A rebuttal to John Jenkins:

Cynical wrote: “I cannot even begin to imagine how someone born in the 20th Century (presumably) can make a statement such as “it is still better than it was.” You were not there. How about something we can agree on: ‘I don’t know.’”

Jenkins replied: “I am sorry, but that statement is profoundly ignorant, not to mention self-contradictory. In the second paragraph you point to someone else making a historical comparison of which you approve (presumably that is fine), but in the end you say your interlocutor can’t know that today is better than the eighteenth century because he wasn’t there. That is… bizarre.”

Damn, dude, how about some props for the dig on MacK’s age? I thought that was real creative of me. Anyway, I’m admitting a bit of presumption on my part as well. After all, history is written by the winners. Unless one is an eyewitness, the epistemology just doesn’t hold up 100%. Just a small concession on my part, but I think the rest of my argument (assuming a true reading of history) holds water. And you should read Hornberger’s site. The man makes a very strong strict constructionist argument, if that’s one’s bag.

Jenkins: “Aside from that, your comparisons in a vacuum do not make any sense. You are essentially arguing that the whole American project is shot all to hell because it is not perfect. Again, that is bizarre.”

That’s your interpretation, and I wouldn’t mind an example. I thought mine was a well-reasoned post. But that’s not at all what I’m arguing. The whole American project is shot to hell because it is more of the same thing (plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose). America is a State, just like any other. All institutions are destined to fail. Entropy sees to that, and then supplies the world with a new State.

See, the King sent his agents throughout the land doing all the nasty stuff Jefferson wrote about. Now, the U.S. government sends IRS agents all throughout the land doing all the nasty stuff Jefferson wrote about. Is that a good enough example of a “failed experiment?” Joke’s on you — that’s exactly the way it was intended, no failed experiment at all, a rousing success for the State!

Jenkins: “Just to cherry-pick, the protections recognized under the First Amendment are broader now than they have ever been, despite recent restrictive decisions. Compare the fates of dissenters in WW I to dissenters re: the Iraq war. Could speech be more free? Certainly, but it could also be considerably LESS free.”

I can’t believe we’re debating relative degrees of freedom. Freedom is digital, not analog. Freedom is on or off. 0 or 1. You either have it or you don’t. The leash Wilson held was short — Bush holds a leash a couple of inches longer. That matters to you?

Jenkins: “Regarding barriers to entry, again, look around you. There *are* places in the world it is easier to be an entrepreneur, but not many, and none of those markets are close to as large as the U.S.”

See above. And what you’re saying is that, in the interest of making a buck, you’d sacrifice your freedom. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Jenkins: “Re: mercantilism (not the same thing as domestic barriers to entry, I might add), trade now is freer than almost any other time in world history, and it is certainly more free in the aggregate than it has ever been, which is a net benefit to everyone.”

I’d appreciate a little substantiation from you. My understanding is that trade was at its most free in the 19th Century, according to much of the economic history that I’ve read over the last few years. Much of that can be accessed at Mr. Hornberger’s site. And from what I’ve read in the news lately, trade protectionism is making a strong comeback as many nations impose prohibitive tariffs to support home industry.

I’m not shining you on, Jenkins. If you really want to make a debate out of this, I’m game.

Well there…you…go. Disaster socialism in action! Naomi Klein, care to comment about ideologues taking advantage of a tragedy to promote their radical economic ideas?

This lil’ riot reminds me of the tune “Trouble Every Day” by Frank Zappa and the Mothers:
“Well, I seen the fires burnin’
And the local people turnin’
On the merchants and the shops
Who used to sell their brooms and mops
And every other household item
Watched the mob just turn and bite ‘em”

This shit will solve very little, and will lead to even more friction in the community. I don’t claim to have the solution, but I will say that a massive “cop watch” program may be in order in the Bay Area. If the police are faced with video cameras and cell phone cameras every time they turn around, and people begin to (non-violently) assert their right to control THEIR police, then maybe we will see progress. Burning cars and throwing rocks, conversely, will only bring comfort to those who desire a police state.

The analogy to employment doesn’t seem quite right, but I think the difference from the employer’s point of view is that whether it’s worth firing a good employee, who is improving over time, because he is not a perfect employee. I think most observers would agree that firing the employee is a bad decision, at least on that basis.

