Today’s my 23rd birthday, so here’s a list of things I care about related to December 14th:
1903: The Wright Brothers manage to fly for 3 seconds.
1946: The UN created its New York HQ.
1950: The UN creates UNHCR, the refugee agency.
1964: Heart of Atlanta Motel v US case is decided. A boost for civil rights in the US. Rand Paul fans and Walter Block drink themselves into a depressed stupor.
2008: Dubya got shoes thrown at him. Dodges like a ninja.
And of course, being a Gorillaz fan, the number 23 is basically like number 9 to a Lennon fan.
When I ask for evidence supporting your claim, what I want is, say, binding legal sources that suggest your theories actually do describe the operation of the law as it stands. I have asked a number of your adherents for such, and yet the response is always the same.
Here’s me at Captain Ranty’s
Can you, or can you not, present evidence of the applicability of Freeman legal theories to the English legal system?
The response from CR:
Nope.
I don’t need to. I only need to prove that the courts lack legitimacy. Now I can.
I don’t need anything other than that.
Your move.
CR.
So, uh, apparently the burden of proof does not rest with Freemen. Right.
And on twitter, I was told:
Hard to face, but your LLM is just legal brainwashing funded by the Rockefellers to undermine the Magna Carta 1215 & bill of Rights
And now, via a commenter at Wh00ps:
Just because some one does not complete a course or gain a ‘Degree’ in LAW doesn’t mean they have no understanding of the LAW or may not comment on the LAW as many ‘would be’ lawyers and libertarians claim. As I understand things the Common Law, the ancient charters and the Constitution were created to defend the rights and Freedoms of ‘all’ the people of these islands, statutes especially over the past 100 years are created only to remove property and wealth from the people, to trample over their rights and force them to be governed by an unelected foreign power.
I’ve no doubt you will put me right when you have gained the Law Degree.
I hate to break it to you guys, but: If you’re gonna make a claim as to how the English legal system operates, it’s up to you to demonstrate it. Stop trying to divert attention to your legal ignorance, stop trying to pass the burden of proof onto others, and if you seriously think you have a legal claim to, I dunno, withdraw from statute or whatever it is you want, go and make your case, properly. Because right now, you’re taking the exact same course regular old conspiracy theorists do.
Confessions were once considered to be, in law, the highest form of evidence. For quite a long time, it was considered implausible that one would confess to a crime they did not commit. Nowadays, not just in light of the naturally unreliable nature of evidence gathered through torture, but through unfair police practices, this is no longer believed- in fact the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has provisions ensuring that evidence gathered through “oppressive” means is to be excluded from court.
But oppressive means of interrogation- the main concern of the PACE provisions- are not the only source of unreliable suspect testimony. Sometimes, the legal system has its own incentives to produce bad evidence. A particularly sad case is this one from Virginia, which I find via Radley Balko’s twitter.
They believed that their son was innocent but were afraid that Virginia’s penal system would grab hold of him and never let go.
So Cherri Dulaney and Edgar Coker Sr. told 15-year-old Edgar Jr. to plead guilty to raping a 14-year-old friend. Their court-appointed attorney told them that was better than risking adult charges and a lengthy prison term.
Two months after their decision, in November 2007, the girl admitted that she had lied.
What we’re seeing here is what the legal profession may refer to as “plea bargaining”- which usually manifests itself in the act of persuading a suspect to give a guilty plea to charges lesser than they would otherwise stand trial for. In such a case, it’s a guaranteed lower sentence in exchange for the risk of a greater one. Although somewhat frowned upon under English law, it’s a widely used practice in the US. However, as the case of Coke Jr shows, it allows for the innocent to face guilt for something they didn’t commit, regardless of their innocence- accept the plea bargain, and they get a lower sentence. Refuse, and there is probably sufficient “evidence” to convict regardless. For this reason, I would refer to it not as “plea bargaining”, but as “bribery and intimidation”; or maybe a form of legal extortion. Either way, for the innocent, they are handed a situation in which heads they lose, tails, they’ll probably lose worse.
