A dozen posts in and this is the closest you’ve come to saying anything substantive about your position. Could you clarify?

So do you think that it’s perfectly just for the police to enforce inarguably unjust laws? Arguably unjust laws? Or is it unjust for the police to enforce inarguably unjust laws? Arguably unjust laws?

Are your problems with the justice of enforcing unjust laws, or simply my characterization of drug laws as inarguably unjust?

You seem to waffle between some of these positions, while keeping your actual views deliberately obscured to prevent them from direct criticism (evade, evade, evade).

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “BAMN argument” – what exactly do you think I’m advocating? And if you think I’m advocating something, why don’t you first spell out what it is, and second, spell out why it’s wrong?

Help me out here — it’s hard to argue with someone who deliberately obfuscates their position to insulate it from criticism.

You smear all law enforcement people by stating that since there are all always some arguably unjust laws any oath takers who swear to uphold the law are terrible people. And all this hate is supposedly brought out, not by inarguably unjust laws like Jim Crow, but by drug laws that you have decided “are petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral”. As if only a hatemonger and sociopath would think that crack, meth and heroin shouldn’t be legalized.

I note also that there are a lot of libertarian bloggers/commenters who employ this type of B.A.M.N. argument. Which is why, I guess, that such over the top rantings and vicious generalizations get such high approval.

You’re such a putz. You spit invective, employ Bull Conner comparisons and vicious stereotypes and then try to pretend that you have been an intelligent reasonable person all along and all that viciousness was just a test of my humanity. And it was I who failed the test!

LMAO. You are the present and future of libertarianism.

You’re very bad at this game – here’s why. The point of the exercise was to tease out the plain-language implications for a particular moral view. That’s what I did. What you did, on the other hand, was to use my simple moral reasoning (defensible in itself, as I note you have not bothered to actually criticize it on its merits) to ascribe a _prediction_ of how _actual people_ (or hypotheticals of actual people) will relate to a historical figure. Since my position isn’t predicative (and shouldn’t be, since people often act in ways which are contrary to their stated beliefs), your reply makes no sense. Even worse, you try to smuggle in an implicit argument via race to make your nonsensical point.

You see, the whole point of noting that your position on the justification of enforcing petty, venal, cruel and unjust laws would, if you were to remain consistent, have you supporting Bull Connor over MLK — was my faith in your humanity. I would expect you to feel JUST THE OPPOSITE; recognizing that Jim Crow laws were odious and illegitimate, and that no human being in good conscience could either support those laws or justify their enforcement. If, in fact, you DO feel that way — how can you possibly support both the position that Jim Crow laws are odious, unjust and immoral, while maintaining that _enforcing those laws_ (and by necessary implication — those enforcers of the law) is NOT odious, unjust and immoral? The only way that I can possibly see is a naked double standard whereby the actions of our sainted government officials are treated by a different standard than everybody else on the planet.

Black cop: A Bull Conner advocate

“Cop Hate” = The radical notion that cops should be held to the same standards as every other human being on the planet.

I don’t argue with those points because I know that they are realities. Cops do make mistakes, they do hit the wrong door sometimes and so on. I came into this discussion talking about the way that Balko’s anti-cop feelings come through in his posts. The shooter is you or me, flesh and blood. The dead cop is, apparantly, the enemy and not worthy of any description at all, just a cop. It is the well proven tool that a propagandist uses to dehumanize the target of his anger. Certainly there are a lot of commenters here who just hate cops. Just look at what garners high ratings. It seems that the more bitter the hate, the better the rate. I honestly think that the way-over-the-top cop haters (not Balko) would like nothing better than to have an “excuse” to shoot through their door and hit a cop.
Anyway, you bring up good points and there is nothing wrong with discussing them. It’s just not what I was commenting about. I’m sure cops have discussions about those issues also, they just don’t start it with an acknowledgement that they are terrible people for swearing to uphold the law, as one wag determined.

With my own eyes, i’ve witnessed police exhibiting belligerent,
“I’ll find something to lock you up for” behavior against two of the most courteous people I grew up with, both current PHD’s, one
a current professor at Harvard. Common courtesy and respect have been replaced by thuggish behavior.

Todays Customs agents post 911 are the worlds biggest jackasses.
Police take a close second. I want my Mayberry back and it’s not societys fault, it’s Departmental policy.

“Oh and one last thing mikem, you’d be pleased to know that i work in a criminal courthouse and almsot all of the judges there regularly ignore the Constitution and the Laws”
And what a courageous guy you are to stand up for the victims of such judicial abuse by whistleblowing here under your own initial instead of grandstanding as a moral person at work.

I salute you, Sir.

“It’s (sic) should be up to the individual President, Attorney General, judge or cop to decide which laws they will enforce and which they will ignore.”

