Da Judge on Civil Liberties

Fox News Channel's Judge Andrew Napolitano, the hardest-hitting civil libertarian on cable, laid into the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 a few days ago in the Baltimore Sun. A taste:

The Patriot Act and its progeny are the most abominable, unconstitutional congressional assaults on personal freedom since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 made it a crime to libel the government. With them, Congress and the president have attempted to legitimize the exchange of liberty for security. In effect, the government says, "Give us your freedoms, and we will protect you." Such a satanic bargain misunderstands the nature of freedom and historically never has worked….

Congress may not read our laws; but it should read our history.

Whole thing here. Napolitano's new book, Constitutional Chaos, is an excellent overview of the various ways government undermines the rule of law, whether the issue is the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, or the War on Terror.

As I mentioned the other day, he's the subject of an interview in the March issue of Reason--and one more reason to subscribe.

Comments

[Matanooska]

"Da Judge" was hosting John Gibson's show on Fox News yesterday..I've never seen him host before...but it was great to see him for an hour, and he did a fantastic job...I hope they give him something more regular! The guy's a sharp one and a real character.

[Brian]

He's one of the more interesting guys on the network. Maybe the interesting guy. Not a reliable BushBot though so he'll probably always be filling in.

[joe]

Unless you are an anarchist, you endorse surrenduring some freedom to the government in exchange for some security. Does anyone here think that Goeffrey Dahmer should have been free to refuse entrance to his home to the police who showed up with a warrant?

Bumper sticker declarations of absolutes aren't a very good way of understanding the world.

[plunge]

I have to say: while I respect a lot of his positions, his book is not particularly, how do I put this, deep. It's basically a tabloid argument: lots of bold headlines and shallow explanations of real-life cases, but so scattered and anecdotal as to give the sense that he's really reaching for examples, not to mention being very selective with the facts. This might be because he feels he's writing to reach a popular audience, but even so, I would expect better from a judge. He actually includes the Constitution of the US in his appendix for goodness sakes! In addition to being a little pompus (look what _I_, yes _I_ defend: the Constitution!) is he writing for people that don't have access to the internet or a library or who are too lazy to know anything about it? It's not a BAD book per se, just a sort of Legal Libertarianism for dummies. I'd read it in B&N, but it's not a buy.

And the Natural Law stuff is creepy. I still don't quite understand: the foudners indeed assumed that Natural Law came from a Creator as an afterthought, but they reasoned it from first principles: it's not clear what Creator adds to their reasoning, and it certainly takes a lot away (makes us forget the careful classical liberal reasoning, for one thing, and people see the rights as a simplistic appeal to authority!). So the constant emphasis on God this, God that looks more like a religious obsession at the expense of the Natural Law principle rather than in defense of it.

[Brian]

On the upside, he does have that Fox News hair.

I imagine his beef is that they want to bypass things like warrants and kick in your door for any or no reason. Part of the rule of law is that the govt has to go through pesky "due process" before it can lock you up or search you or take your property. They want to take away due process in exchange for promises of safety.

[Adam]

joe, is Brian an anarchist?

[joe]

No, Adam, Brian qualifies his comments with "...for no reason," and acknowledges that liberty can by rightfully taken away via "due process." He implicitly recongizes that a certain amount of liberty should be traded for a certain amount of security, and writes about drawing lines, here or there or over there.

[Gary Gunnels]

Let's keep in mind that joe would do away with individual liberties like property rights.

[Junyo]

Does anyone here think that Goeffrey Dahmer should have been free to refuse entrance to his home to the police who showed up with a warrant?

He implicitly recongizes that a certain amount of liberty should be traded for a certain amount of security, and writes about drawing lines, here or there or over there.

What's being recognized is that freedom isn't without consequence. Mr. Dahmer was free to refuse the agents of the state entry into his home until he forfeited those rights as a consequence of his a) decision to violate the rights of other citizens and b) to let evidence of those violations (like bleeding Laotian teenagers, and a handcuffed Tracy Edwards) become public.

[Dynamist]

As an anarchist, I dispute joe's implied premise that a surrender of individual freedom is necessary for individual security. I do not dispute that one may surrender freedom to the state in exchange for a promise of security, and that one will receive most often, the security sought.

An individual may choose to assume all security responsibilities himself, or to contract with non-state agents for some portion of security. The contract with non-state agents is not a surrender of freedom, if it is cancellable and renegotiable. Governments, acting for the state, do not offer the options of cancellation or refusal.

The "good reasons" Brian qualifies with are not necessarily assessed by a government agency. To assume that because it has been so that it must always be so is to assert a fallacy.

[Gary Gunnels]

Dynamist,

Nice fisking of joe's statement. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

Dynamist,

Remember, joe is an "urban planner," he knows what is best for you. 🙂

[gaius marius]

It's basically a tabloid argument

mr plunge -- hey -- the guy's a tv personality on fox news. whaddya want? 🙂

the Natural Law stuff is creepy

indeed. locke's idea of an actually-extant state of nature is pretty strange. the idea that people would forsake civility to go back to it is... sociopathic.

