(snark flag)

It seems like the minimum necessary to placate the right wing Libertarians. I'm sure you can find much more fulsome examples of praise for Jesse without trying very hard.

Just for the record, I'm not trying to minimize Helms' horrific record - IMHO the man is burning in the hottest part of hell right now - just saying that you may be misinterpreting what you read.

I've voted for a couple of Libertarian candidates in the past, but Barr sure as hell won't be getting my vote! I've lived in Georgia before, so I'm familiar with Barr. I lived in Lawrenceville, in fact (think of the court responsible for what happened to Ed Kramer; Barr's efforts to help Kramer were commendable, but that's about as much praise as I've got for the man). I'm damned glad I'm now living in Maryland again.

I'm not seeing many ways to misinterpret that.

He was also the consummate gentleman, revered by colleagues, staff and friends for his unfailing kindness, good humor, generosity and patriotism.

Others might disagree:

Soon after the Senate vote on the Confederate flag insignia, Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) ran into Mosely-Braun in a Capitol elevator. Helms turned to his friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), and said, “Watch me make her cry. I’m going to make her cry. I’m going to sing ‘Dixie’ until she cries.” He then proceeded to sing the song about the good life during slavery to Mosely-Braun (Gannett News Service, 9/2/93; Time, 8/16/93).

Consummate gentleman my ass.

Egads! Doesn't this man realize that Helms, by expiring on this date, has marred the day of Thomas Jefferson's death?!

G D Townshende @ $7, John Adams too!

The hallmark of libertarianism seems to me to be the "I'm All Right, Jack" attitude, an uncaring disdain for others not as fortunate as oneself. This is annoying enough, but quite different from the positive loathing and fear of specified groups expressed by racist conservatives like Helms. Though not totally incompatible, as we see.

I suspect that Helms was charming and friendly to Barr personally. (Why shouldn't he have been? Barr sponsored DOMA.) And that's why Barr wrote this. Granted, he crossed a serious line here. But I don't think it's a window into Barr's real self so much as a demonstration that he is the idiot here. Not you.

As I understand it, the ideal Libertarian believes that every individual should look out for his or her own interests, without interference from the government. "Me against the world." From this it would follow that, as far as the Libertarian individual's philosophy is concerned, "the world" can go hang...till it becomes a threat.

I don't think the two responses, the disdain and the hate, can be separated. They're two faces of the same entity.

Hm. Uncaring disdain is "I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire" and hate is "I'd light the fire given an opportunity"?

They are not well represented by pretty much any organization claiming the name "libertarian"...but y'know, liberals against the war in Iraq might want to have some sympathy there, given the Democratic Party's record of capitulation and cooperation on awful, vile matters. For instance.

(Personally, I find any suggestion that someone is/was a perfect and flawless human being grotesquely rude and inappropriate, since it's clear that the eulogist (oulogist?) is talking about concepts and ideals rather than a person, and using the deceased only as an excuse.)

Bob Barr, on the other hand, is nothing but an opportunist who is looking for a moment in the sun. It was astonishing when he seemed to develop a set of principles in the wake of being districted out of the House, but his abandoning every last one of the principles he claims to have stood for is one of the more fascinating sights in recent political history.

I don't think I'll join you. There's a time for Hitchens's forthright condemmnation and our host's cheap snark; but this isn't it.

Though I'm not really sure I would paint the entire libertarian community with such a nasty brush...I mean, John Scalzi'S fairly libertarian, isn't he? Oh, and he just gave the man $6.10.
D'oh...

We had another round of this not too long ago, and someone (I don't recall who) made a comment I found very apropos:

"Those who advocate not speaking ill of the dead had better hope that the dead did something which can be spoken of positively."

I don't think Helms qualifies. If nothing else, that episode with Moseley-Brown should have been in every obituary.

When Martin Luther King was shot, Jesse Helms asked students mourning his death at the University of North Carolina to ask their parents if they thought it was acceptable for their sons or daughters to 'marry a negro' and only those whose parents agreed should demonstrate against the killing of Dr King. I'm not even going to go into his objection to a national holiday commemorating MLK and the Civil Rights Movement.

In April 1968, when King was killed, I was not yet twelve years old, and the child of the kind of marriage that Helms was so pointedly objecting to. I have no reason to say one kind word for him. And no objection to heckling in the least.

Honestly though, there are people who truly loved the man and they will be mourning for a good long time. Given what seems like an overly expansive definition of heckling, it might be a while before we could examine his legacy without being accused of heckling while others mourn.

I wouldn't characterize what anyone has done here as heckling. A straightforward retelling of the events of Jesse Helms's life is not heckling. It's unfortunate for Mr. Helms that the events of his life that immediate come to mind are the odious, hateful ones.

Yes, Christopher Hitchens did a little gratuitous namecalling. I think that counts as heckling. The story of what he did to Carol Moseley Braun, though, is a straightforward recounting of his life.

Aghast, thinking that one of the last remaining liberals on the Supreme Court had died, I said "Oh my god." My mind raced: was there enough time remaining in the Senate term for Bush to get one last appointment in? Would the Democrats, looking forward to a President Obama and an increased majority in the Senate, block him?

