No Coercion

Over at Lew Rockwell, William L. Anderson writes in a similar vein to my previous entry about Michael Vick–except he makes an even stronger case for the government leaving Vick alone!

After stating his position that the federal prosecution of Vick is another case of government abuse of power, he mentions the inevitable hateful comments he’ll get from those not adept at rational thought (the same hatefulness I’ve experienced in recent days in various online forums where I’ve attempted a rational discussion about the legitimacy of prosecuting Vick):

Unfortunately, my comments so far are going to lead to my receiving countless emails from animal lovers and animal rights people who have decided by now that I am defending dogfighting and cruelty to animals. While those things are not irrelevant to Vick’s behavior and very questionable judgment – provided the things alleged are true – they are irrelevant to my point that federal involvement has taken a bad situation and has made it much worse.

Anderson discusses the coercive and totalitarian law known at RICO and how it’s been used for decades to undermine the very concept of justice, as is now being done with Michael Vick:

If Vick decides to plead guilty, it will be one more episode of the disappearance of the right to a fair trial. Why would Vick plead out? It is because federal prosecutors are preparing to bring in more indictments, this time under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. This abominable “law” (if one can call it that) takes so-called bad acts and then bundles them into the federal “crime” of “racketeering,” which is a nice way of saying that under RICO, people are charged with what only can be called imaginary crimes.

And more about RICO (quoting himself and Candice Jackson from an earlier article):

Under RICO, individuals who engage in what prosecutors allege to be extortion, illegal gambling operations, and the like are not charged with those specific crimes, but rather are accused of racketeering, which is a derivative catch-all term. Because RICO cases are tried in federal courts, U.S. attorneys do not have to prove to juries and judges that the accused engaged in the aforementioned crimes (which as a rule are violations of state criminal law); they must show only that it appears the defendants carried on those activities. Moreover, for a RICO conviction, the prosecutor must meet only the civil standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” not the higher standard of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” that historically has been required for criminal conviction.

You read that correctly: “they must show only that it appears the defendants carried on those activities.”

If this doesn’t make your blood boil, you may already be deadened to the abuses of our leviathan government. My condolences.

Anderson concludes with this:

What he did was wrong and thuggish, but while Michael Vick allegedly was a danger to some dogs, that was and is nothing compared to the dangers that federal authorities impose upon the people of this country – and, indeed, the world – every day. That, I believe, is the central issue in this case, not the guilt or innocence of a professional football player.

When you hear emotional animal-lovers (hey, I’m one, too) going on about how Vick needs to be strung up, then shot, then drawn and quartered, remember to stay rational and keep things in perspective. The abuse that really needs to be looked at here is not animal abuse–it’s the abuse of each one of us by an increasingly powerful and coercive state apparatus.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

So the drama with Falcons QB Michael Vick continues. I’d guess that about 97% of the American public that’s aware of this story is itching to see the government really stick it to Vick and prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law.

The remaining 3% are those of us with the highest possible degree of respect for liberty and voluntary social interactions.

Let’s get a few things out of the way. I do not condone animal cruelty. I think people that do the kinds of things Vick is accused of are sick and are probably more likely than others to harm actual human beings. I also believe animals are not equivalent to humans. They are not moral agents. They do not have rights. They are resources and can be owned. I grew up with wonderful dogs and cats. They brought me plenty of joy and certainly enhanced my life. Nevertheless, they were still property–not people, not moral agents with natural rights.

Now of course Vick should not be prosecuted on the gambling charge. That’s flat out a victimless crime, and most of us realize there’s nothing inherently wrong with it (it does of course pose ethical issues in some cases and can legitimately be banned by private organizations as in the case of the NFL, but that’s not a legitimate matter for law enforcement).

The real question is whether it’s right for Vick to be prosecuted for cruelty to animals. Of course I realize current law allows such prosecution, but that’s not the point. My argument is that that is a failure on our society’s part to properly understand liberty and natural rights.