[Dynamist]

Gary: I didn't know what "fisking" meant, so I looked it up. Thanks contributing to my education. Also remember that according to some (you?), I'm a "slave-lovin' Confederate revisionist". 🙂

[thoreau]

Gary, I'm no fan of joe's job and ideology, but I find that he frequently makes interesting points, even though I don't always agree with those interesting points.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Let's keep in mind that joe would do away with individual liberties like property rights.

Only if it's for the good of the people!

[gaius marius]

I dispute joe's implied premise that a surrender of individual freedom is necessary for individual security.

this depends, mr dynamist, largely on what you mean by "freedom". by living in a state other than solitude, you've already compromised your freedom.

even outside of this extremist sense, by living (and having been raised, unlike romulus) in modern civilization, i doubt you or i can conceive of anything other than a reliance on society. we may sometimes pretend we can, but we have no experience of any kind to ground that fantasy.

i think you and i would find a life in anarchy very distasteful -- nasty, brutish and short.

The contract with non-state agents is not a surrender of freedom, if it is cancellable and renegotiable.

but here, mr dynamist, you make the assumption of contract law and law enforcement. without them, "protection" becomes the mafia racket of the same name.

what would be to limit several "protection" outfits from collecting from you weekly? a state of competition? i submit to you that, under such conditions, competition is often only episodic.

[joe]

"Let's keep in mind that joe would do away with individual liberties like property rights."

Er, no, I wouldn't. I believe in private ownership of property, expect the government to protect property rights, and believe they should only be violated in accordance with due process. I'd draw the line at a different place than you. Does your support of 2nd Amendment rights extend to the private ownership of nuclear warheads and anthrax spores? Or do wish to strip all Americans of their right to bear arms?

"joe creates a strawman..."

Let's see: from Da Judge's quote, "In effect, the government says, "Give us your freedoms, and we will protect you." Such a satanic bargain misunderstands the nature of freedom and historically never has worked...." To sum up, you should never sacrifice any degree of freedom for any level of security.

My comment, "Unless you are an anarchist, you endorse surrenduring some freedom to the government in exchange for some security." The Dahmer/home search against his will example of a time when, everyone would agree, the need to provide security overrode Dahmer's liberty.

Junyo, you have just listed a number of circumstances which justify the suspension of an individual's liberty, for the purpose of securing other individuals' security. While my set of circumstances are different from yours, we're both basically engaged in a balancing exercise.

As I said, Dynamist, anarchists do not believe any surrender of liberty should be made to achieve security. Such agreement is not, typically, referred to as a fisking.

[gaius marius]

To sum up, you should never sacrifice any degree of freedom for any level of security.

do you see, mr joe, why i fear for this society? too individualistic to recognize self-interest!

[joe]

gaius, I submit, the people who say such things are a small minority in our society.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

I believe in private ownership of property...

That's not what you wrote the other day. Now you're just being extremely disingenuous.

To sum up, you should never sacrifice any degree of freedom for any level of security.

That would be an interesting observation if it were actually true. The good judge doesn't actually write that of course; that's your deceitful spin on his statement.

thoreau,

joe showed his true colors the other day with his Skinnerite "urban planning" proposals. He doesn't believe in individual liberty, much less balancing it against security (he made that apparent the other day when he slipped up and stated "fuck property rights!").

thoreau,

It was a fisking; you're just ignoring your error that's all.

[c]

gaius, I submit, the people who say such things are a small minority in our society.

Are we counting per person, or per reason-identity?

[joe]

"joe,

I believe in private ownership of property...

That's not what you wrote the other day. Now you're just being extremely disingenuous."

Please tell me you aren't referring my sarcastic use of the phrase "property rights - fuck 'em" in my discussion about social engineering with fyodor. I was KIDDING, and followed up the comment by talking about having intercourse with a copy of the Bill of Rights.

"The good judge doesn't actually write (that liberty should never be sacrificed for freedom) of course; that's your deceitful spin on his statement." He calls such a sacrifice a "Devil's Bargain," and states that is has "historically never worked."

"Devil." "Never." If you disagree with the absolutist position on the question, take it up with the guy who used the personification of evil and the nullification of any possibilty at any time to charactize it.

Oh my God, you ARE referring to that quip. Good God, man! Are your buttons really so easily pushed?!? You'd think I'd endorsed deoderant...

[joe]

For the curious, the comment from an earlier thread in which I "slipped up" and demonstrated by enduring opposition to the existence of any property rights:

"fyodor, I do have another question. I want to dramatically reduce the coercive regulations on developers and property owners. I want far fewer property owners to be denied building permits because their lots are too small, or too narrow, or whatever. I want to get rid of, of vastly reduce, parking requirements. I want property owners, not zoning, to determine whether they put residential, commercial, or mixed use buildings on their lots.

My motivation has nothing to do with "property rights" - fuck em. I want to reduce the coercive power of the government in this area, because I believe it will result in development patterns more in line with my vision for a good society.

Social engineering?"

[thoreau]

You'd think I'd endorsed deoderant...

Is this a reference to the hygiene habits of the French?

[joe]

Mais oui.

[thoreau]

I don't know what that means, joe.

[joe]

"But yes," as in "But of course."

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

I was KIDDING, and followed up the comment by talking about having intercourse with a copy of the Bill of Rights.

You only stated that you were "kidding" after I nailed you on the matter. Your original post carried no indication that you were writing sarcastically. It took a follow-up post for you to claim that. Indeed, fair readers I invite you to find the "just kidding" nature in joe's comments.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

Good God, man! Are your buttons really so easily pushed?!?

