Re: On Libertarianism and founding a free state (was Re: Food labels etc)

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Aug 04 2003 - 12:35:29 MDT

  • Next message: Mike Lorrey: "RE: Being Extropic"

    I am confused about the context of this post, Phil. Could you please
    repost it, quoting what I said that your comments are in reference
    to???

    --- Phil Osborn <philosborn2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > So, states have special "rights" that people somehow
    > do not? Well, at least it's a consistent position.
    > States define whatever "rights" exist by virtue of
    > having more guns than mere citizens. I get that. OK,
    > "Rights" then are merely whatever is legal. I.e.,
    > Jews had no right to exist in NAZI Germany, just as
    > our heroic* drug dealers have no similar "right" to
    > exist in the U.S. (or anywhere on Earth, in as much as
    > the U.S. has now given itself the "right" to hunt them
    > down and kill them anywhere in the universe).
    >
    > *Hey, if Ms. Lynch can be a hero for passing out and
    > being rescued, then a drug dealer, who takes huge
    > actual risks to deliver products to eager consumers,
    > in spite of armed thugs in uniform expending every
    > effort to find and imprison or kill him, certainly
    > qualifies... Or maybe only if the drug dealer has a
    > cute photogenic face?
    >
    > So, all we have to have is any ongoing conflict - and
    > WHO decides THAT issue - and then we can just dispense
    > with all that silly nonsense about juries, due
    > process, trials, public tranparency... I guess Hitler
    > had it right with that little fire at the Reichstag,
    > huh? This is a libertarian position??? libertarianism
    > sure has changed from what I thought it was.
    >
    > Now I can certainly understand that if someone is
    > pointing an RPG at you, you don't have to read him or
    > her his rights before blowing the sucker away.
    > However, the whole point of giving battlefield
    > personnel that discretion is that the demands of
    > self-preservation require it. Once you have actually
    > subdued and captured the person, then other rules
    > apply, including due process, trial by jury, etc.
    >
    > And the need to prevent enemy combattants from taking
    > advantage in ways that involve non-combattants
    > involuntarilly - as in spies pretending to be
    > civilians, or using civilians otherwise as human
    > shields - still requires a determination that this has
    > in fact been the case. Which means public trial by
    > jury, etc.
    >
    > The discretion to kill or otherwise inflict harm on
    > any person is limited by the natural requirements of
    > the situation. We all have the natural right to
    > defend ourselves from immediate attack. None of us
    > has the right to extend that to killing other people
    > after they are safely in custody - except in the very
    > limited circumstances of a natural battlefield
    > emergency, which, again, is justified by immediate
    > need.
    >
    > Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
    > Date: Wed Jul 30 2003: .... While ANY conflict is
    > ongoing, seized enemy combatants, legal or illegal in
    > nature, can be held indefinitely. Disposition under
    > courts of law is only REQUIRED when a specific
    > conflict has ended, but this ONLY applies to LEGAL
    > combatants.
    >
    > (Me: And so, once again, somehow some military person
    > makes a determination that supercedes and nullifies
    > all other rights. Just declare that person ILLEGAL
    > and then you can do whatever you want to them. Just
    > announce that a conflict is ONGOING and you can
    > declare anyone ILLEGAL whenever you want.)
    >
    > ....I am so adamant that illegal combatants should be
    > seen as the worst sort of criminal on earth, because
    > they seek to destroy the most important bonds of trust
    > that maintain the subservience of military to
    > civilian.
    >
    > (Me: my understanding is that we already have cases
    > now of American citizens losing their citizenship
    > rights BEFORE any trial, just by this same sort of
    > declaration - the "American Taliban" being one such
    > example.)
    >
    > (Me: who would have thought that throwing out a couple
    > centuries of supposed Constitutional-based liberty
    > would be so simple?)
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
    > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

    =====
    Mike Lorrey
    "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                                        - Gen. John Stark
    Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
    Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
    Pro-tech freedom discussion:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
    http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 12:44:36 MDT