a victim; drug use does not. It’s a fundamental distinction that explains why child molestation should be a crime and drug use should not be a crime. If you can’t see why that distinction is important, then you need to go back to square one.

    DRJ said You are obligated to recognize laws that are valid on their face

    And what does that last phrase mean to you? A law that is valid is one that adheres to the proper funciton of government, which is to protect people from force and fraud. Drug prohibitions do not do so. Therefore they are not valid on their face.

    kishnevi (f5c5cc)

  167. In terms of use and abuse, and danger to people, there is no real difference between alcohol and other drugs, except perhaps that some have more intense effects and make their damage to people’s lives apparent more quickly.

    Horseshit. Aspirin is a drug, and so is LSD, but it doesn’t follow that there’s no meaningful distinction between them, aside from the fact that’s easier to OD on aspirin.

    Some drugs can have beneficial effects, if used in a limited manner.

    That alone is proof that the sentence preceding it is horseshit. Some drugs can have beneficial effects in moderation, while others can’t. That alone is more than a “real” difference, it’s a huge one.

    Xrlq (b65a72)

  168. One of the “first” rules of chemistry/pharmacology:
    The poison is in the dosage.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  169. In terms of use and abuse, and danger to people, there is no real difference between alcohol and other drugs, except perhaps that some have more intense effects and make their damage to people’s lives apparent more quickly

    So, there is no difference, except for thoe gigantic differences over there, that you should just ignore?

    Child molestation has a victim; drug use does not

    Please refer us to the examples of well rounded crack addicts roaming the halls of corporate American these days. Maybe the local father of the year that moonlights at honking up meth. The victims of drugs, and alcohol, are not only limited to the individual. The effects are real, and lasting, on family, friends, and co-workers.

    You do not get to define the validity of the laws, kishnevi. You live in, and secure the benefits of, our system. You can choose to obey the laws, or not. But simply saying I do not think they are valid and therefore they are invalid is juvenile and childish. My 6 year-old comes up with better arguments than that.

    JD (fc7319)

  170. kishnevi, NO, you did not answer the question about my post on child molestation, because the parallel is not about victims, but about morally deciding to refuse to accept the law as it is written. Your argument is that if you believe a law is morally wrong, you don’t have to follow it, or act on it properly in a court of law. I gave you the exact same situation, only this time, it is child molestation, not drug use.

    Defend the argument, not the law. It is your argument, the morality of the law, not mine.

    reff (99666d)

  171. Frey: “To everyone who claims Franks is a hypocrite, I have one question: do you pay your taxes?”

    Absolutely not. Not ever, since 1977.

    Fuck you, right out loud.

    Billy Beck (8eba48)

  172. *makes a note to call the IRS first thing monday morning*

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  173. I prefer to have bloated federal agencies do my out-loud fucking. :)

    Enjoy the audit…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  174. “I don’t allow people to say/suggest/imply that I am a bad prosecutor because of things I blog.”

    Then you are just a goddamned coward.

    Billy Beck (8eba48)

  175. Jacobs: do your worst, punk. I’ve looked real agent-men right in the eye and told them exactly the same thing. You and your little rat-dime won’t count.

    Billy Beck (8eba48)

  176. Awwwwwwwww.

    Thank yewwwwwwwwwwwwww.

    Mean so much coming from a whack-job like you.

    Speaking of you looking like an ass: that picture on your blog… Were you intending to look like some sort of strung-out heroin addict?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  177. “Do you think it’s possible for a good man/woman of conscience to support any laws criminalizing drugs? I know you disagree with them; that’s not the question. Is it possible for someone who is a good person — someone whose heart is in the right place, and who is intelligent — to simply disagree with you?”

    Get off it, Frey. This is not about “disagree[ment]”. Don’t try to come off like this is a dispute over Fords and Chevies or Yankees and Red Sox. Anyone can “disagree” over drug use, but it goes far, far beyond that when people end up in prison over it. At that point, it’s a lot late and one hell of a lot of hypocritical bullshit for you to be moaning over “disagree[ment]”: you weren’t concerned about it when dissidents “disagree[d]”.