While looking up the US practice of plea bargaining, I found a somewhat shocking piece of Federal statute (11(c)(1)(B)) that states that in some circumstances, means that despite an agreement on the part of the defense to consent to a plea bargain, the defendant can find himself facing a full length sentence contrary to the agreement, but also without the ability to take back his guilty plea. Such a morally dubious practice, you would hope, was beyond the limits of any institution claiming to support justice and the rule of law, right? Sadly not.
Coke Jr is still in prison. A victim of the legal system, he is unable as of yet to get a retrial, or a successful appeal. The Rule of Law needs more than mere procedure and box ticking before locking up an innocent man and patting itself on the back; it needs to be able to adapt to amend its own mistakes. But plea bargaining doesn’t facilitate this to any great degree- it may, at best, take a criminal off the streets for a lesser period than justice demands; at worst, it creates new victims like Coke Jr.
Oh, one final thing: Now that we know Coke Jr’s “victim” was telling porkies, and that he ended up in jail regardless… aren’t you glad rape doesn’t have the death penalty?
For the assessment of my theoretical perspectives module, I need to take two academic articles and do a comparative analysis of them.
I’m looking to consider two articles on the ethical/philosophical basis of intellectual property rights. Now, ideally I’d like one that is opposed to the concept, and one that supports it. What would be even better is if each article reaches their conclusion through different means; eg, natural rights vs utilitarianism.
I have a couple of ideas for what the anti IP piece could be; Stephan Kinsella’s Against Intellectual Property, or Tom Palmer’s Are Patents and Copyright Morally Justified?
My request is this: Does anyone know of a good suggestion for a pro-IP, utilitarian based piece of writing to which I can do a comparative analysis?
Thanks!
The reddit thread has some bloody brilliant responses.
I have a page on this blog showing my results from a number of political spectrum style quizzes. I was going to update it with this one from Pew Research, the only research foundation named after the sound of a laser gun, but after around 5 questions realized it probably wouldn’t be worth my while filling out the other 15. But it’s a lazy Tuesday with nowhere to go, so I did. My results are below, but first, I want to talk about the quiz itself. The basic flaw of the whole quiz (or, rather, a survey- but it does attempt to give you a place on a spectrum of sorts at the end, and so in effect is a political spectrum quiz) is that it reduces complex political issues into two black or white statements, each of which clearly are supposed to represent the American conventional two sided approach to politics. The most egregious few are below.
3. The government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt vs The government today can’t afford to do much more to help the needy
Not an either or. An alternative, and more effective method to aiding the needy would be to abolish those government maintained privileges that ensure a gradual distribution of wealth upwards. At most, a welfare state is a concession that allows the continued distribution to remain manageable.
4. Religion is a very important part of my life vs Religion is not that important to me
Are we to genuinely believe that this question has any real effect on one’s political stance? Sure, this quiz is heavily American, and according to stereotype the Republicans are Christian nut jobs and the Democrats Godless Atheist heathens. But if you’re trying to make a serious political quiz, does this question really have any use at all? This is just one of a few questions that suggests the quiz wants to extrapolate information about your political views from much more personal information- another one asks if you are happy with your financial situation or not. What the crap, guys?
10. Business corporations make too much profit vs Most corporations make a fair and reasonable amount of profit
Much criticism of big business is made purely on the basis of how much money they are making. Less is made of how they make money. Ultimately, it’s futile to purely think in terms of the former. There is no such thing as “too much” profit; only an open market can determine at any given time how much a certain good or value is worth. There are just immoral ways of making profit. And of course, the main beneficiaries of these immoral methods are the biggest business corporations. The question as it is framed fails to get down to any real issue, preferring instead to concentrate on a popular but meaningless talking point.