A free society is measured by how well it relies on voluntary actions of free individuals rather than the coercion of the state. Government is coercion. Law is coercion. A free society strives to minimize and eliminate those vestiges of primitive aggression. If a monopoly government with law enforcement powers exists, those powers should only be used with regard to invasions of person or property. You should be able to do whatever you want to yourself or your property. The law should not interfere. You may not invade (engage in aggression against) other people or their property.

So animal abusers just get to run loose with no punishment? Not at all. The majority of people in society are decent, caring human beings. They would not look kindly on someone engaging in cruelty to animals. Indeed, we see that Michael Vick is already being subjected to intense personal and professional ostracism. He is looked at with disgust by virtually the entire country. His football career may well be over. Unless miraculously vindicated, he’ll carry this with him like a “scarlet letter” for the rest of his life. And all this without a single conviction through the coercive instruments of the state. That is how things are handled by free people.

Share your thoughts on this–don’t hold back!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Rojas, one of the authors over at The Crossed Pond, has written a great defense of the antics of the ‘obnoxious’ Ron Paul supporters: What Ron Paul supporters SHOULDN’T apologize for.

Rojas points out that the other GOP campaigns are basically angry that they can’t muster the same passion for their guys.

How could you not get excited about the closest thing to a pure libertarian message that’s EVER come out of one of the two major parties (not that I’m a fan of their dominance and suppression of other parties)? Not to mention the sheer volume of media attention it’s bring to libertarianism in general!

Anyway, check out the blog post!

Go Ron Paul!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

According to Tim Dickinson over at National Affairs Daily (Rolling Stone’s politics blog), John Edwards accused Rudy Giuliani of being “Bush on steroids.”

Of course, Edwards is right—but not in the way he intended. He was referring to the level of ‘crony capitalism’ under Bush and the increased level he would expect to see under Rudy. I’ll give him the ‘crony capitalism’ hit on Bush—our current president wouldn’t know true free market capitalism if it put him in a headlock and gave him a noogie. But neither would John Edwards. Both Bush and Edwards have shown themselves to be fans of various degrees of a coercive, violence-based system of socialism. I actually think Giuliani is probably oriented much more toward free market policies than Bush (but that’s not saying much).

Where Edwards accidentally spoke truth is with respect to Giuliani’s predisposition toward the use of the police power of the state. Giuliani does not extend his pro-freedom philosophy from the marketplace to the realm of civil liberties. Although many credit him with cleaning up New York City through his ‘get tough’ policing tactics, the cause-and-effect relationship is far from clear. Not only that, but in the interests of maintaining the most just society possible, American criminal justice philosophy has always been structured around the absolute necessity of avoiding what’s known as the ‘alpha error’–the accidental punishment of the innocent. Our system knowingly fails to punish every last offender because it’s considered far worse to punish the innocent by mistake (a principle most of us would agree with). Who knows how many innocents were punished under Rudy’s policing policies.

The fact of the matter is that Giuliani would institute a police state in America that would make George Bush slap himself on the forehead every few days and say, “Dang! Why didn’t I think of that?!”

Giuliani’s support for things like a national ID card, lack of strong support for the 2nd Amendment, and “every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters” (I can just imagine what that would translate into under a Giuliani administration) are just a sample of his lack of respect for true freedom and civil liberties.

I guarantee you Rudy is no fan of Ben Franklin, who famously articulated a key libertarian principle: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

There’s a post over at The Politico about a potential government shutdown in the fall.

I don’t know about you, but nothing would make me happier!

The federal government unable to function? Unable to tell us how to live, how strongly to support political candidates, how to run our businesses, how to obtain our health care, and all the other gross intrusions of the government in our lives? Would the government stop confiscating part of my paycheck and redistributing it to others? Would it stop funding expensive scientific projects? Would it stop sending troops all over the world in ‘defense’ of America?

Those are a few of the things I would expect if the government actually ’shut down.’ But I imagine they’ll be finding ways to continue coercing us regardless of Congressional budget decisions.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!