    That threadbare “disagree” gag is utter nonsense, a first-class scarlet herring, and manifest evidence of your general incompetence. This is excellent reason to slag your competence in your work. You think like a moron.

    Billy Beck (8eba48)

  178. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

    Come on. At least try for some civility, huh?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  179. “nk” — “‘Social contract’ has a valid metaphorical meaning even if does not meet the literal definition of contract.”

    Bullshit. There is a reason why people like you never explicate this “metaphor” of yours: it’s because you know it’s bullshit.

    That “metaphor” is simply mens rea.

    Billy Beck (8eba48)

  180. Scott–Believe it or not, Mr.Beck is being civil.

    To those who in his opinion are deserving of civility.

    kishnevi (15c9f9)

  181. which would be no one, apparently.

    I keep forgetting that he’s “one of those”, and doesn’t feel like speaking to others who even slightly disagree with him in anything remotely reseombling decency and civility.

    I keep assuming he’s not a massive asshole. My bad.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  182. “…which would be no one, apparently.”

    That’s what you think, and you’re dead wrong. I’ll tell you what, though: bitch: put one of your photographs online and I promise that I won’t sit around and beat your ass with grade-school impertinences about it.

    Get it?

    Drop dead puking.

    Billy Beck (8eba48)

  183. Billy, your cheap little internet threats are just juvenile.

    Spare us.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  184. Mr. Beck:

    Enjoy yourself in the spam filter until Patterico has a chance to read your comments on this thread.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  185. I dunno. He’s kinda cute when he gets all pissy…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  186. Awwwwww… You always ruin the fun, DRJ… :)

    You really ARE a mother. 😉

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  187. I dunno. I find little Billy’s comments sort of amusing.

    You high right now, Billy-boy?

    Patterico (af09c3)

  188. I doubt it. As if he’d be willing to go to jail for his convictions…

    I suspect a generous helping of Wild Turkey… :)

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  189. Billy Beck criticized the way Patterico does his day job and that’s why I banned him. That is the one thing Patterico won’t tolerate at his blog. This ban is temporary until Patterico has a chance to decide for himself.

    Patterico – If you want to let him back on, that’s your call. If so, I apologize to Mr. Beck.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  190. Technically, he just called him a coward for not letting OTHERS criticize him…

    Granted, not MUCH of a difference, but still…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  191. Oops. I stand corrected.

    Though really, how much traction do comments by a blithering moron like Billy-bob have?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  192. No, you did the right thing, DRJ, and you won’t be apologizing to Mr. Beck.

    That doesn’t mean that I won’t be approving any more spittle-flecked comments from little Billy, if it amuses me to do so.

    Scott, I think he’s serious about the taxes thing.

    Patterico (322d16)

  193. Scott Jacobs @ #188:

    I doubt it. As if he’d be willing to go to jail for his convictions…

    I suspect you were a lot closer to the mark at #176 than you know.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  194. I know. Why do you think I’ve added the IRS to my cellphone’s contact list?

    I so call dibs on reporting him. MINE, I say!!!

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  195. kishnevi,

    Everybody in the whole world is, by definition, civil to the people they believe are deserving of it.

    You sound like the guy who defines lying as lying to people who don’t deserve who be told the truth. Under thi definition there is no such thing as lying, really, since liars always feel justified in their lies.

    Beck is just another idiot with an anger management problem. This makes him special?

    Patterico (95a87c)

  196. I think Kish was just trying to explain the inexplicable: the workings of Billy’s mind.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  197. Billy Beck’s comments

    Wow. What brought that on? It’s almost two months since anyone commented on this thread…until today.