No, I just take left-wing swine at your word; after all, with the millions dead at the hands of folks like you over the 20th century, we ought to take you seriously. 🙂

[thoreau]

Gary-

You obviously see a link between people with leftish economic views and the horrors of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.

Yet you also describe yourself as a Francophile. You are aware, I trust, that France has a heavily regulated economy?

FWIW, not only do I not associate joe with Stalin, I'd even go so far as to say that joe's vision of an ideal government would involve less regulation than France has at the moment. Or so it seems from joe's comments.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

I think many will find your proposal to be quite frightening:

Create a legal framework that will out what you feel is a good society, but don't base it on individual liberty, base it on your personal whims. That sounds like, hmm, a dictatorship to me. And of course there is also the issue of the other shoe dropping: what happens when people don't form the ideal society you envision? Why then we get the coercive force of the state involved, except this time, without the individual liberties that protect us today. Sorry, but your proposal is the same nightmarish reality that you and your ilk created in the USSR, etc.

First and foremost everything must derive from the individual; that's the only way that we can protect ourselves from wannabe-tyrants like yourself.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

The basic danger of joe's proposal is that it is NOT based on individual liberty; its based on what joe sees as an ideal society; if his measures don't bring that about there is nothing stopping joe as tyrant from simply replacing it with a far harsher regime.

You obviously see a link between people with leftish economic views and the horrors of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.

They are one and the same; read Hayek.

Yet you also describe yourself as a Francophile. You are aware, I trust, that France has a heavily regulated economy?

I don't defend that shit, do I? Nope. I would much rather France were much more laissez-faire (and I believe that process is definately underway there). That doesn't mean I don't appreciate French culture, food, books, architecture, technological achievements, etc.

FWIW, not only do I not associate joe with Stalin...

I do. He may think that he has his heart in the right place, but his designs are a recipe for disaster. He has simply ignored the lessons of the 20th century.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

Think of it this way. We would be like birds living in a gilded cage in joe's "paternalistic" world. What can the bird do short of violence to stop its "owner" from killing or otherwise maligning it? Nothing.

joe would be like the communist party nomenklatura that Stalin envisioned; a party boss who can "ride" on the "backs" of the people.

[thoreau]

They are one and the same; read Hayek.

Whatever you might mean from that, I think it's safe to say that regulation does not lead inevitably to gulags.

And although joe sees a place for more regulation than you might like, he has made it clear that (at least in the context of urban planning) he generally favors less regulation than we currently have. He's certainly pushing in the right direction. By that measure, a government staffed with people like joe would be a significant improvement on the status quo.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

...I think it's safe to say that regulation does not lead inevitably to gulags.

But systems which are not based on individual liberty appear to.

You fail to grasp the problem with joe's proposal I think. It is not based on individual liberty; its based on his whims regarding the ideal society. So yes, there may be "less regulation" in the short-run (a "spring" like the NEP in the USSR), but there is nothing in joe's world (nothing about the individual is inviolable) to to protect the individual from a change in policy that would lead to far harsher designs.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

joe starts from the premise that the government exists to create an ideal society and that this either trumps individual rights or makes them obsolete. Its an improper and disasterous premise. The proper premise is that individual rights are the basis of the existance of government. joe and I have fundamentally different notions of the nature of the government and the relationship of the individual to government; he opposes individual liberty in favor of creating "ideal societies" where people live the sorts of lives that he wants them to live, whereas I advocate that a society which celebrates and protects individual liberty is the only one which deserves praise.

[John]

Its funny that this is almost the exact same thing Michael Badnarik said in every speech. I believe he worded it "egregious" instead of "abominable." And he was widely considered a whacko, including by many here who thought that anybody who mentions the constitution is some far out whacko.

[thoreau]

Gary-

I still think you go too far. And I'm curious why joe's the only one on this forum who gets accused of being in cahoots with Pol Pot. You never treated "gadfly" or "lefty" like that.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

No, I don't go too far. My comments are spot on.

Because they didn't bring up moonbat, disasterous ideas like joe as far as I remember. That's likely because neither of them are part of the "nomeklatura" like joe.

[Jadagul]

Question: Joe was simply saying that he thought deregulation would improve people's lives, because it would lead to certain outcomes that he thought would make people better off. When we oppose the FDA or the War on Drugs for how harmful they are, aren't we doing the exact same thing? How is the argument "We should deregulate suburban development because it will create a more pleasant living environment more like the one I and other people would like to live in" any different from "We should deregulate drugs because it will allow more people to live the lifestyle I and others would like to live and create a safer and more pleasant environment by eliminating drug-based gangs"? Perhaps the consequences involved in the second are greater, but they seem to be the same basic argument.

Also, I think the classical response to the question about trading some liberty to the state for security, in the tradition of Locke, would involve the difference between liberty and license. So police with a valid search warrant asking for entrance to your home is no more an infringement of your liberty than the lawmakers telling you you're not allowed to steal the stuff in the first place, because we have no right, and therefore no liberty, to do either. Kind of a fine line there, but the idea is that 'liberty' doesn't mean you can do absolutely anything. Just as liberty doesn't empower you to kill, it doesn't empower you to ignore policement arresting you.