Only later did I see the news and realize that, in fact, Justice Holmes had died in 1935. I wonder what my friend made of my reaction. (Certainly he knows I am no fan of Helms: we worked together on the Harvey Gantt for Senate campaign against him.)

Though Bob Barr is a good example of what is wrong with the US Libertarian Party, an examination of the candidacy of someone like George Phillies shows that there are some sensible types in the party. Still, it seems to be the "I've got mine, go get yours" types who run the party at the end of the day. I'm not saying the prospects are good... but it isn't -quite- hopeless.

http://phillies2008.org/

disclosure: Dr. Phillies was my former physics professor

I don't think they were being ironic at all, just drawing a distinction between libertarianism as a political philosophy and the Libertarian Party as it currently exists in general and the rather odious Barr in particular. Also read Bruce @12. They're right - I know and know of plenty of libertarians (small l, not necessarily members of the party) that have never given me reason to think of them as racist or bigoted in any way - Jim Henley and game designer Bill Stoddard come to mind.

None of which makes Barr's eulogy for Helms any less repugnant, of course. On the other hand, to the extent that he actually functions as a *civil* libertarian, supports the ACLU, and does things like filibuster telecom immunity, Barr may still serve a useful function nevertheless.

Jan, I'm afraid whatever point you have in mind in #30 is passing me by.

Also because 6.10 is really not that much money (to a person with a good paying job, of course. To others it is quite a lot. But let's not get into that.)

He's probably around here somewhere, maybe he'll show up and explain it better than I can.

As a pagan, I cannot.

Nope, no zeppelins.

Seriously, the usual reason for that is that there are those who loved the person, and are in mourning, and making their suffering worse by reviling him or her is cruel. In Helms' case I actually think he was so evil that loving* him makes the lover complicit in his evil. There are some vilenesses so vile that to fail to recognize them as such is to become vile oneself.

I respectfully submit that Helms was one such vileness, and that anyone who helped and supported him and now misses him has lost the privilege of not hearing us speak the truth about this fucking TURD in human form.

And Bob Barr, DOMA sponsor, even without this, can take the advice in the title of this post.

Disclosure: I am a gay man and a Wiccan, and lost many friends to AIDS.

*I mean to the extent that you'd actually be saddened by his death, not just "love thy neighbor" kind of love.

That said, yeah— Bob Barr. Add his name to the list if it wasn't there already. (It was already on mine, and his "interesting changes" weren't enough to make me forgive.)

There are a few people who manage to get that far, continue to be greatly concerned by maximizing individual access to choice and individual freedom from arbitrary authority, and wind up tackling an extremely difficult problem in social organization.

Most, though, seem to be arguing that most forms of ganging up on problems are illegitimate. It isn't much different from arguing that technical innovation threatening the social position of the current ruling class is illegitimate, and I suspect that this has a lot to do with the observed common failure mode.

Whitewash is too inadequate a word.

How about "honky-wash"?

"The evil men do lives on after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."

Sadly, this is likely to be the legacy of Jesse Helms.

This would also be an apt place to recommend to those who have not read it the excellent short story "Senator Bilbo" -- published by our esteemed host IIRC. Hearing back-country Southern racism translated into the landscape and voices of Middle-Earth is an experience not soon to be forgotten.

You must have realized that he had abstained on most of the recent Supreme Court rulings :)

Literally, I would be the same person if I had never learned to speak or read; but not in any sense I (the person who learned to speak and read) would appreciate.

Even being raised in a different culture (I'm thinking Inuit) would make a substantial difference.

Someone*, in a bit of doggerel, described the self-made man who had all of the statistics at his command; save for the number of people it took to make one self-made man.

* Alexander King, in a book titled May This House Be Safe From Tigers. A frequent guest on the Jack Parr Show, publishers took notice that when an author described his book on TV, sales went up.

"Most"? Since when is mandatory government-enforced cooperation "most" forms of cooperation?

What I think of Helms would require keys not on this keyboard.

I suppose that "Mine! All mine!" belief explains why libertarians (including ones who would never be eligible for the draft) opposed the draft, and currently, libertarians who will never want to use illegal drugs oppose the war on drugs. It explains why libertarians who are just as white and non-Muslim (and so less likely targets) as any neocon oppose torture and massive wiretapping. It explains why libertarians who aren't wealthy still oppose inheritance taxes (though admittedly not as well as armchair psychoanalysis by folks on the left, who know that this must be some kind of delusion about getting rich in the future).

I've come to be suspicious of Obama for many reasons that others have detailed in that thread. Plus I have to wonder what he has promised to which special interests in order to raise all that money. And I don't care for the way he has been spun and positioned and productized, which leads me to make up lines like New and Improved Obama -- now with 50% less evil than McCain!

Well, I happen to think that 50% less evil is a pretty low standard. Usually in a case like this I vote for the party whose platform says "End corporate welfare." But this year, by putting Bob Barr at the head of the ticket, they have made that option much less attractive.