15. Government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest vs Government regulation of business usually does more harm than good
This presupposes the old “nasty old businessmen” vs “honest caring politicians” line, as well as a lot about the aims of regulation (not to mention its real effects, intentions aside). The answer in red is undoubtedly true; but not in the way most people would expect it to be. Rather than being based on any sort of capitalistic “business is a persecuted minority” mentality, the real reason for being opposed to regulation of business is that it tends to move costs from the established, powerful businesses to everyone else- increasing the former’s economic power and undermining opportunities for the rest.
20. Homosexuality should be accepted by society vs Homosexuality should be discouraged by society
I just want to know why we’re still arguing this one. Seriously, why? It is not my business who you fuck, unless you are trying to fuck me.
Although not every one of the 20 questions is bunkum, the quiz as a whole can only possibly make sense- or even be answered- by those who have accepted the mainstream political landscape hook, line, and sinker. The number that have is growing ever smaller.
Ok, so time for the results. The quiz puts you into one of the following categories:
- Staunch Conservatives
- Main Street Republicans
- Libertarians
- Disaffecteds
- Post-Moderns
- New Coalition Democrats
- Hard-Pressed Democrats
- Solid Liberals
I was placed in “Disaffecteds”, which makes 11% of the (American) population. Disaffecteds are described as:
What They Believe
- Highly critical of both government and business
- Sympathetic to the poor and supportive of social welfare programs
- Concerned about immigration
- Majority believes the country can’t solve many of its important problems
- Religious and socially conservative
Who They Are
- Most financially stressed of the groups: nearly half describe their household as “struggling”
- 71% have experienced unemployment in their household in the past 12 months
- About two-thirds have only a high school education or less
- Compared with the national average of 33%, more are parents (44%)
- 26% have a U.S. passport — well below the national average
- 23% follow NASCAR racing
The first section scores 1/5. The second barely describes my situation at all. Not impressive in the slightest.
Conclusion: A quiz designed purely at those already supporting the Status Quo. Does nothing for anyone with any form of radical ideas at all. Based just as much on stereotypes as it is ideas. Suggested action: Flush it into the Houses of Parliament’s sewers with the rest of the stupid crap it carries.
No, not the one of Scarlett Johansson.
First up, a warning. I have long been beaten to the post on this one. Nothing I say will be original. Most of it won’t even be clever. No matter!
This picture has been doing the rounds on various news sites, including Lew Rockwell, Pileus blog, the Mises Inst blog, and probably a lot of others, many of which I would predict have a conservative bent.
In his first post (before the 55 comment long stink started), Prof. Long argues this picture is fallacious because:
A picture like this could of course be made for libertarians too – showing libertarians with tax-funded educations walking on tax-funded streets, contacting each other via government postal monopoly, paying for their lunches with federally issued currency, etc.
Various commenters have either defended the principle behind the picture, or defended Long’s accusation of unfair practice. The main argument from the former group went along lines such as that taken by Grover Cleveland at Pileus:
But my first reaction to your [It's not mine, I merely quoted Prof Long- Mr CL.] reply was that libertarians don’t really have much of an alternative to using the post office for petty first class mail and tax-funded streets and federally-issued currency since these are government monopolies (for the most part since there are private roads in some places) and so the state crowds out or makes illegal real alternatives. On the other hand, these protestors could pretty easily avoid using corporate products without impinging on basic needs even in a modern economy (unlike in the cases Rod points to such as driving to work or using money!)
When I did click on the link, I saw that someone named Cal had basically said something similar (though I’ll admit I didn’t have time to read that whole debate) so I figured I’d quote it here: “As Plauché correctly indicated, Rod, the two are not comparable given anti-state protestors necessarily did not voluntarily purchase any of the state goods or services. Conversely, absolutely everything in the WallSt photo (other than the city road sign) was voluntarily purchased by those individuals who had many immediate alternatives to those purchases, almost always including versions of the same item not made by big evil nasty corporationy corporations . . .”