So we make the absolute statement that liberty shouldn't be traded for security, but then implement a very nuanced definition of 'liberty.'

[Gary Gunnels]

Jadagul,

Joe was simply saying that he thought deregulation would improve people's lives, because it would lead to certain outcomes that he thought would make people better off.

joe, as I have illustrated, is saying far more than that. He would disarm people of their individual liberties to carry out his scheme. In other words, I agree that wholesale deregulation in the area of "urban planning," zoning and the like would be beneficial, but I wouldn't implement such a policy by stripping people of their property rights as joe would. The bedrock of any proper notion of government and society must start with individual liberty; here joe's proposal would short-circuit such a scheme.

Just as liberty doesn't empower you to kill, it doesn't empower you to ignore police arresting you.

Sure it does. If the police are acting illegaly or unconstitutionally you may resist them. The color of law does not protect a police officer - or any other government agent - from force when they are acting illegally.

[crimethink]

Let that be a lesson to all you youngsters out there: make sure to add flags to all posts that Gary Gunnels may possibly read.

[Kevin Carson]

joe,

In context, I think Napolitano is clearly referring to the freedoms defined in the Bill of Rights (especially the procedural guarantees Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments), that were compromised by USA Patriot. And I'd definitely take an absolutist stance on those.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

I don't require flags, just honesty. joe was pretty fucking clear in his statement about property rights and what he felt about them. He was hung by his own petard in other words. Then again, you recently experienced that yourself, so I don't have to describe the feeling to you. 🙂

[Jadagul]

Gary:
From what I read--and I could be wrong--but from what I read, Joe's proposal in this case was to severely reduce zoning restrictions and government subsidisations for suburban and exurban development. Even if he would abrogate others' property rights under other circumstances, I don't believe he wishes to here. My other point was that Joe isn't unique on this board, or even unusual, in arguing for a reduction in government interference on practical grounds. In fact, I think that's the strongest grounds on which you can argue it in many cases (vid. The Drug War). Joe claims that government exurban policy distorts the market, leads to less-than-ideal outcomes, and allows some people (those who like sprawling suburbs) to benefit at the expense of others (those who pay for the road expansions, those who have to breathe the air polluted by increased driving, and people like me who want an entire city jammed into three blocks. One of the things I love about going to NYC is that the buildings are thrown together in no particular order and packed in so tight that you can't see the ground or the sky. I think it's marvelous). In this he's right, and we should support him. The fact that he happens to be a member of the group the government's screwing in this case doesn't change that.

As for the unconstitutional arrest, I suppose that's why I tried to specify with "validly" the first time. My fault for not repeating it, I guess, but I think we'd both agree that there's a difference between "liberty" and "doing whatever the hell I want, and damn everyone else." We've sort of lost that distinction--which is how we get the arguments equating the government forbidding someone to publish something with a publisher's refusal to publish something. You and I understand the difference is that I have the freedom to say what I like, but that doesn't include the freedom to use someone else's resources to do so. That's not liberty, that's license, an entirely different concept.

[drf]

"mais oui"
"what does that mean"

methinks thou doth protest too much, thoreau. you've got to be kidding...

and you're adding ammo to the argument that you and jean bart are one in the same. 🙂

BTW: what ever happened to lefty, lazarus long, slippery pete, and the merovingan?

and thoreau, as you recall (typed?) gg was pretty direct towards "Andrew" who was classified as a "bigot". so GG goes evenly against left and right.

[joe]

Deep breaths, Gary, it was a thought experiment.

This formulation, however, is very cute: "but don't base it on individual liberty, base it on your personal whims."

Lord knows, there isn't anything other than personal whims or individual sovereignty to base policy on. Objective criteria? Democratic decision making? Stakeholder input? Nope, you're either a radical libertoid, or your Stalin. Deep, man.

Also, I'm pretty sure democratic liberals who supported a regulated capitalist model of property ownership didn't create the Soviet Union.

"joe was pretty fucking clear in his statement about property rights and what he felt about them." Pretty fucking clear is right; I also own this leather mask with a zipper on the mouth that I'd like to wear while doing the nasty with the Constitution and calling it "Mommy." Ooh, yeah.

It does reflect well on the rest of you that you find Gary's hysteria as silly as I do.

[ed]

Liberty does not require tradeoffs. It requires order.
Protection of property rights, for example, guarantees order, which guarantees liberty.
The anarchists among us will retort that the concept of "property" is an arbitrary construction. Excepting the contents of their own backpacks, of course.

[kevrob]

I would love it if everyone I discussed politics and economics with responded to arguments from first principles, but most don't. Practical examples of how a more freedom-oriented approach makes life better are usually more convincing to the average...uhh...Joe.... than Basic Libertarian Theory. Once someone has experience with how well little Joe, Jr. is doing at the private school a Choice Scholarship has made available to him, it becomes easier to point out other areas where the free market idea can improve things. Over time, a pattern of good examples may make an impression, and the general principle gets accepted.