"As for homosexuality, the Bible judges it, I do not...I understand the militant homosexuals and they understand me...As for Mark, I wish he had not played Russian roulette with his sexual activity."

-- Jesse Helms, responding to a constituent on the death of her son from AIDS in 1995

Someone who would tell a grieving mother that her son's death was his own fault deserves the same consideration at his death.

Why would you believe that Barr was representative of the Libertarian Party, let alone libertarianism in general? (Or maybe that latter inference is being drawn from somewhere besides the OP.)

Given the well-established tradition of polite dishonesty towards the recently dead, why do you seem to assume Barr's post was sincere and not merely polite-sounding platitudes in the first place? Helms was a human being, not the incarnation of a philosophical principle. Cherry-picking the few good things about him is exactly what people commonly do about the dead. And ignoring the humanity of your opponents to reduce them to simplistic caricatures of evil is perhaps the worst of human instincts.

There's lots of reasons I disagree with Barr's statement that "we should stop and give thanks to God for the life and work of Jesse Helms." (And I can think of many people who are freer in spite of Helms' efforts, but not one who is freer because of them.) But I don't think it necessarily makes him an asshole for saying it - let alone an entire party or political philosophy. The worst that can be confidently said from the available evidence (IMO) is that Barr was excessively deferential to the idea of not speaking ill of the dead (even when the dead was an exceedingly nasty son of a bitch).

Mandatory government enforced co-operation is not a tithe of all the sorts of co-operation there are; it is just necessary to the stable existence of the majority of the others.

I really wish everyone who has an interest in political philosophy had to thoroughly understand population genetics; this is the quantification of 'many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive' to show just how tiny an advantage becomes inexorably dominant in a population over generational time.

Similar things apply to social organization, and it is inherently easier to raid than to trade. By no means better, but easier, and so better is inherently complicated.

The standard human condition is not peace, order, and good government; it is the rule of man and submission to the violent in the hopes of no worse thing then occurring.

Avoiding submission to the violent cannot be had by strictly voluntary co-operation, because it is most manifestly not in the best interest of the violent to accept that they must surrender great social advantage and seek to have their desires by what means else they may possess.

Throw in that the complexity of the mechanism must match by some means -- though there are means better and means worse -- the complexity of the thing the mechanism governs, and one gets, for three hundred millions of people, something large and complex, and sometimes quite involuntary.

The presence of involuntary requirements is not what makes it evil, when it is.

Wear rubber boots when you do, because some of us will be pissing on it.

He is the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States. He is, by definition, representative of the Libertarian Party.

Bush's Third Term. Really.

I really, REALLY hope that comes from the same sort of folks who brought us Landover Baptist.

The "special interests" of which you speak are schlubs like me. Please do pay attention.

Chris@58: I'm with you. Barr's statement sounds like standard, polite, speak-no-ill-of-the-dead stuff. It's not something I would use to figure out Barr's real beliefs, so I think PNH is off the mark here.

I think libertarianism overall is a crock of shit, but I'm happy to have them on my team when our interests overlap on issues like the ones mentioned above.

Coalitions are go!

Summer Storms@63: It's gotta be. The phrase, "Man's law, not God's," is plucked straight from A Man For All Seasons, where the great martyr St. Thomas More argues in favor of the rule of law.

Or maybe I just watched that flick too much last weekend.

(Also from the front page: "By the way, we'll be taking off the links to the bumper stickers, since not a single one has been sold. We can't imagine why.")

#64, hamletta,
Barr's statement sounds like standard, polite, speak-no-ill-of-the-dead stuff.
A public statement on his campaign page referring to Jesse Helms as "one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress" sounds very much like a public endorsement of the man's principles--which included violent and unapologetic hatred towards homosexuals, blacks, and anyone else who was not a Straight Southern White Male. It is possible to avoid condemning a man without unduly praising him.
And "As a nation we are stronger and the world is freer for his commitment to liberty. " is a damned lie.

Funny how all those people talking about Helms being "the consummate gentleman" forget that no gentleman of the style he pretended to be would have treated ANY woman, no matter what color she was, the way he treated Carole Mosely-Braun.

Quite. Gentlemanly behaviour is defined by how you behave to everybody, not just people equally or more privileged than oneself. In questions of this nature one should always ask oneself "What Would Bertie Wooster Do?" (Though mentally quite negligible, he was still very definitely a gentleman). Sen Helms was rather closer to Roderick Spode.

From my Finnish vantage point, US-style Libertarianism does indeed seem to be built on the core value of "I've got mine, so screw the rest of you."

My favorite definition of gentlemanliness has always been Wilde's, "A gentleman is someone who is never unintentionally rude."

It leaves one a certain...scope.

No, no, first the Eating of Asparagus, then the jig contest, and the evening closes with the Pissing on the Grave. Gotta get this in the right order, especially if we want to make it an annual Independence Day tradition.

Sarah 71: Yes, and that would allow Helms to be a gentleman, since his rudeness to Mosely-Braun was conscious and deliberate. Either we need an additional condition (like "or intentionally rude without just cause," which I suspect was the principle at play when a friend of mine called something I'd said "rude, but not uncalled for"), or to acknowledge that one may be both a gentleman and a total creeping slimemold.