Umm, welcome to America, dumbass. It IS up those individuals what laws they will enforce and which they will ignore. They make those decisions every day. (Ever read a penal code? You think EVERY law on the books is enforced? Oh please say yes). The Presdient is *supposed* to be able to ignore and not enforce laws he doesn’t like (as is the design of an executive branch) and Congress can in turn, not fund different things the President does if they don’t like them. That’s what rules about America, there’s all these little things called checks and balances, and they are all supposed to move in the direction of LIMITING government authority and power and enhancing personal freedom. So a cop could choose not to “enforce” Miranda. It would be antithetical to a free society (deliberately undercutting the rights of the private person) but he could do it.

Do you honestly not recognize this? Or is that you’re opposed to people JUDGING those government officials for which laws they enforce and which they ignore? Either way, you are not very bright.

Don’t forget, the founding fathers were raging libertarians to a degree that can only be created through a knee-jerk reaction to what were blatantly oppressive government policies. The whole idea in the founding of our country was to err on the side of limiting government power, even when all objective minds would agree a specific act was good, because the next time the government will act in a way that is bad – similar logic to why free speech protects disgusting offensive speech along with “good” speech.

So you can’t look at libertarian ideals as just being pro or con certain things irrespective of government intervention and coercion. I imagine nealry all libertarians would support communities investing in dug education, and treatment, because drugs are often bad, but they see intrusive government programs as wrong in principle and often times MORE costly than drugs themselves. The case of Shivers/Frederick is a good example of how the War on Drugs is more costly to society than drugs themselves sometimes.

It’s entirely possible that I didn’t understand your “question” (which is why I asked about it, since it wasn’t entirely clear to me what you were angling at).

I think you might be misunderstanding my position. I certainly DO NOT think that people should never try to help those who are addicted to drugs. I think there are lots of things that a caring, responsible person could do in such a situation that is perfectly consistent with respect of the drug user’s individual autonomy. You could, for example, try to talk to them and convince them how badly their addiction is screwing up their relationships and personal life; you could try to convince them to go into rehab; you could even offer to fund in whole or in part the costs of rehab yourself. What you cannot do, at least legitimately, is toss then into the prison-industrial complex. And since THAT is what cops do, which is manifestly coercive and unjust, it makes ALL of those who engage in such acts manifestly coercive and unjust human beings themselves.

” If the “question” is whether third parties should violently coerce them for deciding differently than they would — well I don’t see why that’s even a question.”

When your 18-year-old loses 50 pounds and pawns everything he owns in a couple months and you sit back and do nothing because you’re a third party and you shouldn’t “violently coerce” him, tell me about how drugs aren’t a problem. Until then, grow the hell up and quit hating everyone who’s well-intentioned but doesn’t agree with you. I mean, honestly, it really takes a lot for someone to speak poorly enough of cops to be a blip on my radar, but calling them all “petty, venal, cruel, unjust and immoral” manages to actually offend my rawhide-thick sensibilities.

BTW, the “question” is this: What should we as a society, or I as an individual, do to help those hopelessly addicted to hard drugs?

Only a fanatic would instictively believe all help would necessarily be violent and/or coercive.

I think you’re swinging at a straw man. I don’t know any libertarians that think “drugs” per se are “awesome.” Some of them may think that particular drugs are awesome like say, Advil or NyQuil or perhaps marijuana. I’m sure there are even libertarians out there who think heroin or meth is “awesome” but I’m not really convinced they’re actually making that into some kind of argument for you.

I think it’s a pretty gross parody of libertarian views to say that they really believe in the whole “rational actors” “risk assessment” nonsense. Just because you believe in personal liberty doesn’t mean you’re some kind of economoid reductionist who thinks everybody views everything in terms of a dollars and cents cost-benefit analysis. More likely, it just means that you believe people should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their own life, even if you disagree with the decision that they’re making, wouldn’t make it for yourself, and think it’s actively harmful for them.

So I’m not sure what “question” it is that you think needs to be asked. If it’s about individuals questioning whether, for themselves, taking drugs (whatever drugs they might be) is something they want to do, with an understanding of the risks. Well yeah, I have no problem with that. If the “question” is whether third parties should violently coerce them for deciding differently than they would — well I don’t see why that’s even a question.

“Let me set you straight. It’s not drugs that are “awesome” it’s personal liberty and self-sovereignty that are “awesome.” It just so happens that the right to grow, manufacture, distribute, and ingest the substance of your choice is a necessary corollary of a meaningful right of personal self-ownership.”

What does that have to do with the libertarians who think drugs are awesome? I don’t understand how a fundamental belief in personal freedom and unregulated markets leads so many to the belief that the hundreds of thousands of meth addicts in this country are rational actors engaging in carefully thought out risk assesment. I have both a philosophical and pragmatic aversion to locking them up, but just because the government answer is wrong doesn’t mean the question shouldn’t be asked.

I never knew that about myself. My God, I’m crushed. You are the man!

Apparently, you misunderstand. The test isn’t whether a law or rule makes your job easier or harder (a “drag”) but whether it’s right or wrong. When you find yourself arguing on behalf of Bull Connor instead of Martin Luther King, you should probably take a step back to evaluate. And since you still haven’t bothered to point out the fallacy… well, speaks for itself.

Your logic is, indeed, flawless.