    Paul (249390)

  198. No one’s talked to or about him in months. He was feeling lonely, so he kicked the bee hive…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  199. Ok, the spam filter keeps eating my comments. I think I used a “sensitive” word.

    nk (8a8387)

  200. Try again, NK, because I couldn’t find anything in the spam filter.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  201. Here goes:

    “Jackie is just speeding away
    Thought she was james dean for a day

    Then I guess she had to crash
    Valium would have helped that dash”

    From Lou Reed. The application to Billy is self-evident.

    nk (8a8387)

  202. Having just reread some of Billy’s posts in the threads over at QandO relating to this, I have to say…

    I really would be tempted to slug that pompus ass in the face. I wouldn’t, since I dislike jail, but GOD I would want to.

    Which is ironic, since the very thing he hates so much – Government and laws – would be the only thing stopping me, though stop me they would.

    However, I would certainly point and laugh. Alot.

    You think he jingles change in the pocket of his khaki cargo pants when hitting on 22-year olds at the bar?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  203. 1) FYI: Mr. Beck can argue intelligently, at length and persuasively, when he chooses. Unfortunately, he has no patience with people whom he perceives as supporting an anti-freedom stance. And that is how he perceives most of the people here. So do I, for that matter. But I respect the limit that Patterico has set for his blog. Also unfortunately, he never seems to have mastered the art of telling people they’re full of s–t politely–or else he feels it’s an unnecessary art.
    2) From what I know of him, those comments were made stone cold sober. Also, from what I now of him, he arranges his affairs so that he does not need to pay taxes. I don’t know the details of how he does that, but I do know he earns his living in a rather demanding profession, and I suspect he’s made sure the arrangments, whatever they are, that keeps his income untaxed are such as allow him to legally tell the IRS to run off and play somewhere else.
    4) NK–your comment has an application to his history:
    http://www.two–four.net/comments.php?id=3146_0_1_0_C
    From whence you can also see how he operated when he wants to write intelligently and persuasively.

    kishnevi (225b9d)

  204. I just read some comments over there. That is some serious-grade crazy. In dire need of medication and inpatient therapy crazy. Involuntary therapy and forced medication crazy. I’ve dealt with paranoid schizophrenics that were less delusional. I’m not going over to the other links… bad for my health.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  205. See Scott, you’ve disproved Paul’s thesis in the other thread too.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  206. Kishnevi, and I have no patience with people who think that freedom means that they can be a bully and a thug.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  207. SPQR, what thesis would that be?

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  208. Scott, when he said in the “nullification and drug war” thread:

    I submit that only rarely does criminal law restrain behavior.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  209. Ahhhhh.

    Yeah. Having spend a mere 48 hours in a county lock-up, I can tell you that it most certainly would. Billy isn’t worth prison time.

    Though I suppose it would be easy enough to get him to swing first. Just suggest loudly and repeatedly that US anti-drug laws aren’t harsh enough. He’s be frothing at the mouth in no time.

    Rather like Pavlov’s dogs, only far less useful…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  210. kishnevi,

    There’s a difference between a perceived anti-freedom stance and an actual one, unless he truly is an anarchist. If he wants to convince others he is correct, then he should lay out the arguments for his position, not “Fuck you, right out loud.” as (perhaps he avoids them legally, it’s not relevant here) an argument not to pay taxes.

    Maybe all that works well for him, I don’t know. He certainly has enough anger and vitriol to suggest a bit of unhappiness with reality, being that the vast majority of us do pay taxes.

    Unfortunately, he’s not even the worst of the lot I saw there. He just happens to be the one that caught my attention over here. If he can only be articulate and persuasive with those who agree with him, I think we may be working from different definitions. If this is his default position with those who disagree, well… Fuck him, right out loud.

    Sorry for the profanity… it seems warranted here.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  211. I would point out that while he so loaths the Government, he has found a way to prosper within the framework set forth by it. Unless he sells drugs or other such proscribed items.

    But, it’s moot. I have his SSN from a thread. I’ll enjoy this phonecall to the IRS.

