So there’s a difference in scale. But in principle, how’s it different?

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.

You say the law he broke was constitutional? OK, so it was. How does that make it right?

Irrelevant. The jury’s job is to decide whether a law was violated, not whether it is “right.” That’s Congress’s job.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.