This is just to point out how so many of us are naturally utilitarians and pragmatists. There's a danger to this. In times of crisis, the public can and does toss the former regnant ideology overboard and grasps at something, anything that it hopes will keep it afloat. Remember how Roosevelt II ran on balancing the budget and economy in government, only to adopt one statist proposal after another, on a "whatever works" basis? Pragmatism trumping a rights-based conception of the proper limits to government is a hallmark of Progressive ideology, going back to the 19th century. joe's cavalier dismissal of property rights - however tongue-in-cheek - is of a piece with that tradition, which gave us such abominations as "urban planning" and government-run schooling on the Mann/Dewey model.

I have a fundamental distrust of any political system that is based on some nebulous goal of the common good. We don't all agree on the good, and the emphasis on "common" often sacrifices what each individual sees as the good for himself, for his family. Taken to its extreme, it just sacrifices inconvenient individuals. joe may have sympathy for the "little guy" being worked over by a corrupt town council trying to build a little empire, or curry favor with local fatcats, but I don't see him holding any principle that would protect that same smallholder should his opponent be some Western Massachusetts Regional Planning Authority, waving a "master plan" at him.

Kevin

[joe]

kevrob, if I haven't articulated my belief in the right of a property owner to the quiet enjoyment of his property, and to the economic profits to be gained through the development of that property, it is because such ideas are so self-evident as to make such qualifications gratuitous.

I suppose I could append thoreau-style "Of course, Kerry would be much worse" qualifiers to every post I make, but that would quickly become tedious.

[kevrob]

joe, a sad fact of the age is that "because it is MINE" is rarely accepted as sufficient justification to refuse to acquiesce in the silly plans of bureaucrats. If you do indeed accept that people have a right to own property, and that that right is not a mere temporary privilege to be trumped by some pols passing fancy, then good for you.

Kevin

[thoreau]

and you're adding ammo to the argument that you and jean bart are one in the same. 🙂

*chuckle* I have never added any such ammo. You are clearly lying when you say that I did.

I have no more use for you, because you are either a liar or an idiot. I'm done wasting time on you, and I will now head to some hill and fantasize about being in the Union Army as I run around on top of it.

Just kidding! ;->

[raymond]

Unless you are an anarchist, you endorse surrenduring some freedom to the government in exchange for some security.

Usually, when I talk about "freedom", I mean "The capacity to exercise choice; free will." I think that's what's meant by "liberty" in the Declaration of Independence.

Unless the government uses torture or drugs or brainwashing, my freedom is safe. So I disagree with joe's statement.

There are other definitions of "freedom", of course.

1. The condition of being free of restraints.

Freedom includes respect for the rights of others. This is not a "restraint". If the government the people have set up exercises only valid powers and has as its only goal to secure the rights of its citizens, then there is no "restraint". So again, I disagree with joe's statement.

2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

a. Political independence.

b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty

Note the word "arbitrary". In a valid government, the only authority the State has comes from the people. So again, I have to disagree with joe.

The PATRIOT Act is not an essential element of government. In fact, it's the opposite of essential.

[joe]

"If you do indeed accept that people have a right to own property, and that that right is not a mere temporary privilege to be trumped by some pols passing fancy, then good for you."

I'll do you one better; I support the Constitutional requirement that property be taken for public use only with the payment of just compensation. And that the public use doctrine was stretched too far by Poletown.

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with zoning.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

Your opinion was fairly clear in your first statement on the matter. Honestly, all this post-comment dissembling on your part is unseemly.

Lord knows, there isn't anything other than personal whims or individual sovereignty to base policy on. Objective criteria?

The invioable individual is the only objective criteria upon which to base the decision upon.

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with zoning.

It has everything to do with zoning, since zoning should be unconstitutional. Then again, if that were the case, you would be out of a job; a condition that you would fight against tooth and nail. I guess we all who love liberty have a goal now.

Kevin,

joe's "first principle" is that government (i.e., the nomenklatura that he is part of) knows best.

thoreau,

Your attempt to caricature me is off of course; since I never give up on an argument, or even on hopeless bureaucrats like joe.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

if I haven't articulated my belief in the right of a property owner to the quiet enjoyment of his property, and to the economic profits to be gained through the development of that property, it is because such ideas are so self-evident as to make such qualifications gratuitous.

That is the biggest sack of bullshit you've placed before us so far. You clearly had nothing like this on your mind when you originally advocated your proposal. Let me drive home this point home again: property rights aren't of consequence in your proposal - you don't base your proposal on them and indeed the only time you mention them is to toss them aside with a snarky remark that illustrates how truly unimportant they are in your world. I nailed you for this and you've spent the remainder of your time sputtering on about how it was a "joke," etc. I have to ask, what sort of cretin jokes about property rights when he is proposing such Skinnerite plan as you have? Someone that doesn't take property rights seriously; who doesn't view property rights as a bedrock principle in any decent society. Now thoreau - out of personal animus to me apparently (he'll defend any scumbag as long as he can be snarky about me) - can defend you all he likes, but the fact of the matter you don't give a rat's ass about property rights and that was more than apparent in your original post.

[thoreau]

Gary-

The previous poster suggested that I was Jean Bart. I decided to caricature Jean Bart. It is interesting that you would interpret the Jean Bart impression as an impression of yourself. Do you see some similarity?

[raymond]

Here's a question (or two) about property:

Since property rights end at death, what is the libertarian justification for wills?

How does owning a piece of land make any more sense than owning a block of the atmosphere or of the ocean?

