Considering that you likened them to mice in a metaphor about how “you don’t care which mouse gets killed by the trap” then you obviously have a strange definition of “strive” – one that seems more like “make a minimal, half-assed, effort without really caring if it works or not”.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

I say that everyone should report illegal activity in their midst and now I’m a socialist? My head is spinning.

And if I don’t I’m now a reasonable target for carpet bombing? That is your implication. And no, holding views that are consistent with some elements of collectivism doesn’t make you a socialist, but your are alot closer to the philosophy than I am.

I’ll try to explain it in a different way. You want people to be responsible for the actions of others, that is a form of collectivism. Collectivism stresses the inter-dependence of people as opposed to individuals. For example, because my neighbors house was robbed I am at least in part responsible for not paying more attention to what was going on on his property. The underlying basis for the collectivist view point is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. That is, society is “greater” than the sum of the individuals. This leads to the view that we need to have the state to prevent chaos while ignoring the possibility of spontaneous order. That you put a large enough number of people together you will get a bad outcome and not a good one.

You re-iterate this view point with your use of “innocents” to describe people who work as gardeners and builders for these pirates and that is is acceptable that some of them get killed…it is for the good of society…the collective. Collateral damage and all that I guess.

And lets not get into the issue that in most societyies when people in a community organize to rid themselves of bad elements, even spontaneously, it is itself illegal: vigilantism. Instead we must go through the agency of the state which is an product of the collectivist viewpoint.

What is gunfire evidence of? Practicing? Hunting? Defense? None of my business? Those all work for me, and I appreciate the same affordance.

How did you feel about the people who said the same thing regarding American civilians and their “obligation” to stop their government or become “fair game” for terrorists?

“Let’s remember that NOT pursuing Bush for possible crimes ALSO has consequences.”

Everything we do has consequences. It’s Obama’s job now to weigh the consequences of pursuing Bush’s actions against the consequences of not pursuing them. I believe he will make the right decision because he will be the president then, not campaigning to be president. As president he will have access to a lot more classified information than he had access to as a Senator.

I completely agree with you that we should strive to minimize endangerment of innocents. But sometimes it seems to be necessary. Truman believed that if he didn’t drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the loss of life in America would exceed the loss of life that his action caused in Japan. I don’t know if he was right or wrong but I hope we continue to have leaders with the courage to do what they believe has to be done to protect us.

@Kevin Carson: You are kind of making my point for me. Apparently bin Laden believed that he was justified in killing those civilians because they were (in his mind) complicit in formulating the Western policy that he despised. He attacked NYC and DC, not Kansas City. Then, whether he was right or wrong, our leaders felt that they had to attack him and those harboring him even if innocent people would be killed in the process, and they no doubt were. Sometimes it’s not so much about right or wrong but about survival, or perhaps just fear.

“Orwell once commented that if he had to deal with a “bully,” he would much rather deal with a policeman than a gangster.”

Helmet, that is the rub for me. There isn’t much difference between a modern policeman and gangsters. Modern policemen kill dogs and kill innocent men, women and children all in the name of nonviolent crimes like drug use.

At least gangsters in The Godfather had a code to keep innocent women and children out of the crossfire. Cops don’t. Their only code is a code of silence to protect fellow cops.

So unless is if a violent crime, I am not talking to the cops either.

Huh? Are you familiar with how the Intertubes work? Once you send it (even email), it am out there. Did you include a confidentiality footer?

Let’s remember that NOT pursuing Bush for possible crimes ALSO has consequences.

Look, it is fine to be judicious about what you report to the police, but it is possible to go too far with this jocular, “anarchist” speak. You have a right to remain silent, but that doesn’t mean it is the best option every single time. I work in public safety, but I would not call the P.D. to report many, many issues, such as voluntary drug use, loud parties, etc.. If I have a problem with something like loud neighbors, odds are I could talk it out. Unfortunately, many people seem to be afraid or lack the capacity to deal with others. This inflates police call loads and takes away from the quality of police work. But, when people are in danger or crime sprees are occurring, it would be the height of irresponsibility to look away. Look at the state of American ghettos (have you ever been to one?) to see what “stop snitchin” leads to (answer: more dead people).

