Libertarian question.

Cute. Now try to respond to the content. The moment you decide that laws have to be understood to be enforceable, you reward stupidity or those who can fake stupidity over those who are not stupid. It literally invites a new kind of legal defense in which the more you sell a jury that a given statute is vague, opaque, or more complicated while simultaneously convincing them that the accused is incapable of understanding it, the greater your chances are at defeating the charge. Two defendents, two charges based on the exact same language, two entirely different verdicts, because one of them got D's instead of A's in Reading Comprehension a decade before and kept telling the attorney to repeat his question in simpler language. "I'm sorry, your honor. What did you say 'fraud' meant again?"

 

the government cannot be generous it does not possess any wealth, it does not create any wealth. What the government does is make it possible for other people to create wealth, then confiscates some of the wealth to afford its function.

Since we don't live in a perfect world, a certain amount of confiscation is necessary.

I would suggest if they want to help the indigent quit wasting money on other stuff. Our government spends money like crazy.

First I don't think it's the government's job to care for anyone, that being said we can't just leave the indigent to die in the streets. We spend exorbitant amounts of money on social programs for people who are able-bodied and able to work. I say quit doing that. if the jobs aren't available then we need to start deporting illegal aliens.

 

I consider myself very libertarian but...

I also believe in the constitution, and in order to provide someone with a fair trial...

In all honesty, if they stopped providing attorneys to those who couldnt afford them, that also wouldnt break my heart.

 

I didn't make that argument, so why should I respond to your strawman?

See, you've done a find job of responding to your strawman. What is it that you want from me, again?

 

BleedingHeadKen asked for logic, he got a quite clear bunch of it, but he still does not understand.

The sophistry is all his. Libertarianism simply fails on the face of the discussion.

 

"As if common law hasn't been around for 1000 years and as if people can't learn how to deal with it, even specialize in it, without years of education and a license from the state. If the law is so complicated that a citizen can't understand it, is he really obligated to adhere to it? Is it immoral to violate it?"

To which I replied, "Cute. Now try to respond to the content. The moment you decide that laws have to be understood to be enforceable, you reward stupidity or those who can fake stupidity over those who are not stupid" We currently do not ask the prosecution to prove that the defendant either knew a law existed, or that the defendant understood the law under which his conduct fell. We ask if he is competent to assist in his defense.

 

The law is the law, and a strict reading moral interpretations from and of it are immaterial in its application.

 

There, I fixed it for you. Perhaps now you'll recognize the strawman made?

Ken is stating that the law does not have to be so complicated that it can not be understood by the vast majority of people to be effective and that we have literally thousands of years of common law to demonstrate that.

The assertion that is must be too complicated for most to understand to be effective is the strawman that he did not make. Once you understand this, then "It literally invites a new kind of legal defense in which the more you sell a jury that a given statute is vague, opaque, or more complicated while simultaneously convincing them that the accused is incapable of understanding it, the greater your chances are at defeating the charge. Two defendants, two charges based on the exact same language, two entirely different verdicts, because one of them got D's instead of A's in Reading Comprehension a decade before and kept telling the attorney to repeat his question in simpler language. "I'm sorry, your honor. What did you say 'fraud' meant again?" as an excuse can not be applied, thus it is indeed the strawman.

 

Libertarianism believes individuals should be free to make their own decisions, without interference from an overbearing nanny state.

 

No you did not 'fix it' you emphasized one sentence on which you want concentrate my attention. I get that he believes laws should be written in a less formalistic or complex fashion to that more people can understand them without benefit of a legal education. ( parenthetically, I am not sure how realistic that goal is)

If only Ken had stopped writing after that first sentence, we'd all be good. But he did not, and you know he did not. He continued his thought process. "If the law is so complicated that a citizen can't understand it, is he really obligated to adhere to it? Is it immoral to violate it?" Oops. Now what I write ceases to be a 'strawman'. I am literally using the same verb 'to understand', he used in describing who is and who is not obligated to adhere to legislative statutes. He questions the authority of the state to obligate anyone to obey statutes they do not understand. I am pointing out the consequences of moving that goalpost is to open up a new avenue for legal defense. Its not a 'strawman argument' because it is directly based on his own statement, using his chosen verb, and extrapolating its potential.

If I am taking that sentence more literally than he meant it, and they were mere musings, then he can explain that me. You can't.

 

You somehow managed to write quite a bit, without addressing my question. Mine was not about 'caring' for the poor, or jobs, or migrant workers. It was whether libertarians see a governmental duty to provide the indigent with an attorney, if the government is working its ass off by paying cops and lawyers who's job it is, to take their liberty away, secondary to an accusation made by the government. .

 

I don't view it as the government's duty to provide anything, mostly because they don't have anything.

I don't like the idea of needing representation to defend yourself.

 

Yeah, there isn't much about Trump that's all that compatible with libertarianiam.

 

Okay. So you don't like the 'idea'. I am sure that few people like to pay the bill for representation, but when the other side has half a dozen folks who studied law for years, and practiced the craft in court in front of judges for even more years, sitting in an office waiting to trade ideas that will put your son's ass under for rape.... there is a problem with all that concentrated power in government hands and no response beyond 'uh your honor, I didn't do it. I swear'.

 

so you are getting into the theory of libertarianism. Laws sould be simple and the half a dozen folks that make it so complicated to the point you have to hire them at their exorbitant prices is a problem with law. The fact that people are allowed to use the law in such a way to fabricate a profession for themselves screws over everybody.