    And that’s a phrase I never thought I would use.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  212. kishnevi #203,

    I rode motorcycles too. A Sportster like him, but then a Ninja (Kawasaki GPz 900) and finally a more city-friendly Kawasaki Z-1. And I have dreams in my sleep, still, of riding. I don’t think that makes me a tough guy. Just a guy who liked motorcycles.

    nk (8a8387)

  213. Beck is a libertarian, right? He’s substantially more angry than the libertarians I know, and the ones I know are pretty angry. Maybe that’s just his blog persona but he has a lot of rage.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  214. No, he’s one of those lovely Anarcho-Libertarians. The kind who don’t attempt debate because we are unworthy of their guidence.

    And I said elsewhere, I am happy about that, since it means that as they die out, there will be fewer to listen to.

    They are just so damned rude…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  215. See Scott, you’ve disproved Paul’s thesis in the other thread too.

    SPQR, what thesis? I don’t recall writing any thesis in the “nullification and drug war” thread.

    I submit that only rarely does criminal law restrain behavior.

    Ah, that wasn’t me. There’s another Paul posting here. I’m the Paul who coined “Staunch Brayer.”

    Patterico, I may have to slightly alter my onscreen moniker so we can tell who’s who…

    Paul (249390)

  216. You coined “Staunch Brayer” ? That was hilarious.

    My apologies, I’ve not been able to keep my “Pauls” straight since Sunday school.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  217. Thanks, Scott. I need help getting up to speed on Mr. Beck. What does he mean by anarcho-libertarian?

    DRJ (a431ca)

  218. DRJ–Anarchocapitalism (the formal name, to keep it differentiated from the folks who riot at WTO meetings and so forth) is, pardon the expression, an intellectually anarchic idea.
    Libertarianism has been expressed as “the least government possible is the best government”. AnCaps take the logical extension of that as “no government is the best government”.
    They would, for instance, have a court and police system run by private companies making arrangement among themselves as to arrests, bond, appeal courts, who has jurisdiction, etc.–usually under the euphemism of insurance agencies. They argue that true free market competition among such entities will keep them honest and keep them from becoming monopolistic cartels–and if they try to become the latter, that competition will provide the solution. What happens when the cartels abort the competition, of course, they ignore. Apparently they feel that if it’s not a formal government, it’s not a government. They seem to ignore the fact that a network of private companies performing what we regard as the functions of government is effectively a government, even if the paperwork says differently.
    As you can probably tell, I’m not a fan of Anarcho capitalism. The other flavor of libertarianism is called minarchism, and sees government as legitimately doing the work of army, police, and courts–so long as individual liberty is respected–which it isn’t, nowadays, the War on Drugs being a sterling example of that.

    kishnevi (db1823)

  219. DRJ, he doesn’t call himself that. Sane people call him that.

    Billy considers himself a Libertarian (likely considers himself one of the Pure), but his assertation is that all govt is coercive, and should be done away with.

    What he fails to account for is that I would be inclined to shoot him in the face for the way he speaks to me, were he to do it to my face, and that the coercive government is pretty much all that stands between him and a 9mm lesson in manners.

    He posites that almost nothing that doesn’t directly, at that very moment, harm another should be illegal, including drunk driving.

    I call upon that Bullshit. I say that as someone with a DUI conviction to my name.

    The latter flavor of Libertianism that Kish lists is also (I suppose) called neo-libertarianism.

    The most sane among the neolibs while disagreeing with drug laws, also understand that they are at the moment laws, and if you break them, you should go to jail. That’s what has Billy so very, VERY pissed at Dale. Dale dared to hold Mr. Rhett accountable for an action he undertook of his own free will.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  220. He posites that almost nothing that doesn’t directly, at that very moment, harm another should be illegal, including drunk driving.

    I don’t know about Mr. Beck, but most of the AnCaps would replace a criminal system with, in effect, a private tort system. Rob somebody, they send their insurance company after you, and you end up paying them back, plus paying the insurance company’s expenses and fees for going after you. Drive drunk and when eventually you have an accident, you’ll pay for it. (How to apply this to a homicide situation, I’m not clear on. But as I said, I think the idea has a lot of holes in it that make it pie in the sky.)

