Hey, Progressives...

By -
are you a little bothered by Obama ordering hits on US citizens, and that, as Greenwald notes, "not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality"?

Comments

  1. Jim12:20 AM

    No. I'm a LOT bothered.

    ReplyDelete
  2. steve3:55 PM

    Yeah, but in an ancap land, a ceo of a private company would put hits out on civilians. So by your logic, its no biggie that Obama has that power.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah5:12 PM

    "So by your logic..."

    I don't understand your use of the word "logic" here. I never proposed any syllogism of the form, "If A does X, then it's OK if B does X."

    But, in any case, private organizations do that all the time, right now. Perhaps you've never heard of the Mafia, or drug cartels?

    ReplyDelete
  4. steve11:33 AM

    "But, in any case, private organizations do that all the time, right now. Perhaps you've never heard of the Mafia, or drug cartels?"

    Right! Your blog has the same answer to every libertarian critique of the state. Just post some abuse in the private sector as the justification for an abuse in the public sector.

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah11:44 AM

    Steve, your complaint might make a wee bit of sense if, in the post you are commenting on, I was "justifying" "an abuse in the public sector."

    But Steve, you might notice I was protesting an abuse in the public sector, not justifying one. So your post makes no sense whatsoever.

    Are you sure it's not you who has the same answer to every critique of libertarianism?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more