You are making the same mistake in your analogy that Cynical did originally. It is not how objectively good you are that matters to your boss, it is how good you are relative to your fellow employees and the pool of potential employees. Recognizing that you have something good, doesn’t mean you can’t improve it. Failing to recognize that you have something good, however, is dangerous because you might cast it away while not recognizing how valuable it is.

Uh, genetics?

When he starts visiting Iowa, we’ll know for sure.

If someone’s death is caused by another person’s actions, the death is a homicide, whether it is felonious, justifiable, excusable, or accidental. If the police want to justify that the death in this case was justifiable, excusable, or accidental, they should make that argument. The only way a gunshot death could be anything other than a homicide would be if it was not a foreseeable consequence of anyone’s action. It is hardly unforeseeable that when a firearm is pointed at someone they may get shot.

I’m not catching your point. Should I ask my boss for a raise because I could “be considerably LESS” effective? Some of us are a bit more ambitious than that. And, it is the ambitious that WANT America to regain a leadership position with regards to freedom (in it’s many forms).

John, you’ve listed that thru history (long run) the dominant trend is for beneficial freer speech and freer trade. Now, speed up the trend and take it further, please.

Instead, America has taken some pretty signficant steps backward and has a whole Congress full of “leaders” that have shown they understand little of free speech or free trade. Why? Because we also have a whole country that keeps electing those same members of Congress. Yes, it is time to sound the alarm bells (well, actually it’s too late…IMHO).

“I cannot even begin to imagine how someone born in the 20th Century (presumably) can make a statement such as “it is still better than it was.” You were not there. How about something we can agree on: ‘I don’t know.’”

I am sorry, but that statement is profoundly ignorant, not to mention self-contradictory. In the second paragraph you point to someone else making a historical comparison of which you approve (presumably that is fine), but in the end you say your interlocutor can’t know that today is better than the eighteenth century because he wasn’t there. That is… bizarre.

Aside from that, your comparisons in a vacuum do not make any sense. You are essentially arguing that the whole American project is shot all to hell because it is not perfect. Again, that is bizarre.

Just to cherry-pick, the protections recognized under the First Amendment are broader now than they have ever been, despite recent restrictive decisions. Compare the fates of dissenters in WW I to dissenters re: the Iraq war. Could speech be more free? Certainly, but it could also be considerably LESS free.

Regarding barriers to entry, again, look around you. There *are* places in the world it is easier to be an entrepreneur, but not many, and none of those markets are close to as large as the U.S.

Re: mercantilism (not the same thing as domestic barriers to entry, I might add), trade now is freer than almost any other time in world history, and it is certainly more free in the aggregate than it has ever been, which is a net benefit to everyone.

@Mack,

I think you need to reconsider your position re: English freedom. Much of the American Revolution was fought because the King had denied the colonies the traditional rights of Englishmen set forth in, among other places, the Magna Carta (1215), and the English Bill of Rights (1689).

A bunch of BART cops hanging from lamp posts, I could understand. But what’s the sense in this?

“… my thesis on the roll played by wheel based ergonomic office chairs in workplace fatalities.”

Roll? Is this a pun? Or is the commenter referring literally to the roll of the chair being the cause of the fatality?

They will be stupid. Trust.

Here’s another link:

Air Force Releases ‘Counter-Blog’ Marching Orders

WTF is this nonsense now?

My favorite is the first sentence of the first comment on this book:

“I first discovered Dr. Parker’s brilliant analysis and forecast of Indian stacking chair consumption while completing my thesis on the roll played by wheel based ergonomic office chairs in workplace fatalities.”

Okay, you can argue that someone can be brilliant at analyzing stacking chair consumption, but what business does anyone have writing a thesis on wheel-based ergonomic chairs? Were non-wheel based ergonomic chairs not good enough?

The state through law is supposed to have a monopoly on violence in the name of it’s citizens.

The state has put it’s thugs above the law.

Given these basic facts there is no recourse but citizen violence to teach these thugs they are the servant not the master. In fact under such circumstances it become vitally necessary. Now I am NOT advocating that ANYONE go out and murder cops. However, something needs to be done, albeit something considerably short of murder.

Just a few rebuttals:

“I agree that we may not be better off at this moment, but certainly better off then what was (prior to the Revolution). The England we know now has adopted most of it’s freedoms based on ours.”