Google informs me that he grabbed the nomination of the Reform Party. Whether this satisfies the second half of the above sentence is a matter of opinion, I guess, but the Reform Party's previously expressed positions weren't exactly in line with Buchanan's, then or now.

Even major party nominees don't necessarily represent all the opinions of their party's voters, just enough to win the primary - McCain isn't nearly nativist enough to suit most Republicans on the issue of immigration, and Obama's support of the current FISA bill is drawing a *lot* of criticism from Democrats, for example.

Indeed, the original post in this thread is not that different than saying "The Democratic Party: coverups of illegal spying for smart people". I suggest a narrower brush.

I must second Brenda @ 61: if one cannot take Barr as the representative of the Libertarian Party, why on earth is the LP putting him up as their candidate for the top spot? Am I to suppose they just pick people at random, or according to their bank balance? First Nader, now Barr - if these persons and their convictions, methods and means do not square with LP principles, and the LP runs them anyway, then it does not appear the LP has any meaningful or lasting stance to take on the national level, beyond "we want federal matching funds".

The gently born do not have a monopoly on kindness, goodness, or true politeness, any more than Christians or whites do. (If anything, history suggests the reverse: those who have been down on their luck are more understanding of those who presently are down on their luck, and it's the people who have led lives of privilege from the cradle that turn out most of the callous jerks like Helms.) So why reinforce that frame?

No mere thug can match the moral depravity of politely sipping tea on your veranda while your slaves toil in your fields - the gentlemanly tradition Helms was proud to uphold.

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/helms/story/1135443.html

For those not wanting to read the article, an NC state employee refused to lower the US or NC flag to half-staff at his workplace to honor Helms, and then retired when ordered to do so by his supervisor.

The only problem with the Dave Barry comment is that by all accounts, Helms was nice to his inferiors. (He had a good reputation for constituent service, and on the Hill among staff.) It was peers to whom he was cruel, not inferiors--and his cruelty was generally intentional.

That doesn't necessarily mean Good. Suicide bombers are courageous. Jefferson Davis was principled. I'm sure that Helms was both.

"revered by colleagues, staff and friends for his unfailing kindness, good humor, generosity and patriotism."

I'm sure. As long as the colleagues or staff weren't women or black (we all know that none of the friends were). But that's okay, they don't count.

And that story about Mosely-Braun is uproariously funny. Great humour. At least to the kind of people who made my school years (and Robert Graves', if we're referencing English writers) a living hell.

Plus, it's easy to be "patriotic" when what that means is "I like it the way it [i|wa]s, and I'm going to fight to keep it that way". We all know those kinds of patriots - not the ones that want (in this case) the U.S. to become/remain the greatest country it can be, but those who basically decry, "you shouldn't criticize what your country is doing. That isn't patriotic."

See? Barr didn't say anything untrue. But I still want to wash my eyes from having read it, and that doesn't make Mr. Helms (or Mr. Barr) the sort of person I want anything to do with or the sort of person I want in power.

Moving on to my next snark:
If the Libertarian Party is racism for smart people, is the Republican Party racism for stupid people and the Democratic Party racism for condescending people?

That has always been one of the more curious bugs in their model.

I'm inclined to agree that "habitual intentional cruelty automatically rules out being a good person." In my opinion, though, cruelty to peers is less bad than cruelty to inferiors; Helms was noted for the former, and also noted for his lack of the latter. (Righteous Warrior refers to, and I remember seeing while an intern, a survey of Hill staff done in 1998; Helms was the Senator they rated as treating them best.)

Didn't we go through this when another scumbag died? Even if Helms was nice to everyone he met in person (far from the case), he would still be an evil, detestable person for the things he did that affected the lives of millions of people he never met.

Then there's 1988, when the LP gave their presidential nomination to R. Paul for more or less the same reason that Barr got it this time as far as I can guess -- name recognition and star power. Party leaders could pat themslves on the back for recruiting a nationally known politician.

“libertarianism,” as espoused in America today

Since the Barr nomination, you wouldn't even need scare quotes if you uppercase the L.

I appreciate the other commenters who have also been precise with their terms.

It may amuse you to know that around that time, true old-time Trekkies were complaining that non-sf fans were "invading" Trek. Certainly when (mostly) women started writing stories about the characters that didn't necessarily have much of a science fiction flavor (other than being set in the ST universe) rather than the more sf-nal/less characterization-heavy stories common before, there was much whining. To people in both communities, seeing it on both sides, this was amusing. Sorta.

In the mid '60s I was a member of a chapter of SDS* that sent its entire membership to the first meeting of the campus Students for Barry Goldwater organization, and stuffed the elective offices with our own members. This aggravated the real Republicans so much they voted to leave the organization, and it never had another meeting. It was political theater at its funniest.

* Students for a Democratic Society, a progressive, not to say downright revolutionary, left-wing party.

But entertainment execs and lawyers have always trended liberal and have always been big contributors to Democratic candidates. Why would Obama be any different?

As to financiers, why wouldn't they want a return to sane(r) economic policy?

