John Price ended his life as a free man because he was willing to defy laws that said he was nothing but the property of other people, to be disposed of as they wished. He got a nice helping hand in maintaining his freedom from other people who were willing to not only defy laws that would compel them to collaborate in Price’s bondage, but to beat the hell out of government agents charged with enforcing those laws.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the daySamizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · Slogans & Quotations May 15th, 2015 |
 21 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
infelicitous wording, it might be clearer to say that he ‘lived out his life as a free man’, not that he forsook his freedom or his life.
Fair enough, but the original wording made it clear that he certainly did not begin his life as a free man.
I hope Mr. Tuccile is also teaching his son to read Hobbes.
We should always remember that “the law is the law.” Or as the Germans put it, “Befehl ist Befehl.”
Boston Bomber Tsarnaev gets the death penalty. Should have a lottery for a firing squad. Would raise a $50 million or so and give the proceeds to the victim’s families.
Israel should have a death penalty so they don’t have to trade 400 murderes for one dead Israeli soldier.
Israel should indeed have a death penalty. The fact that they don’t is constantly used against them by their enemies. Israel is the last admirable ethnic state on the planet. Good luck to them, although I fear the worst. Times are against them.
I forgot Japan.
The practice of sending escaped slaves back is an evil that was written into the Constitution itself – against the protests of Ben Franklin and others.
It meant that the Union was cursed from the start.
As for the war with Mexico – people (including libertarians) often forget that the Mexican government also had expansionist war aims.
“I want to be a free man – I will support no government”.
Tends to mean you end up living under the rule of your countries enemies.
JGIII and Tomsmith: I oppose the death penalty on principle, although this does not at all mean that I deny that some people are very much deserving of death.
In the specific case of Israel, and even more specifically, in the case of “prisoner exchange” alluded to by JGIII, the ‘death penalty – yes or no’ question does not even apply, as the terrorists in question are not Israeli citizens, but are rather enemy combatants, at least for the purpose of this (rather OT) discussion.
I didn’t know that, Paul – where specifically?
I imagine that was the basis of Samuel Johnson’s sneering remark that US independence was about the liberty to ‘enslave Negroes and rob Indians’ (or words to that effect).
““I want to be a free man – I will support no government”.
Tends to mean you end up living under the rule of your countries enemies.”
Unless, of course, you simply stop those enemies as well.
Current gub’mint placeholder immigration “theory” simply raises the inevitable “us vs. Them” attrition rates.
Provided one refuses to disingenuously “reinterpret” the un-pretty bits of Political Science, and “economics”, of the last 4000 years or so.
And hopefully Calvin as well.
I’ve encountered a few people who hold the idea that breaking the law is wrong. It stands up to so little scrutiny that it always surprises me people can think it.
Paul meant Paragraph 3 of Article 4, Section 2, which was deleted by the 13th Amendment. The Fugitive Slave Act was based on this paragraph and provided the legal machinery to enforce it.
And yet I’m sure many would agree with Robert Bolt’s words, here. It’s certainly wise to put principle ahead of law (how else to have good law, for one thing). But it needs to be done with a little humility. We’ve all seen “protestors” willfully destroying property and breaking various other laws in the belief that such action was justified by the cause they were attempting to promote. I realize that’s not quite what Tuccille is advocating, but each of those people believes that he’s “stand[ing] up for his rights and those of others,” too. I’m not sure that believing the law is secondary to principle is a good belief for someone with poor principles to hold. So the principle has to go in before the law can come off.
Thank you, Bob.
What an interesting question to ask would-be presidential candidates, though: “How do you feel about the Oberlin-Wellington Rescue?”
Oh, the toe-dancing would be wonderful!
Tedd:
But with such people the problem would be moot anyway, no?
Alisa:
Do you mean that they’re unlikely to operate from principle in the first place? Possibly. I’ve known some of the kind of people who smash things as a form of “protest,” for example, and they believe they’re putting principle before the law. But if you want to argue that they’re merely acting out some unconscious psychodrama and rationalizing it as principle I would be inclined to agree. That’s one of the situations I was trying to warn against. Correct assertions (principle should come before law, for example) are more powerful as rationalizations of bad behaviour than incorrect assertions precisely because they’re correct.
Also, let’s not forget that a lot of the danger in present-day society is from bad principles enshrined in law. I live in a place that has fairly strong anti “hate speech” laws that are enforced through a parallel court system not constrained by the fair-trial protections of the justice system. Such laws enable certain people to follow (and enforce) bad laws while believing they are acting on principle. I can’t say just exactly where the line is between rationalization and poor reasoning for these people. But putting the emphasis on good principles combats both the problem of poor reasoning and the problem of rationalization.
I would rather have a society of people who obeyed the law while recognizing where and why it was wrong than a society of people not inclined to obey the law but also not thoughtful or insightful about what it ought to be. The former is self-correcting and has the potential to lead to the optimum, which is a society of people who understand what the law ought to be and are willing to resist it when it doesn’t live up to that ideal. The latter has no potential to reach that optimum.
Quite correct Bob Sykes.
A Union that compels people to return run-a-way slaves is cursed.
And the result of that curse was the Civil War (which killed more people than all other American wars put together).
Had there been no fugitive slave laws, slavery would have collapsed decades before – and the first generation of Southern Leaders (who still accepted that slavery was evil) would not have been replaced by a generation of fanatics (and they were fanatics – Rothbardians please note) who held that slavery was a “positive good”.
Captain DMO.
How is Alisa supposed to stop the forces of Islam?
Pretending they are not enemies will not work – as they will explain (by beheading people) that they are enemies.
Now it is true that Israel before 1948 had a private army not supported by taxation.
But such things need careful consideration – one should not just assume that one can do without the state.
And one should certainly not assume that the state creates the enemy.
The enemy create themselves – this is one of the basic points that the late Murray Rothbard did not understand.