 

The problem with keeping law simple to understand, is that the language has to be chosen to meet very precise definitional requirements, and they tend to multiply when you add any brand or twin of the English common law notion stare decisis. You end up with a complex web of legal concepts, standards, burdens and precedent. this is not cultural because virtually the same exists in every longstanding society or nation. Simple societies have less entanglements, but with modernization comes the complexities of a lot more law.

 

It doesn't need to be complicated the only reason it is, is so lawyers have a profession.

 

There was nothing logical in what you said. Since you think it was, I will deconstruct what you wrote since you are incapable:

"We the people" is a rhetorical statement. Logically, it can mean:

A) Every single person within a given region, or
B) A reference to the people living within a region provided by the people who propose the rules that are being made

I would say that it's likely "B". So, what you are arguing is that a very tiny subset - about 140 landowners- speak for every single person within the region of the time AND every single person who came after them for ever and ever. That is the logical claim that you make. Would that be correct?

Since I've not said a word about libertarianism, how can anything I've said be rhetorical or sophistry. I've only asked you to explain, with logic, the objectively legitimate source of government authority. And, again, you show your complete inability to engage anything logically by instead attacking me for something I haven't even talked about. Your claims are utter garbage and your attempts to back them so pathetic that even a small child with brain damage could do a better job.

 

I asked a question. You assumed my answer and then engaged in ad hominem, hyperbole, and a rather large strawman.

I never suggested that they are unenforceable. You made that up and then engage in a hyperbolic rant.

Who is we? Are you a prosecutor or defender or other officer of the court who asks that question of the prosecution?

Also, you never answered the morality question. Is it immoral to violate a statute?

 

'we' is the society that encodes the laws and the systems under which justice is sought. In this case, you could roughly translate it as American society. If you suggest that there is no obligation to adhere to statutes you do not understand, it makes it pretty unenforceable in any circumstance where either the statute is complicated or the accused can pretend he did not grasp it. That is my point. You have really moved the goal post.

I have not answered your morality question, because it simply does not interest me enough to warrant the time. That is a very long philosophical endless topic that is centuries old. I would tire of it quickly.

 

If we lived in a world where people were essentially rational, essentially fair, and essentially good I would agree with you. We don't live in such a world, therefore the world you describe is impossible. Capital very often demands government intervention to protect its ability to accumulate more capital. Capitalists don't simply accept competition or even failure, instead they demand government intervention to insulate themselves from both. Under capitalism, capital obtains enormous influence and power, which it uses to influence the political process. Therefore, as long as there is capitalism, there will always be interventionist government. It is the fundamental fallacy of libertarianism, which advocates both capitalism and limited government, when the two are incompatible.

 

I am seeing mostly (not all) far right participants on this thread and others more and more resorting to assertions and then, without argumentation for their point, asking questions of others to rebut it.

That is not how it works. Assertion, evidence and then counter and rebuttal is the order of march.

 

Libertarians believe that the victims of crime also deserve freedom, freedom from crime in this case. We support the criminal justice system but we believe it is large, expensive and inefficient. It was designed to be ponderously inefficient on purpose to the benefit of lawyers.

 

If we lived in a world where people were essentially rational, essentially fair, and essentially good, I would agree with you. Then the people who win popularity contests could be trusted with the power that they hae, rather than be greedy, grasping, narcissists who happen to have the charisma necessary to win you over to the belief that they actually care about what you care about and only care about authority so far as is necessary to get what you want. They wouldn't be constantly concerned with re-election and they wouldn't appoint the incompetent to important positions just because those people helped their campaigns. They would not desire to be rulers, as they do now. They would not desire to spy upon you to make sure that you are behaving and will never threaten their regime.

Bureaucrats would be shining examples of public servants, rather than people who care mostly about protecting their bureaucracies and who benefit more from failure than from success because money flows to problems, not solutions.

Justice systems would not be so corrupt that obtaining justice can take months, maybe years. Millions would not be stuck in cages and have their economic potential ruined over behaviors that are not crimes but are treated as such by the ruling class. Police would not be militarized and treat every citizen as an enemy.

The people would have strong moral compasses and only use social safety nets when absolutely necessary, rather than over 55% of the populace becoming mostly or wholly dependent upon those safety nets for their survival.

But we don't live in that kind of world, and it's the fundamental fallacy of statism that advocates government with unlimited authority (tell me the objective limit of the power of your state) and that might is right.

As long as there are enough statists who believe that government authority is rightful, there will be a powerful state. You may want to impose socialism or communism or some other collectivism. and you will always have a state because people will resist your imposition and therefore must be forced to conform and punished when they don't. As long as you believe in the right of some to rule, you will be ruled.

 

What a shame. When I write responses to conservatives, I have little to no expectation that they will respond in a coherent or thoughtful manner. Libertarians on the other hand, I have higher hopes for, but they usually disappoint too, just like this. This entire post is a giant straw man. That is it. There is no other content here.

If we were to accept the absurd and false dichotomy between statism and libertarianism, with nothing in between, we would simply be buying into another one of the fundamental fallacies of libertarianism. As I just laid out above, there is no practical path to small government libertarianism. That has nothing to do with any of your straw men above. I believe in limited government. I just reject another fundamental fallacy of libertarianism, which asserts that only governmental power is corrupting and that only governmental bureaucracy is inefficient.

I also recognize that in order to limit the power of government, you need to limit the power of capital as well. Which means the only way to have any kind of limited government is to have a balance of power between government, capital, and labor where each has enough power to check the others, therefore limiting any one group from attaining excessive power. Libertarianism simply empowers capital, which inevitably empowers government, while entirely stripping labor of power. It cannot work as a solution to the problem of oppressive government action.