And who the hell do you think is contributing to McCain's campaign? Ten thousand nuns & orphans?

What about the fact that he's skirting FEC regulations based on the very law with his own personal name on it?

Look, nobody gets elected president without some major scratch. My point was that a huge chunk of Obama's money is coming from ordinary working stiffs—and lots of 'em, by God!—which is why the whining about his not accepting public financing is horseshit.

My point was that a huge chunk of Obama's money is coming from ordinary working stiffs—and lots of 'em, by God!—which is why the whining about his not accepting public financing is horseshit.

I see that as all good. I just hope he doesn't forget the ordinary working stiffs. I've been disappointed many times before.

You owe me a new keyboard and a coughdrop (I laughed until I coughed so hard I nearly choked). Given that one of my favorite frames for describing tiny-points-of-dogma arguments is "fan feud", this is absolutely dead-on.

Allan, #93: It is also sadly true that the LP is the party of choice for a lot of Helms-style bigots, precisely because the repeal of any type of anti-discrimination legislation is high on their list of priorities. (Veering back toward the original topic.)

Seriously, though, the structure of the phenomenon Teresa described is a recurring one. Did I ever tell you folks how childhood friends from Lebanon helped me understand Wicca?

And yes, that's a well-known psychological concept, however you try to belittle it. "Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor" - John Dickinson, 1776

As for libertarians opposing torture and wiretapping, the self-defined libertarian I know best supports torture and wiretapping. I tried to tell him he's not a libertarian but an authoritative conservative, but that got him really angry. Just like there was a certain breed of "liberal" that defaulted to authoritarian conservative in the face of Vietnam War protests, there are both so-called liberals and libertarians who crumple up the same way in the face of 9/11 and Iraq.

As to financiers, why wouldn't they want a return to sane(r) economic policy?

Nice work if you can get it. How many Bear Stearns execs have you seen living out of cardboard boxes?

Admittedly, with a semi-honest Justice Department, there'd also be a possibility of being prosecuted for fraud and spending several years in a resort "prison" with a more comfortable lifestyle than your guards or any other working-class people. But that's exactly the kind of "government interference in the market" that financiers do NOT want to see.

So, if I back repealing the inheritance tax and I'm rich, I'm simply reflecting an "I got mine, Jack" mentality. And if I'm poor, I'm deluding myself that I'll one day get rich and reflecting an "I got mine, Jack" mentality. Is that basically what you're saying?

This model excludes the possibility that I might back a policy because I think it's right, even if it does me no good, or even harms me. There's no polite way to say this, this idea is crap. It's the same flavor of crap, whether it's an explanation of why Ted Kennedy and George Soros have some deep dark evil motivations for backing progressive tax rates and inheritance taxes, or one of why some factory worker or farmer wants flat taxes and no inheritance tax.

I'll note that the right is just as into this dishonest nonsense as the left--read some discussion on a right-wing blog sometime of the reasons white liberals are alleged to back affirmative action or gun control, and you'll see the same quality of thought applied in a different direction. Same crap, different origin.

Not that I recall. Please do; it sounds fascinating.

Said Libertarian is also wiccan.

And confused.

I'm too tired now to do it, but I think it would be very easy to come up with (what would be for me) a damnation of the late Senator that would have brought at least an inward smile to the old reprobate.

Bumper-sticker:
        Don't blame me; I voted for Incitatus.

Tell Martin, John, and Bobby
That Brother I's a stallion
Oh alack for the couth
We had hoped for the South
When a Senator turns Italian!

(The story of Consul Incitatus, to head off any admirable sticklers, is so good that I don't care if it's true. In some ways, I've always seen it as Caligula in one of his better moments, "political satire of the act".)

Yeah, even today there are lot of horse's asses in politics.

Years later, when I started encountered Wiccans in the mid-'80s, there was something familiar about it all. And I realized: hey, this is structurally a lot like the Riskallahs' worship. Ever since then I've thought about how much circumstances shape our lives regardless of the content of our beliefs.

Inheritance tax was not proof, it was an example, an example you and not I brought up.

When I see the words "Christian" and "wiccan" used close to each other in a single short post, I wonder why the poster thinks that one religious adjective merits the capital letter and the other doesn't. Often it's an indication that the poster simply doesn't consider one of them a real religion--or that the poster is mindlessly adhering to journalistic standards set by those who hold said opinion. I doubt that either is the case with you, but it's an impression the typo can give.

Generally (and I screwed up this one) I try to keep it consistent from writing to writing.

Declaration of Ratification

I, Esek, compelled of conscience and acting of my own volition, do hereby declare that there exists but one self-evident UNIVERSAL COMMON LAW and CONSTITUTION by which all are free, and to which all are accountable, without exception; the ignorance of which can be no excuse or defense, and therefore, mindful of that Judgment, do further employ and direct my every thought, my every discipline, my every effort to create FREEDOM, defend LIBERTY, and establish JUSTICE, subject to none but:

THE UNIVERSAL COMMON LAW and CONSTITUTION

Preamble

Every individual human on Earth is by right the absolute sovereign owner of their self, purposed by the very nature of their consciousness to prosper and live happily. The sole lawful function of any government or society is to guarantee those conditions that allow all individuals to fulfill their purpose. This CONSTITUTION, which forbids the use of initiatory force or coercion by any person, group, or government against any individual, alone guarantees those conditions:

THE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual’s self or property.

