Napolatino Slaps Down the Moronic Huckabee

Notice that Huckabee's arguments have zilch to do with the case he is trying to make. Huckabee is a real fascist, and I mean a fascist. He is big government all around.

Huckabee's logic is circular. Marriage doesn't apply to gay people because gay people can't get married. And, by the way, we have a "dad deficit." Somehow the alleged instability of straight couples is the reason that gay couples should not marry.

Huckabee is absolutely the worst of the worst. Notice that he is arguing for centralized control of marriage, against even a federalist approach to the topic, and for state intrusion into the contractual nature of marriage.

Killing old women in the name of morality.

Helen Pruett is an 76-year-old woman living alone. As is often the case at that age her health is fragile. She previously had three heart attacks but in recent years was doing fairly well, all things considered.

But things took a turn for the worse quite suddenly, unexpectedly and unnecessarily—all thanks to the drug warriors and their ill-considered, counterproductive war on drugs.

While supposedly safe in her home, this elderly woman suddenly found armed thugs shouting and screaming, guns drawn, at every door and window. A swarm of men, with violent intentions, surrounded her. Included in this assault were local and federal agents.

During the raid Mrs. Pruett suffered a heart attack. The drug warriors said they had the house under surveillance for two years and that the "suspect" wasn't there. But Pruett lives alone so the "suspect" is never there. In other words anothe screw up by incompetent, adrenaline driven armed thugs put another innocent person in harms way all to protect us from the evils of drugs. Who will protect us from the evils of the war on drugs?

According to Pruett's daughter the woman is now in the Intensive Care Unit and is "not in good condition." The daughter said: "She was traumatized. Even the doctor said this is what happens when something tramatic happens. He said its usually like a death in the family or something like that just absolutely scares them half to death, and that is what has happened.

The daughter claims she recently learned of another such raid by the SWAT team and DEA thugs where they "went into some other elderly woman's home who was on oxygen and took her oxygen off of her and scared her half to death."

I am the first to say that illegal drugs are not good things. They do harm people, just not as much as the war on drugs. And the harm illegal drugs do to people are a direct result of the choices made by those who are harmed. The war on drugs is a threat to all of us, and Helen Pruett is a living—for now at least—example of that.

The police chief says he apologize for the mistake. That and $1 will get you a drink at McDonald's but it won't cover the cost of intensive care for the woman he scared.

Chief Kenny Dodd defends his decision to draw guns on the old woman. "These were considered high-risk warrants. These individuals are known drug dealers and they were looking at a lot of time in federal prison, when we serve those type of warrants, we usually go in with guns drawn just to protect ourselves." This is precisely the reason officers get shot by innocent people whose homes are attacked because of the constant errors made by these morons.

In a bizarre move Dodd is now claiming: "We didn't botch a drug raid." Instead he says "he and 12 officers went to the home and did surround it" because the suspect, Tim Washington, was thought to live there. But he didn't live there, Pruett did. That the armed drug warriors surrounded the house of an old woman, because they had it wrong as to who lived there, is a botched drug raid no matter how Dodd tries to spin it. Police confirm Pruett had no connection to the man they were looking for, but don't say they botched it. An even more twisted example of police logic is that Dodd says Pruett's home was never part of the investigation, but that it was listed on the warrant the police secured. So, they never actually investigated who lived at the house, got a warrant to raid the property, did so, an old woman has a heart attack as a result, but don't you dare call it a "botched drug raid." How stupid do you have to be to be a cop in Georgia?

Dodd is now trying to spin the claim that Pruett's heart attack had nothing to do with armed thugs surrounding her home. He says: "We were there to serve an arrest warrant. [Yep, on someone who never lived there.] While we were there, she had a heart attack. [And you don't think the presence of heavily armed, potentially violent, men on her doorstep had nothing to do with it?] We rendered aid. [I guess she should kiss your feet because you didn't shoot her on the spot.]" Dodd says: "I just want our citizens to know the truth." So do I. Here it is. Cops are a threat to you life. The war on drugs is now more dangerous that drugs themselves. Dodd botched the drug raid, Pruett is possibly dying because of it. But Dodd makes it sound as if Pruett was lucky the drug warriors were there since they could help get an ambulance for the heart attack they caused.

In the Cory Maye case it lead to the death of a police officer, and Maye's imprisonment. In the Kathyrn Johnson case the drug warriors managed to gun down the dangerous, terrified, and entirely innocent, 92-year-old woman. Annie Rae Dixon was 84 and bed-ridden when the drug warriors broke into her house by mistake and then, according to them, they "accidentally" shot her to death as she lay in her bed. Rudy Cardenas was out for a walk and happened to walk past a house as drug warriors were attacking. The warriors got confused, probably too many drugs, and thought he must be the suspect. Seeing armed men rushing at him he fled and was shot in the back multiple times, killing him.