Ok, well, I’m not really on board with this line of thought. As a Left Libertarian, I sometimes make the point that the largest sectors of certain businesses benefit disproportionately from government interventions. In the case of the camera, iPod and other technical gizmos highlighted in the picture, intellectual property is no doubt a big player here. And so on and so forth, yes? Well, although it would be quite a stretch for me to claim this makes Sony or Canon “An extension of the State” per se, (and there are those who would strawman people of my position in such a way), I do believe these quite numerous legally enforced “privileges” act to make certain sectors a de facto State enabled body. I don’t see how many would survive a transition to a “freed market”. What difference does this make? Well, it’s the “voluntary purchasing of corporate goods” argument that this effects. Economic interaction can only be free and voluntary if all parties start from a position of equal liberty and ability to enter whatever business they chose- one in which barriers to entry are not raised above their natural points. If that were a true description of the economy, I would concede that dealing with large, State benefited business is “voluntary”.
But it isn’t a true description of the economy- big players start from a position of privilege, one which much of the “99%” can never hope to achieve. This means any claim of voluntary economic action with large companies- many of whom have monopolies over various technologies, methods of distribution largely than would normally be born by the market, and much greater bargaining power- suffers accordingly. When only a small number of companies are able to produce goods such as high tech cameras, thanks to an artificial shrinking of consumer choices thanks to State policy, it’s futile to criticize a person for buying that camera. So, I think this argument fails. Try again when we are under a genuine situation of voluntary economic exchange.
Another point: the Occupy Wall Street movements all around the US are, like the Tea party, made up of campaigners on a collection of issues, yet somehow manage to come to a reasonably identifiable and agreed upon stance. Many of these campaigners are upset not just about the large influence on government policy that big business has (who then fall for this fallacy), but are also upset on the large influence such a small number of firms have upon the economy. Corporate goods are ubiquitous. As much as there are those who would tell us we have the option of buying goods from non “corporationy corporations”, the reality is more often than not, we don’t. Much as you can’t send a letter by anything other than a State owned post service, it’s hard to survive modern day life without the influence of artificially large and powerful corporate interests. There are those who would mourn one of these two facts, yet use the other to demonstrate the benevolence or efficiency of their preferred economic system- be it the wonders of State mail services, or the wonders of Silicon valley firms. If you only believe one, but not the other, sorry buddy, you probably need to get your thinking straight.
The ubiquity of corporate made goods being used even in a scenario where people wish to express ill will towards the corporate producers of those goods not only fails to properly criticise those people, it actually builds upon their reasoning behind the rage. I quote one of Rad Geek’s comments from Prof Long’s blog:
You know, it strikes me that if your aim is to use visual rhetoric to lodge a criticism of the people at Occupy Wall Street, then an image whose upshot is, roughly, “the activities of giant corporations inescapably pervade absolutely every aspect of your everyday life” … may not actually be as effective a criticism as you think it is.
Well, yeah. If you don’t accept that logic, don’t expect sympathy when you scream bloody murder about how much is sucks there’s only one Royal Mail. The Statements “You claim to have the State, yet use roads, water supplies and Royal Mail” and “You claim to hate corporations, yet own an iPod, mass produced clothes and own a car” are on equally bad footing. Both the State and corporate interests are omnipresent in modern society. That’s not a testament to the benefits of omnipotent government or omnipotent capitalism. It’s a central part of the critique of both.
Oh, and by the way, before anyone points it out… find me a pic of tea partiers with captions on every government influenced service, and the point still stands. Both the tea party and the Occupy Wall Street movements have it right. It’s only a false dichotomy of left against right that prevents any sort of synthesis or collaboration from happening.
See also: The Corporate Alarm Clock, by Kevin Carson at c4ss.
b345fee0d46af14eb759b06bb7ac1ec5 |
Blogrolls, links, internets
I'm happy to link-swap. Just email me. Also happy to move you around if you think you're in the wrong category.
|