I could go on and on about how less of a degree of tyranny existed in Colonial America than today, but Jacob Hornberger over at the Future of Freedom Foundation – http://www.fff.org – makes a career out of it. As for “the England we now know,” recent history informs us that “Airstrip One” is a testing ground for every new infringement of Americans’ liberty by the national government.

“Before the violence that formed this country, a British squad of goons could open your door, rifle your papers to insure they all had a pic of good old George, thus showing you had payed your stamp tax. If they got tired while looking through your papers they had you sleep in the barn while they slept in your bed. There was no 4th Amendment. There was no 3rd Amendment.”

Well, I hardly expect the IRS to camp out in my home, but they can sure put themselves up at a tony local hotel while they do exactly what you described above in Colonial America. Again, exactly what has changed? You write like you’re one of those Japanese soldiers discovered living in caves 20 years after WWII ended. Wake up, Rip!

“Not only could you not petition for a peaceful march, if you even spoke out against a government official you were put in jail for Sedition. Newspapers could print government approved stories only. There was no 1st Amendment.”

U.S. history post Colonial America is rife with similar examples, beginning with the Alien and Sedition Acts under the Adams(!!!) administration, through suspension of habeas corpus under Lincoln, to the Palmer raids under Wilson, Roosevelt’s concentration camps in California, right on through to the War on Drugs, Terror, etc., etc., ad infinitum. Individual rights exist in America at the whim of the government. Always have, always will.

“If you were accused of a crime you had no due process right, or right to trial by jury, a royally appointed judge (loyal to the king) decided your fate. There was no 5th Amendment. There was no 6th Amendment.”

Do we really need to fisk the U.S. Constitution? Yippee for due process! The government employs due process as its fig leaf to cover the criminal underpinning of its extortion schemes. I’m not impressed!

“Prior to the revolution you could grow a tree cut it down and make boards, but you could not make a bed and sale it. You had to sale the wood to a British company at a rock bottom price, then they made a bed with the wood, and sold it back to at the highest price. Look up mercantilism.”

Don’t need to look up mercantilism. It’s all around us. Have you noticed the mad dash to Keynesian economics lately? Since 1971? Since 1933? What are government licensure laws, permits, zoning regulations, tariffs, etc., except corporatism designed to destroy competition from small upstart firms? Are you actually trying to suggest that there is economic freedom in the U.S.??? Oh, yeah, we’re as free as the government tells us we are.

“We can go on about this through all the Amendments, and acts for hours. Yes we have lost many things, and very recently in our amendments, but it is still better then what was.”

I cannot even begin to imagine how someone born in the 20th Century (presumably) can make a statement such as “it is still better than it was.” You were not there. How about something we can agree on: “I don’t know.”

“So as we can see “history is repeating itself”, maybe it just has not completed it’s cycle yet.”

It has been said that history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. I think we’re in the coda section of this operetta.

Well, anyway, one of us is right. Keep the faith, Mack.

Would have been more efficient it they just took up a collection to pay the local Crips to take down the precinct.

I agree that we may not be better off at this moment, but certainly better off then what was (prior to the Revolution). The England we know now has adopted most of it’s freedoms based on ours.

Before the violence that formed this country, a British squad of goons could open your door, rifle your papers to insure they all had a pic of good old George, thus showing you had payed your stamp tax. If they got tired while looking through your papers they had you sleep in the barn while they slept in your bed. There was no 4th Amendment. There was no 3rd Amendment.

Not only could you not petition for a peaceful march, if you even spoke out against a government official you were put in jail for Sedition. Newspapers could print government approved stories only. There was no 1st Amendment.

If you were accused of a crime you had no due process right, or right to trial by jury, a royally appointed judge (loyal to the king) decided your fate. There was no 5th Amendment. There was no 6th Amendment.

Prior to the revolution you could grow a tree cut it down and make boards, but you could not make a bed and sale it. You had to sale the wood to a British company at a rock bottom price, then they made a bed with the wood, and sold it back to at the highest price. Look up mercantilism.

We can go on about this through all the Amendments, and acts for hours. Yes we have lost many things, and very recently in our amendments, but it is still better then what was.

So as we can see “history is repeating itself”, maybe it just has not completed it’s cycle yet.

That being said, it takes a bit more work to find where they live, such as doing your own stakeout at their place of work and following them home.

Always sad to be right about depressing shit.

Violence is never the answer.

Poison is never the cure for being poisoned.