Here are some facts. The war on drugs kills more people than the drugs do. Yes, the DEA is more deadly and dangerous than cocaine. And, as our cops militarized and turned into violent, armed gangs they have managed to drive out of the drug market dealers who themselves are not armed or dangerous. In other words, the drug warriors and their violence has resulted in the drug trade itself becoming far more violent. We are in arms escalation race between two armed gangs of violent criminals and innocent people like Helen Pruett, Corey Maye and Kathyrn Johnson get caught in the middle.

We witnessed the same sort of stupid violence when the moralists pushed through Prohibition in the United States. Alcohol production had been a peaceful activity until then. Suddenly we had shoot-outs in the streets and an escalation of violence. Government-sponsored, drug-war-related violence breeds more violence at all levels. This means more and more innocent people will die as a result of the escalation of violence, instigated by the drug warriors.

Keep in mind the premises behind the war on drugs and the damage it does to innocent people. And then consider a new book published by Liberty Fund. By consider I mean ponder, not consdier buying it. If anything you may wish to boycott Liberty Fund from here out. This blogger considers this new publication to be a total betrayal of the principles on which Liberty Fund was founded and a sign that the conservative rot in the libertarian movement is spreading. Please note that the arguments in this horrendous book would equally apply to the war on drugs—so the violence in the war on drugs appears to be something that Liberty Fund would have to endorse.

The book in question is The Enforcement of Morals by Patrick Devlin. Devlin wrote the book to attack the liberal principles of John Stuart Mill being used in the debate on legalizing homosexuality in. Devlin wanted it to remain a criminal offense. Liberty Fund's new book says that homosexuality "harm[s] society by undermining its moral structure" the same way that murder and assault" harm the individual. And we "ignore such behaviors at our own peril." They claim this assault on classical liberal vaues will "resonate and reverberate anew" with readers in light of debates on same-sex marriage. Devlin's arguments are an attack on classical liberal principles and marks a dramatic, troubling reversal, nay, a betrayal, of the liberal values once held by Liberty Fund.

This blogger wonders if Liberty Fund has gone to the dark side and certainly will be more hesitant to purchase any books from them. I also note that the results of the logic used by Devlin is what lead sto these deaths of innocent people due to the war on drugs. The principles that Liberty Fund is now pushing literally leads to killing people. Shame on them. For the record, the classical liberal reply to this blatant push for Big Government and collectivist principles is H.L.A Hart's work, Law, Liberty and Morality. Hart, not Devlin, upholds the principles that Liberty Fund formerly espoused.

What really bothers me is that the publication of this work degrades the wonderful books they do publish by mere association. Liberty Fund is not your usual publisher who publishes all sides of a debate. They supposedly, as their name implies, promote liberty. Thus they are putting a stamp of approval on a collectivistic, anti-liberal, statist argument and implying that this is actually liberty. That is is why it is more disgusting for them to do this, than it would be for Random House to do it.

Bravo -- this is right on target

The No on Prop 8 campaign has released their new television commercial and it is enough to make me consider contributing some money to their campaign. This hits the nail on the head.



I know there are a lot of libertarians who don't have anyone they feel they can support in this election. So folks, here is a campaign you can help instead. And the message of this commercial is a good libertarian one. Please go and contribute to the campaign to get more of these commercials on the air before the election.

The moral problems of state power in regards to war.

Classical liberals and libertarians have often applied the morality of the individual to the collective. By that I mean they argue, and I think persuasively, that the collective is bound by the same moral principles as the individual. This was articulate nicely by Frederic Bastiat almost 160 years ago in his essay The Law.

But I think there is an error that some libertarians fall into regarding this argument. We see this error in the arguments of some of the pro war libertarians and psuedo-libertarians. One argument may go something like this:

Joe is sitting at home. Joe hears his very nasty neighbors plotting how they will come into his home and murder him and his family. He looks out the window and sees one of them loading a rifle. Another has pulled out a bayonet. Joe grabs his pistol. He realizes that there are several of them. He can’t afford to wait until they actually get into his home. Nor does he have time to call the police. He takes aim through his open widow and shoots all, of the neighbors. They fall dead on their lawn, never having actually reached Joe’s property line. Joe had every right to pre-empt his neighbors before they actually got into his home. While he technically fired first it was in self-defense.