(I mean "owning" in the way I own myself, my time, my talents, and what I create with those or get in exchange for them.)

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

It doesn't take a genius to see what you are driving at thoreau. Quit playing the obtuse imp.

raymond,

...what is the libertarian justification for wills...

The individual may do with his property what he will upon death.

How does owning a piece of land make any more sense than owning a block of the atmosphere or of the ocean?

Well, first there is the practical consideration; I can mark off a piece of land in a way that is more difficult with air or ocean. Of course, people do "own" portions of the ocean that are part of a nation's borders; some countries sell exclusive rights to fishing, etc. in bounded areas of the ocean. And the sea or river bottom is often dealt with as private property. Numerous of my uncles are oystermen and they seed the river-bottoms that they own with oysters and harvest the fruits of their efforts.

You also ignore the fact that a piece of land is the creation of the individual who owns; be it in the mere process of bounding the land, harvesting its timbers, building a house upon it, or merely buying the fruits of those efforts when one buys the property.

[joe]

"Then again, if (zoning were unconstitutional) were the case, you would be out of a job"

I guess you don't know very much about what City Planners do, then.

"joe's "first principle" is that government (i.e., the nomenklatura that he is part of) knows best."

Um, no, my "first principle" is that ethical and effective planning decisions can only be made through a process of public and stakeholder participation. The rejection of this patriarchal technocracy was the motivation for the physical seizure of an American Planning Association conference in the late 19602, and has become the overriding philosophy of any accredited planning program at the graduate or undergraduate level, as well as a major plank in the platform of the American Association of Certified Planners. See above comment about your cluelessness about my profession.

"I have to ask, what sort of cretin jokes about property rights when he is proposing such Skinnerite plan as you have?" The same sort who waves a cape at a bull when in the ring, I suppose. You, by the way, swallowed the hook, while fyodor took the quip in the spirit it was intended. I got a similarly amusing reaction when I appended "eh, comrade?" onto the end of a question I asked someone on a previous thread.

[joe]

er, "late 1960s" and "American INSTITUTE of Certified Planners"

The part about you not knowing what you're talking about remains as originally written.

[thoreau]

The part about you not knowing what you're talking about remains as originally written.

joe, there's no area of human knowledge that Gary can't master. He claims knowledge of quantum physics, string theory, and biochemistry.

I only have detailed knowledge in one of those fields, and I'm writing my dissertation for my Ph.D in physics.

[joe]

Here's a theory - what if the person behind Jean Bart, Gary Gunnels, and Jason Bourne (and Walter Willis, I think) is actually a number of people working in collusion?

On the internet, no one knows you're the Borg.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

You zone areas of a city, you tell property owners what they may and may not do with their property with little or no consent on their part, you design various public spaces, you create "future growth" plans (which invariably don't meet reality and frustrate the desires of individuals), etc.

...ethical and effective planning decisions can only be made through a process of public and stakeholder participation.

Cock and bull story. Nothing like that is included in your proposal. Nothing. Decision-making is based on your personal fiat and provides no ultimate expression to the individuals who actually own the property outside what you desire as your "idealic goal." Indeed, you don't believe in property rights, so how could their participation be meaningful? It can't be.

You are a primary example of who the members of a "patriarchal technocracy" look like.

You, by the way, swallowed the hook, while fyodor took the quip in the spirit it was intended.

Liar. After the fact justifications for your bullshit simply won't fly.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

joe, there's no area of human knowledge that Gary can't master.

That's a lie of course.

I stated specifically a while ago that I was no good at a number of subjects, including immunology.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau and joe,

Here's a theory: You can't actually defend your comments, so instead you'll focus on the identity of a blogger. Yeah, that sounds about right. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

The best thing we could do with urban planners is to fire the lot of them and get rid of that function in our society at the level of government. The history of urban planning in America as provided by governments has been one long nightmare full of racism, theft, etc. Isn't it time we learned our lesson about the issue?

[joe]

"Nothing like that is included in your proposal.'

That's because it's not a proposal; it was a question I asked to fyodor to propel a discussion about the definition of "social engineering." Your typical refusal to back down notwithstanding, it's fairly obvious that my intent was to isolate certain variables in a thought experiment. If I had written "property rights aside," rather than "property rights - fuck em," would you still be doing this?

"After the fact justifications for your bullshit simply won't fly." Gary, in that same thread, I wrote, "Dammit, I need you libertoids to tell me who to persecute!" and referred to libertarians as "You people (YOU PEOPLE!)..." You don't think I was maybe having a little fun, and using rhetorical tricks? Nahhh....

"Indeed, you don't believe in property rights, so how could their participation be meaningful? It can't be." Which would be contradicted by my inclusion of property owners in planning processes.

I'm sorry I was insenstive to your feelings with the tone I took when discussing your god, and I'll be more careful next time. Wait, no I won't, this is too much fun.

[joe]

"thoreau and joe,

Here's a theory: You can't actually defend your comments, so instead you'll focus on the identity of a blogger. Yeah, that sounds about right. :)"

So, when I find myself in corner, should I go with the "Liar! Liar! Bullshit! You're a liar!" strategy instead?

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

Your silly and dishonest attempt to reduce my arguments to the above simply won't fly.