    Neolibs is now a term referring to libertarians who adopt neocon formulations on foreign policy and the War on Terror, and adapted from the term neocon. I’ve never heard of neo libertarian in any other context.

    kishnevi (7a9e8b)

  221. Ah, but they also refuse to accept “rule by majority”, thus making it impossible to decide upon laws and regulations those private companies would enforce…

    So while they SAY the would want some sort of law and order, they also wish it done in a way that makes it impossible.

    There’s a reason they are called anarco-libs…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  222. Billy’s comments aren’t showing up in the spam filter. I guess he decided to take his ball and go home.

    More likely, the high has worn off.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  223. I’m available any time you need someone to shut down a good party.

    And thanks for the explanations, Kishnevi & Scott. I think I’ll avoid those neighborhoods.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  224. Most do, DRJ. Most do.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  225. “You high right now, Billy-boy?”

    No.

    Now what?

    Billy Beck (8eba48)

  226. Now you have no excuse for acting the part of the raging jack-ass.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  227. Now what?

    Right out loud.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  228. Right out loud.

    Good one.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  229. I lol’d

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  230. Also, from what I now of him, he arranges his affairs so that he does not need to pay taxes.

    So he leeches off the welfare state? I should have known.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  231. Heh… He certainly looks the part of a guy who hangs out next to the liquer store trying to raise funds for a bottle of Mad Dog…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  232. You know what, Frey?

    You ran the same attitude of presumption on Kathryn Johnston.

    Billy Beck (8eba48)

  233. Yeah, when you got nothing else, you and Balko can always be counted on to dredge up (and misrepresent) that one.

    Whatever, Billy boy.

    Billy Beck.

    Turn-ons: drugs, spewing anger like a Tourette’s sufferer.

    Turn-offs: paying taxes.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  234. *yawn*

    You seem to come back to that one regularly. I know you did it on QandO back then… Did you live next door to her or something? You appear VERY invested in that case.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  235. Billy Beck:

    Turn-ons: stockpiling firearms and canned goods.

    Turn-offs: women, society, and people who try to touch you.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  236. Billy Beck:

    Turn-ons: more drugs.

    Turn-offs: fucking bitches who try to fucking insult me.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  237. You ran the same attitude of presumption on Kathryn Johnston.

    So essentially, you got nothing. I see. Right out loud.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  238. Beck, are you any relation to the more talented guitarist known simply as “Beck”?

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  239. it would explain why Billy has no talent…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  240. Yeah, all the talent went to Beck.

    Who, let’s face it, has no talent.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  241. Well, this has been fun, but I need to get some sleep. And Billy is coming down from a high and is probably going to crash soon here.

    Patterico (4bda0b)

  242. Umm… stockpiling guns and canned goods is supposed to be a turn-on, right? Right? 😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  243. Only the guns. Real men hunt for their food when the apocolypse comes. :)

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  244. Real men hunt for their food when the apocolypse comes.

    I’ve never hunted ravioli… I hear they’re tricky in the wild.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  245. Nah. Just hunt your neighbor, who’s sure to have some… :)

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  246. My neighbors on each side have guns too. We’d likely band together before the mutant bikers established Barter Town. :)

    Goodnight all.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  247. Beck, are you any relation to the more talented guitarist known simply as “Beck”?

    Nah, that guy’s lyrics may make as little sense as Billy-boy’s ramblings, but his last name is Hansen, not Beck. Perhaps you were thinking of Xrlq Beck?

    Xrlq (b71926)

  248. Patterico, you are an apologist for murderers and entirely representative of the “law enforcement commuity.” As is Dale Franks, ex-cop.

    The rest of your jackal friends on this thread are beneath contempt.

    John Sabotta (9d23f0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7968 secs.