At this point they make the jump. If the individual has the right to fire the first shot in self defense then a nation has the same right. The war in Iraq is warranted because Iraq was a threat to the safety of Americans and the prime function of government is protecting the life, liberty, and property of the individual.

But how does the state differ from the individual? Shouldn’t we consider those matters as well?

The individual who acts fires the first shot would expect that the police would arrive quickly and disarm him. He would expect that a full investigation is going to be carried out. He, as an individual, made a choice and he will bear all the consequences of that choice. If the evidence shows that the neighbors were going to attack, or that it was reasonable to assume they would, he will be vindicated and it is not likely he will face charges. But, if he was in error, he can expect to go prison. In some states he might expect the death penalty.

All the consequences, good or bad, are imposed on him alone.

Consider how the state does not, and can not, act like an individual. Consider this point from an article (pdf) entitled The Peace Principle.

It is well known that in collectives individuals can lose moral restraint. A lynch mob will kill, although as an individual each member would be horrified at the thought. Likewise, state power is a collective power in which the individuals who participate in decision-making lose their normal sense of responsibility for their actions. In fact the law often explicitly denies individual culpability in those who wield power.

Many of the restraints on individual action are entirely missing. The state is not so much like an individual as it is a lynch mob. Each decision-maker and functionary in the state apparatus is merely one small clog in a giant system. No one individual feels fully responsible for the actions of the system. Moral restraints that individuals would normally obey are loosened or abandoned completely. The history of the world proves this to be true.

Libertarians are fully aware of how the state apparatus leads to bad decisions in one policy after another. Why is that? Is it that the bureaucrats themselves are merely evil or inept?

Ludwig von Mises, in his masterful little gem, Bureaucracy, argued that the problems with bureaucracies are systemic problems. The bureaucratic system has incentives which distort information. Functionaries have to respond to the incentives and disincentives which are inherent in the system. This distorts their actions.

There is an entire school of economics, the Public Choice School, which explores the economics of the political system. They look at how incentives operate and how perverse incentives exist within the system which often lead to results which no wanted at the start.

The State is not an individual. It behaves very differently. Not only does it lack the moral responsibility that individuals face in their daily life but it also operates within a system of perverse incentives. State actions are too easily manipulated by special interest groups. The very ugly reality of politics is never far from even the most serious issue faced by the State. And what happens when the State acts wrongly? What if the evidence used to justify the pre-emptive attack is bogus, false, misunderstood, misinterpreted, etc? Nothing.

In the end the decision-makers are not held individually liable for the actions of the collective. There is no independent judge who looks at the facts. There is no trial. There are book deals for the major players, pensions for all of them, and often cozy jobs waiting for them when they leave their office.

And consider the potential damage. An individual who makes a mistake and “defends” himself against the wrong person inflicts a tragedy on someone, possible on several people. A powerful state inflicts damage on millions of people and has the ability to inflict harm on billions. Certainly there are few people in the world who have not felt, to some degree, the damage done by the Iraq invasion, if only at the gas pumps. But thousands of Americans lost their lives, hundreds of thousands lost a loved one or a friend. And hundreds of thousands died in Iraq and continue to die there. The entire world is less stable than before and the war inspired home-made terrorism in Western countries.

The individual’s errors are quickly caught and stopped. They are arrested and tried for them. State errors become institutionalized and linger on, sometimes for decades or centuries, in one form or another.

To reason from the example of the individual to the state, in this matter, is to ignore that one is comparing apples and oranges. The individual lives under a completely different set of rules and incentives. If we removed all responsibility from the individual, so he could launch pre-emptory strikes on flimsy evidence and suffer no legal sanctions for doing so, I suggest libertarians would be opposed to such individual actions as well. Individuals, thankfully, operate in a different universe. And that shouldn’t be forgotten when the issue of pre-emptory strikes are considered.

From start to finish the State is entirely different from the individual.

Does that mean that a pre-emptive strike is never justified? I wouldn’t say that. But I would say that the evidence for the pre-emptive strike has to be overwhelming. The burden of proof for state action must be far more onerous than for the individual.

It is not enough that I, put in the same situation, as an individual, might act pre-emptively. More is required. When I act I act alone. I have no power to coerce anyone. I have no ability to conscript or tax. If someone wishes to help me they have to do so on their own and they can stop any time they wish. They are held to the same legal responsibilities that I am. I can not attack innocent people, if I do I am prosecuted. I can not strip my neighbors of their liberties because I want to feel safer. The State has none of these restraints. In the end the State must be held, not just to the minimum standard of individual action, but to a much higher standard.

That an individual would be morally justified in acting in a particular way does not necessarily justify the State doing so.