[joe]

Whatever. I know what my actual position is, and it's clear that you are either unable or unwilling to discuss it on its own terms, preferring instead to present a slipper slope/red menace characature of that position that can more easily be knocked down.

Anyway, the comments weren't directed at you, they were directed at another poster with greater intellectual dexterity and a sense of humor. fyodor had no problem understanding what I was getting at and responded to the question asked, with the result being an interesting and informative exchange of ideas. On my end, anyway; he's probably cursing me and demanding those minutes of his life back.

If you're more comfortable operating at the level of shouting "A-ha!" at an out-of-context quip and doing an end zone dance...well, that's probably why I didn't end up having an interesting and informative exchange of ideas with you.

I've never been shy about saying exactly where I stand and what I believe on this board. If you've got a problem with arguing with someone who believes that regulation for the public good is compatible with, and actually enhances, and underlying system of capitalist exchange, all I can say is...start liking it!

[Gary Gunnels]

I know what my actual position is...

That you are anti-property rights.

...unable or unwilling to discuss it on its own terms...

I have been more than willing to do so; and indeed that is exactly what I have been doing.

Here, in brief, is your proposal:

(a) Property rights aren't important.

(b) You want to create your utopia by limiting some of the measures that the government uses in zoning decisions, etc., without limiting the power of the government itself.

That in a nutshell is your proposal and its a recipe for disaster.

If you're more comfortable operating at the level of shouting "A-ha!" at an out-of-context quip...

It wasn't out of context; indeed, it was part and parcel of your proposal, otherwise you wouldn't have written it (I mean, no one brought up property rights until you did after all, so why would you mention it unless you were serious about your statement? And no one had been "joking" about anything prior to your statement as I recall. Your slip merely revealed the way you think about things.).

...regulation for the public good...

You mean the nomenklatura's good of course. Regulation as a rule is never good for individuals or the public. Indeed, given the thousands of examples of the bad outcomes from regulation you would have thought that people would have figured that out by now.

It doesn't enhance the underlying capitalist exchange, it merely hinders it and creates poverty upon which bureaucrats can then justify new poverty-creating measures.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

Let's also note that Robert Hahn and John Hird in the Yale Journal on Regulation (1991 or 1992 as I recall) stated categorically - after a survey of hundreds of cost-benefit analyses of regulation - that - except for environmental and highway safety regulation - that the benefits of regulation outweighed its costs. That doesn't mean that the regulation didn't come with some benefits, but it does mean that people would have been better off without it all things being equal.

[Gary Gunnels]

that the costs of regulation outweighed its benefits

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

In other words, regulators as a rule are leaches upon society.

[thoreau]

I can't help it that I am an auto-didact and a polymath. 🙂

Let's test that:

1) Let's start with a qualitative one:

The reason why classical physics can't explain the stability of atoms is that a charge traveling in a circle would radiate energy away, losing more and more energy. Yet in quantum mechanics electrons orbit atoms without any instability. Why?

2) If you're up on quantum gravity as you claim to be, a question about the unequal treatment of space and time in basic quantum mechanics shouldn't cause you any trouble:

Why can't we construct a time operator in quantum mechanics, the way we can construct position operators?

3) You're good at finding mis-statements. Explain what's wrong with this one:

Bell's inequalities rule out the possibility of hidden variable theories. The De Broglie-Bohm theory, which postulates that particles have well-defined positions and momenta as hidden variables, is therefore wrong.

4) Finally, this is based on chapter 1 of my introductory quantum physics book. Why does Planck's hypothesis of quantizing the energy in the electromagnetic field eliminate ultraviolet divergences?

[thoreau]

joe-

What makes you think Gary is Walter Willis?

[raymond]

The individual may do with his property what he will upon death.

Perhaps just before death. But upon death, he's got no more rights. Because he's dead.

You also ignore the fact that a piece of land is the creation of the individual who owns...

Well, no it isn't, actually.

I can understand usage rights when it comes to land (and water), and that a usage right could be considered property (surface "ownership", subsurface "ownership", mineral rights). But "owning land"...

Especially in much of America, where so much land was taken by force from its rightful "owners".

Usufruct. I like that word. Insofar as land, water, air are concerned, we are just usufructuaries.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

When you retract your earlier bald-faced lie about me I'll take a crack at answering your questions.

Just looking at (3) though I recall that dBB theory - by its use - Bell's theory isn't allowed to close the barn door on measureable versions of QM like to you seem to be saying; and that it (dBB) allows a way to get at real particles; and that this has something to do with the gradient of a wavefunction's phase as that relates to the momenta of a particle at a point in space.

[Gary Gunnels]

raymond,

Those are the individual's instructions upon death.

It is the creation of a person; indeed, the concept of "land" and "land ownership" is a creation of human beings.

Especially in much of America, where so much land was taken by force from its rightful "owners".

That's true across the planet. Such seizures were not justified, nor do they justify doing away with the Western notion of land ownership (indeed, they reinforce the need to have inviolable land rights).

I suggest you compare land ownership in traditional African societies, where private landownership was not generally allowed, and what this bred (namely slavery as the primary means of capital investment) with the benefits of private landownership.

Try the following for documentation of what I am discussing:

Patrick Manning, Slavery and African Life: Occidental, Oriental and African Slave Trades

John Thornton, Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1680

[thoreau]

Well, you're using some of the right words, but they're strung together in a weird way. The gradient of the phase of the wave function is part of Bohm's theory, but it doesn't really have anything to do with how Bohm gets around Bell's inequalities.