ARTICLE 2: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate ARTICLE 1.

ARTICLE 3: No exceptions shall ever exist to ARTICLES 1 and 2.

THEREFORE, by virtue of my existence and in ratification of the above, DONT TREAD ON ME.

Dated: November 3, 2008 Signature in Ratification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97SUkKY3v6c

His* donkeyhood, on the other hand, is self-evident.

*most likely

The government can't do anything, since under his constitution they can only act if the government needs to defend itself. His friends can only act if they've been attacked, which they haven't been. So, who, then? Kese Kese is going to do something? The attack is already over, so he can't morally respond.

Poor Kese Kese! Sporked in the face and all he can do is sputter about the injustice.

Ummm...call 911?

Sorry, this isn't one of your emergency preparedness quizzes is it?

Time to rewrite the constitution to include the concept of collective defence. You know, you could organise a whole neigbourhood that way, and it would probably be a lot safer from spork attacks.

Or the invisible hand of the market will do you in because everyone knows that a murderer can't be trusted, so you will be shunned and unable to earn your living.

(if it's anarchists instead of libertarians, there will be a community-wide meeting to discuss what should be done and it will go on until justice is done or you go off to plague some other community.)

But in studying, they would have learned that man is mortal, so clearly there would be no reason to do business with anyone else.

Drink, anyone?

Did you notice that Esek Esek is Kese Kese spelled backwards?

it's also hebrew for "business business."

Most likely he's not Indonesian, then.

Pay me a retainer, and if I see you being attacked, without such attack being justified with the second clause, and I'll leap to your defense.

If I don't see it, you may depend on me to invistigate your claim and mete out an appropriate justice.

I can do this because I am not a signatory to any such nonsense as your constitution, and you can't compell me to do so (per said constitution).

If you don't pay me, well.... Nice face you got here, hate to see anything happen to it, like a walk-by sporking.

Hee hee. You made my day, Terry.

Waitaminnit. Weren't we just talking about this paradigm in connection with conspiracy theories?

There's still large parts of Antarctica.

Rosa @132, I've seen some libertarians seriously hold up Somalia as a great example of how well things can work without government. That was before the notorious recent stoning, though.

I've seen a couple of articles suggesting that Mogadishu was, indeed, a libertarian paradise (no pesky government regulations). They tended to skate over the warlords and competing clans. And they disappeared with the rise of the UIC.

So, out of anarchy, a ruthless armed force arises, supposedly to protect things but really to run an extortion racket.

David Brin wrote an interesting riff on a George Soros essay. Core nugget:

Indeed, if you scan human history, you will find very few examples of market-based systems that escaped meddling and ruination at the hands of the very same elites who stood at the top of the social order -- the owners of nearly all capital, who insisted that they knew what's best, and nearly always squelched competition, rather than let it flow and thrive. In the vast majority of cultures, it was top owners who shut down what we would call open market behavior. A threat far more prevalent than peasant revolts or socialism.

Market Fundamentalists tell themselves a dogma that Adam Smith himself never believed, that markets are rooted in - and organically emerge from - human nature. This is fundamentally wrong. Our natures developed in a Darwinian-tribal context that predated civilization and markets. In order to understand this, simply study the power and economic arrangements in most tribal or pastoral societies. And even later. Try calculating what fraction of the population in most ancient nations must have been descended from the harems of kings. (Recent data show that 8% of the Chinese population, today, is directly descended from Ghengiz Khan.)

While it is true that some deeply human imperatives do work well with markets - e.g. our ability to both cooperate and compete, our embedded notion of fairness and quid-pro-quo. other human drives do not. For example, the propensity to cheat and deceive. And our remarkable tendency to tell ourselves satisfyingly delusional stories that aren't well-based in fact. This latter trait makes us wonderful artists, but also great believers in simplistic dogmas.

Like the simplistic dogma of perfect, equilibrium-seeking markets

Raphael @ 136 - I have to admit that I avoid talking to libertarians. I have actually developed a technique of spilling a drink on my breasts to simultaneously draw their attention awya from discussion and give me an excuse to leave in a hurry, for when I get trapped in a political discussion with libertarians, sectarian socialists, or marxists.

But I am astonished to hear anyone praising Somalia's warlord system. The only mention I have ever heard of immigration to present-day Somalia is when an immigrant to the US resists being deported back on the grounds that it's not safe there for *anyone*.

Raphael @ 136 - I have to admit that I avoid talking to libertarians. I have actually developed a technique of spilling a drink on my breasts to simultaneously draw their attention awya from discussion and give me an excuse to leave in a hurry, for when I get trapped in a political discussion with libertarians, sectarian socialists, or marxists.

But I am astonished to hear anyone praising Somalia's warlord system. The only mention I have ever heard of immigration to present-day Somalia is when an immigrant to the US resists being deported back on the grounds that it's not safe there for *anyone*.

