Law-Abiding Libertarian: An Oxymoron?
To some, apparently, it is. Moron of the Day award goes to Jeffrey Quick, who argues that jurors who vote to convict drug dealers are no different from Nazis who murdered Jews by the millions. Both followed orders, dontcha know.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Has your oldest started saying, “it’s not fair”, when you scold him, yet? That’s my view of libertarians/Randroids, lately.
January 20th, 2008 at 9:13 am
I think there’s a difference between a libertarian and an anarchist. Unfortunately for libertarians, many anarchists don’t know the difference.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:54 am
[...] two quotes. First, Jody in comments here: I think there
January 21st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
So there’s a difference in scale. But in principle, how’s it different? Did this defendant initiate force against anyone? He did not. Then by what right does the government lock him up for 10 years? And by what right did Franks collaborate in that act of aggression?
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? Jim Crow was constitutional in its time – the Supreme Court said so. Did that make it right?
Is there such a thing as a law-abiding libertarian? Sure, a libertarian is allowed to obey illegitimate laws, so long as they don’t require him to harm someone else. A libertarian is perfectly entitled to abstain from marijuana, just as he’s entitled to abstain from meat or sugar. But he recognises no obligation to do so. And he’s not entitled to collaborate in punishing someone for breaking such a law; if the law requires him to do so then he is morally obligated to defy that law. And it makes no difference whether the accused’s “crime” is smoking a joint or being an escaped slave, or whether the penalty is $50 or 50 years.
January 21st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“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?”
The fact that they brought into being the greatest nation in the history of the world risking everything in the process? What have you done that entitles you to complain that they’re not fulfilling your every whim you sniveling, petulant baby? Go find your mommy. Maybe she’ll agree to give you your lollipop.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
The solution is civil disobedience, Milhouse, not jury nullification. Those two options exemplify the difference between citizenship and anarchy.
January 21st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Jody: “Libertarian” covers a lot of ground, and some of the more fiery Rothbardian (or even Nozickian) types are basically indistinguishable from anarchists in practice. Fortunately, nobody has to be a Rothbardian if they don’t want to be.
Milhouse: Yes, what could the difference be between a jury trial with full due process and appeals, for an action voluntarily undertaken, and leading to jail time, and genocide (mass murder on the basis of ethnicity, to make things extra, perhaps even krystall clear)?
I cannot possibly imagine, apart from a slight difference in degree!
(Yes, jailing an individual is coercion, and yes it causes harm. Yes, it’s even comparable, at some level, to slavery, and you’re being consistent in condemning jailtime for drug dealers.
But what it isn’t comparable to, in any reasonable conception, is mass-murder, even if you don’t like either, and even if both are coercive and wrong.
Nobody else, you see, sees “coercive” as the most important thing about genocide.)
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 am
I guess that depends on what your principle is. The principle I took away from Nuremberg is that there is such a thing as a crime against humanity, an act so evil every decent citizen can be expected to refrain from it even if no law proscribes it, and indeed, even if “color of law” requires it. But if the principle you took away from Nuremberg was “obey the laws you like, screw the ones you don’t,” then I guess there is no difference between the two in principle, just a shitty principle.
Irrelevant. The jury’s job is to decide whether a law was violated, not whether it is “right.” That’s Congress’s job.
By that reasoning, there is no such thing as a law-abiding libertarian. If the phrase “law-abiding” were applied to everyone who obeys the laws he likes, and considers himself under no obligation to obey the ones he doesn’t, the phrase would have no meaning whatsoever.