And what lies have I told about you?

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

Your statement: joe, there's no area of human knowledge that Gary can't master.

My reply: That's a lie of course.

I stated specifically a while ago that I was no good at a number of subjects, including immunology.

_______________________________

Well, you're using some of the right words, but they're strung together in a weird way.

Sorry, I'm not a professional physicist. I look into this stuff as an amateur (which I never claimed not to be).

The gradient of the phase of the wave function is part of Bohm's theory, but it doesn't really have anything to do with how Bohm gets around Bell's inequalities.

I think you are wrong there. Indeed, as I recall, its the key to the whole issue.

[thoreau]

I retract my statement that there is no area of knowledge that Gary can't master. He's absolutely horrible at immunology!

As to the gradient of the phase and all that:

The condition about the gradient of the phase is really an equation from classical physics. In fact, the de Broglie-Bohm theory in some sense can be given by 3 equations:

1) An equation saying that the particle velocities are given by the gradient of an "action function" S, which also happens to be the phase of the wave function. There's nothing quantum about this equation, as it comes directly from classical mechanics.

2) An equation which basically says that particles are neither created nor destroyed. (There's a way to generalize it for matter/anti-matter collisions, but we'll deal with that another day.)

3) The important one, the one that really gets to the heart of the problem, is basically an equation from classical physics, with one extra term. That extra term is called the "quantum potential" and it involves the instantaneous positions of all the other particles in the system.

That fact about the "quantum potential" is important, because it enables us to get around Bell's stipulation that no particle can carry around their own little "labels" AKA "local hidden variables." Bell proved that particles are in general "entangled", meaning that even distant particles are interacting and in some sense connected in quantum mechanics.

de Broglie and Bohm, however, created a theory in which particles do have their own definite positions and momenta, independent of any act of measurement. They get around Bell's stipulation by including a "non-local" interaction via the "quantum potential."

Bell only ruled out "local hidden variables", not "non-local hidden variables." In fact, Bell was a fan of the de Broglie-Bohm theory.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

You retract your lie you mean. Let's note that while you are trying to paint me as boastful, it was you who asked me the question about my knowledge base. Its unfortunate that you've turned out to be such a jerk.

Finally, you gave the long version of my correct answer above.

[raymond]

Those are the individual's instructions upon death.

And?

Do you agree that once you're dead you've got no rights?

In different countries (and, I suppose in different states of the US) inheritance laws differ in how the loot may be parcelled out. Under Swiss law, for example (and Switzerland is no. 1 in the protection of property rights, according to the survey discussed in a different thread), minimum percentages are mandated for kids, siblings, parents, the kids of siblings... I'm pretty sure that _this_ individual's instructions upon death will mostly be ignored.

the concept of "land" and "land ownership" is a creation of human beings.

Well, in this anthropocentric world of ours, we consider ALL concepts to be human creations. But it takes only about 5 minutes' observation of a fox to see that the "lower" animals can also be pretty territorial.

We (humans) assent to certain concepts - just as we assent to other beliefs - because they work for us. In many countries, the concept _doesn't_ work for the vast majority of people. It works for the "rich and powerful", who protect the concept with guns and oppression.

I suggest you compare land ownership in traditional African societies, where private landownership was not generally allowed, and what this bred (namely slavery as the primary means of capital investment) with the benefits of private landownership.

Africa is big. I'm sure I can find all sorts of different concepts.

A few observations nonetheless.

Slaves were taken the same way land was: by use of violent force.

One impulse behind slavery is market forces. The Arab marauders were just meeting the demand of the great landowners in the US, who could not (they believed) make their land fruitful without forced labour. I'd go so far as to say that excess land ownership was a cause of slavery.

One defense of slavery in the US was "property rights". If I'm not mistaken, some Southerners were willing to accept the inevitable and give up their slaves, but only if they were recompensed. After all, the Constitution states that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation".

Look at a map of modern Africa. You will see lots of straight lines. (Like the US.) And if you were to superimpose on it a map of tribes, you'd see that the concept of "a people" was sacrificed by Western powers to... land ownership considerations.

Such seizures (of land) were not justified, nor do they justify doing away with the Western notion of land ownership (indeed, they reinforce the need to have inviolable land rights).

I'd say, rather, that the Western notion of land ownership is greatly to blame for the awful situation of much of Africa today.

You neglected to deal with my comment about surface ownership, subsurface ownership, and mineral rights. (And I'd add "treasure rights".) The concept of land ownership doesn't seem very clear when one realises that... there's no agreement on what it really means.

Usufruct. Now there's a concept I can get my mind around.

[more koinkidink????]

He was hung by his own petard

Gary Gunnels at January 7, 2005 12:14 AM

When Jean Bart used the same erroneous construction of "HOIST BY his own petard" here:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/03/in_old_madrid.shtml

and here:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/05/it_gets_worse.shtml

I thought it was due to the fact that he is not a native english speaker and was not familiar with the actual phrase. The creator of the "Jean Bart" character was skillful enough to ad a few grammar and syntax errors to create a certain "authenticity".

Wot's Gary Gunnels' excuse?