As long as you're not talking hot coffee...

I wonder what the equivalent for guys would be. Spilling a drink on one's crotch? Or their crotch? In which case hot coffee would be more effective.

Well, anyway.

I had a sudden image of Jar-Jar Binks there. What's the ocular equivalent of an earworm?

I'd really like to know. My usual technique of going all Bob The Angry Flower doesn't work very well.

That would be a "goatse". For sanity's sake, do not googlesearch that word. The cure for that phenomenon is called either "brain bleach" or "eye bleach", usually expressed as a photo of a person whose appearance is pleasant.

Libertarians, having fetishised the market, which is a tool of human needs, into a veritable divinity that solves all human problems, have a tendency to confuse the perfect market, which exists only in economics textbooks, with the real world, which is lumpy. The results would be amusing, were they not painful. Since we're now getting a practical lesson in the limits of markets, perhaps a few will figure things out. I am, after years of experience teaching, not so sanguine as I once was.

FTFY. heh.

There's a kind of interesting distinction here somewhere, between people who have interesting (weird, odd, unusual, challenging) ideas, and people who are had by those ideas. The folks in the first column may have crazy, wrong, dangerous ideas, but they're usually interesting to talk with. The folks in the second column are just wanting to evangelize their big idea, and won't respond to evidence or argument in any other direction. An awful lot of net.libertarians, and the vast majority of objectivists I've spoken with in person or online, are had by their ideas. Discussions with those folks are unrewarding, unless you're wanting to know about the idea from one of the faithful. No evidence will or can affect those ideas hold on their posessees.

Why can't these spambots learn to write? Would it be too much to ask to match tenses within a single sentence?

Allow me to introduce myself. I'm one of the moderators on this site.

As such, I am the authorized agent of the owners of this site, the people who pay for the bandwidth. I'd like to point out that this site is PRIVATE PROPERTY, something that you as a libertarian should appreciate and respect. The owners of this private property do, because they enjoy it, permit sundry friends and strangers to post comments in the threads. Commenters have no right to post; this is not the commons.

Generally, in order to continue to post here, it is a good idea to be factual, polite, entertaining, or some combination of the three. At the moment, you're 0 for 3.

I know that it is vexing to be mistaken for a spambot, but your prose is not of the best and your agenda and story are a little on the strange side for this community. These are characteristics that you share with spammers, unfortunately. The way to overcome this suspicion is not to flame the other commenters who make assumptions, but to prove them wrong by the good sense and reasonableness of your postings.

It is my sincere recommendation that you adopt this strategy forthwith, or our relationship will deteriorate quickly and severely. If you cannot do this, then my next piece of advice is that you give us up as a lost cause, and move on to greener pastures.

[gulp-gulp-gulp]
"Ah, my drink appears to be empty. Excuse me."

I always love to watch you do that. You have such style.

(Can I mark a square to the bingo card if I get called a sycophant for thinking so?)

You're very kind. I meant every word, including the constructive ones.

Can I mark a square to the bingo card if I get called a sycophant for thinking so?

Without presuming too much about the general attitudes of the community, I think that that is probably the "groupthink" square.

Not that I think Esek is a troll or near-troll; he seems just not to get the customs here. You explained them very clearly; I hope he listens.

*'works' == "achieves the best, most hoped-for result"

I meant every word, including the constructive ones.

I know. That's part of what makes it such a pleasure to watch.

If I may, I shall attempt to explain my posts. My original posting of the Declaration of Ratification in retrospect has all the qualities of spam. It was, however, formulated as I paced the cell-block and I posted it where I could on the internet as a statement of conscience to morally bind me to a code of conduct. Having suffered so long under the Quaker System of introspective "civil death", I required such a measure to live. But I must admit that I feel more like a ghost in an alien land than a human being.

First, permit me to say that I am not now nor have I ever been a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party (I lost the card soon after it was issued and I never cared to look for it). But they were the only "congregation" I felt might understand my need to bind my conscience in the way I have. It was the word "libertarian" that drew me to your property.

Your headline equating the concept of individual liberty with racism is beyond me. I do not know Mr. Barr nor do I ever care to. I have heard from my last remaining Libertarian contact (an intolerable condescending fellow) that Barr was an undercover conservative that split the Party. How a tempest in a teapot spawns micro-maelstroms is also beyond me.

The other day, however; I was tidying up my footprint on the web when I rediscovered your thread. The contributor's comment indicating that the penalty for my statement of conscience should be exile to Somolia, unsettled me greatly. I had spent several months in a cell smaller than the average bathroom with the former US Marine, a radio man, who was literally the last man out of the American Embassy there. The choppers had actually dusted off when an officer heard George still faithfully calling in his observations from the breach in the wall where he had been ordered to make his stand. One of the two choppers touched back down and his brother Marines heaved him into their collective bosom. Therefore, I understood very well that the contributor's intent was that I should be murdered for my conscience.

As for my miserable account of my lame efforts to preserve the life of someone I love, it was done in an effort to seek humanity. A quality I have not known for a very long time.