Orwell once commented that if he had to deal with a “bully,” he would much rather deal with a policeman than a gangster. Obviously, this is not a glowing endorsement of England’s police, but Orwell makes a point that some people tend to miss on this blog. The replacement for police in the mythical “anarchist” world would be a hodge podge of campus safety agencies, commercial security guards, neighborhood enforcers (ie. Bloods, Crips, La Cosa Nostra, vigilante rednecks, young republicans etc.) and private actors who would make up “the law” on a whim. Like Orwell, I don’t point this out in order to heap praise upon the contemporary criminal justice system, I simply urge you to consider more practical alternatives before you make rash comments.

But of course! As Bin Laden put it after all those little Eichmanns died on 9/11, there are no innocent civilians.

This analogy might make some kind of sense if human beings were anything like mice.

Unfortunately, we too often consider the civilians of other countries to be as expendable as mice.

Now I don’t think I would talk to cops/The State for ANY reason.

My comment has completely lost its original context. All I said is that people living in Somali seaports are probably going to get caught in the crossfire if they don’t do something to stop the piracy or get away from it.

I just heard on Fox News that most of the piracy originates from one clan in a town called Eyl. The town is prospering and mansions are going up along the coast. Sounds like a target to me. If I were a gardener at one of those mansions I’d be looking for employment elsewhere.

Besides, if the political class is busy screwing each other, they (theoretically) have less time and energy to devote to screwing the rest of us…

If you are pretty sure that you are going to end up in jail after you relinquish power it raises the possibility that you just won’t give up power at all. Likely this new administration throwing the Bushies in jail wouldn’t spark the war (even the war of corruption/gerrymandering etc.) but one or two rounds would.

It’s just not worth it.

I disagree. I think spite in politics can help curb excesses.

I think that the knowledge that the next administration won’t be investigating only encourages the current administration to break whatever laws it pleases. Maybe the threat of the being investigated will keep the bastards honest(relatively speaking).

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandmother. If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper — that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. “E pluribus unum.” Out of many, one.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

Fail.

It amazes me that so many people read so much into a simple statement of mine. But I admit that what I meant could have been stated a little more clearly: People everywhere have to bear some responsibility for what those among them are doing — if they know about it and don’t report it or don’t take some other action against it.

If people are aware of dangerous activity in their midst and don’t do anything about it they are risking being harmed by that activity. But in doing something about it they are also risking harm. It might be a no-win situation.

Anyway, it looks like the little qualifier in front of “responsibility” got little notice.

Here’s my last e-mail to Balko that he didn’t publish:

I didn’t say that we don’t bear some responsibility for what Bush did. I’m saying that if we let it consume us it may impede us from moving ahead. A nation that sets the absolute requirement that it never harms an innocent is a nation that will soon be paralyzed. When you find that a mouse has been in your cupboard you set a trap for any mouse; you don’t worry too much if the mouse you catch is not the offending mouse.

You have written a lot about the shortcomings of our justice system and I agree with you on that. I’m almost convinced that we would do a better job of determining guilt or innocence if we just flipped a coin. But can we afford to just shut it down while we try to craft the perfect system?

Oh hell, this is too complicated. It’s giving me a headache. I guess it’s the cognitive dissonance.

By the way, I’m not as libertarian as you but I enjoy your writing and agree with most of it.

The problem with such a tradition is that some groups of people are far more partisan than others. I sure as hell wouldn’t want, say, President DeLay (to use a hypothetical) investigating a former President Obama. That power of investigation, when placed in the hands of people with a deeply partisan agenda (however well hidden if they ran for President) can be abused a la Gov. Sieglelman in Alabama: convicted of corruption and bribery in a case where the incident the charges were brought on didn’t result in him keeping a dime of the bribes. We also start getting chicken & egg scenarios with appointments (did he donate because he got the appointment, or did he get the appointment because he said he’d donate?) and a lot of other things like that.

I think this is why we see Obama taking the tack that he is: he recognizes that we need the rule of law to be restored for people to start having faith in the U.S. and what it stands for. However, if he starts going after Bush and his cronies after being sworn in, it looks like a partisan witch hunt to many (including his political enemies). How far into breaking the law do you investigate? What if someone accidentally sent a campaign e-mail or ten from a government account? Does that guy get prosecuted as well as the war criminal? It’s why Ford pardoned Nixon: for whatever reason the last guy left the office, it’s in the past. Mucking around in it too much leaves us blind towards the future and sets a bad precedent.

At least Obama has advocated for a full investigation of what took place, even if no criminal charges take place. It’s still a crappy precedent that people are getting away with crimes, but at least we can get to the bottom of what happened without setting an even worse precedent.