If you still feel that I unworthy, I shall never trespass upon your property again.

It was certainly unexpected to us, but, as I say, we do try to differentiate between real people doing unexpected things and spambots. Thus this conversation.

Alienation and isolation are, sadly, nothing new in the world. The only real solution is to reach out to others, to rebuild the network of human contacts that gives us context. No matter how cerebral we are, how much we focus on our thoughts, our ideas and our principles, we are still primates. And primates are social creatures at heart; they don't thrive in isolation. (This is why I part company with classical libertarianism, which seems to give very little support to that inseparable side of the human character.)

Your headline equating the concept of individual liberty with racism is beyond me.

That was not the thrust of the headline (which specifically mentions the Libertarian Party), nor of the post itself (which uses a mild degree of hyperbole to make a point. The concept of individual liberty may or may not be the best means on which to organize society. But Barr's eulogy for Helms did not exactly advance the cause of individual liberty. To the extent that he spoke for the Libertarian party, Patrick felt that he was dragging the party away from its stated aims.

The other day, however; I was tidying up my footprint on the web when I rediscovered your thread. The contributor's comment indicating that the penalty for my statement of conscience should be exile to Somolia, unsettled me greatly...Therefore, I understood very well that the contributor's intent was that I should be murdered for my conscience.

I'm afraid you've really misread the replies to your comment.

The principles that you've stated are an incomplete recipe for a functioning society. If everyone ran their lives using nothing but your principles, all would be great. But people don't always follow rules; some of the strong would inevitably decide it was more profitable or satisfying to oppress the weak. And without any allowance for action on behalf of others—a provision for mutual defense and the enforcement of laws to protect the weak, the friendless and the unlucky—what you get is, basically, Somalia: might makes right and the Devil take the hindmost.

Now, as a way of reacting to an abuse of the legal system, I can see the emotional appeal. But you really can't run a community that way. If you advocate doing that, reason our commenters, why not skip a few steps and go to where the law of force alone already applies?

If that means you'd then be murdered, then perhaps declaring an immutable set of principles that will, unchecked, turn our society into Somalia is a bad idea.

As for my miserable account of my lame efforts to preserve the life of someone I love, it was done in an effort to seek humanity. A quality I have not known for a very long time.

It's clearly a complex story. I'm presuming it took place in the United States? Have you contacted any advocacy organizations about publicizing or prosecuting the injustices you describe? The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many charities exist to help right the balance between the powerless and the powerful in our society.

Although it's not as satisfying a solution as abandoning the mutual interdependence of society, it might prevent some other poor soul from going through what you describe.

If you still feel that I unworthy, I shall never trespass upon your property again.

I think you can tell that I don't. I don't know that there is much that I could do to help you, but I'm certainly not going to forbid you to post here now that you're being civil.

As for the UCL&C, it completely allows for action by others. Applied to exisiting law it merely culls laws which compel an individual to cede ownership to their self or property. But laws, usage and customs, which prohibit murder, rape, arson, theft, theft by deception, etc,... remain untouched. It the end the courts, the police, and the military would still exist to defend. Even lawyers might serve a funciton, however, this profession would no doubt experience heavy "downsizing".

But as I stated in 167, my Oath (Note: consisting of paragraph one (1)and the "THEREFORE" clause only. THE CONSTITUTION is the discovery of the late Wallace Ward -- who granted implied consent to use it -- although i modified its name and preamble) is to bind my conscience. I would never seek to force others to follow suit. Perhaps in that respect it is more like the Boy Scout's Oath.

Again, thank you. I truly value your comments (even if I got off to a bad start). You seem to be very good highly evolved tool-making primates possessed of the self-created artifact of consciousness. I hope this was at least one of your three customs.

10 Good Ways to Mimic Objectivist Behaviourism's

1. Pose like Ayn Rand promo pics -- facials grimaces, the chin rested on your thumb with your index finger along the side of your face, or "candid" shots of you reading a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" are all good ways to tell the world, "This blog belongs to an Objectivist!"

2. Refer to any doodles or scribbling, or arts and crafts projects you do, as "aesthetics."

3. Use polysyllabic words, especially "epistemology" and "heuristics", often.

4. Belittle your nearest Libertarian -- its true, they love crushing the egos of their own wayward children. But who doesn't?

5. Ask probing questions designed to make others feel small, for example, "Are you then an elitist, pragmatist, or empiricist?"

6. Cuddle your nearest fascist -- sick but true. Someone you'd think might run to the barricades in defense of Ron Paul, feels much more in touch with strongman Nordic good looks and limbaugh-listic rhetoric.

7. Over blow your credentials -- if you've got a string of associate degree level certifications -- mostly achieved during your Dilbert cubicle days at a defense contractor before they downsized -- launder them into a bachelors degree but list them separately to give the impression of superior intelligence and effort.

8. Buy a dollar sign lapel pin and wear it prominently for your blog pic.

9. Insist that capital investment is the direct consequence of "egoism".

10. Blur the distinction between selfishness and self-interest to the point that no one of the opposite sex, or your own for that matter, wants to have play time with you for fear of not achieving an orgasm.