David,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm not an anarchist either. Like
you, I believe criminal justice as a legitimate function of government.
Therefore seeking to make it more difficult for the police to arrest
actual criminals is not my ideal solution. I see it as a pragmatic
approach which acknowledges the reality that giving police the tools to
go after violent criminals at a time when they are abusing the rights
of innocent people will result in more crime (when rights violations by
government are counted as crimes, which they ought to be), not less.
I have yet to see "Minority Report," but I think I see what you are
getting at -- the difficulty (impossibility?) of avoiding the
initiation of force by arresting innocent people poses a high hurdle
for proponents of anarchy.
I agree with you about the inadequacy of the philosophy of "Since the
current solution to issue X is impractical, non-functional or failing
in practice we need to invoke forceful government counter-measures to
make up for it," but I don't understand how this is a
"left-libertarian" philosophy. For example, I might consider myself in
some senses a left-libertarian, but I wouldn't say that the
government's failure to curb violent crime means we need to invoke
forceful government counter-measures such as subjecting everyone in a
vehicle to arrest based on the actions or possessions of a single
occupant.
You're correct in guessing that I'd see your conclusion on security as
overly pessimistic. The Patriot Act was rammed through; it never had
true popular support, and I think it will face an uphill battle for
reauthorization by Congress when it expires. In the wake of
government's failure to provide security on September 11, many
Americans did take steps to improve their own security. Admittedly some
of these steps were foolish, like sealing their homes with duct tape --
though no more foolish than some of the things government did in
response such as confiscating nail clippers at airports -- but I
understand that firearms sales were also up, people were buying more
books on how to protect themselves from terrorism, etc.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Starchild - I find your post interesting for several
reasons...First of all, I'm a Libertarian and not an anarchist,
so there's probably not any point in going into
whether the role of criminal justice is a legitimate
function of government or not.Secondly, whether or not internal policing is a public
or private, I'm not sure how that impacts the concept
of probable cause. For instance, if I make a citizen's
arrest of you because I suspect - beyond a shadow of
a my doubt - that you committed a crime, at the end of
the day it will be based on my subjective judgment.
Once we get into the courtroom, a judge or jury would
decide actual findings of fact at that point. They may
even decide my prior judgment for the arrest was
unwarranted, which would open me up to potential
litigation from you. The real question is - is there a
way around this problem in ANY known political system?
Pre-cogs.. ala Minority Report ? I'd really be
interested in any ideas that address this. Everything
is always so crystal clear in hindsight. Maybe I will
re-read some Nozick and Bastiat...Additionally, I don't prescribe to the philosophy of
"Since the current solution to issue X is impractical,
non-functional or failing in practice we need to
invoke forceful government counter-measures to make up
for it". This was essentially the same reason I argued
against legalizing gay (government)marriage and I
suspect prescribing to this philosophy is an
underlining characteristic of a left-libertarian. For
the record, which I think is important now that I am
running for office on behalf of the LPSF, I see myself
as an incrementalist, center-libertarian. In short, I
believe in incrementally downgrading the level of
force used by government in a utilitarian fashion. I
don't prescribe to countering government force per
instance, in an affirmative action sort of way (or
fighting fire with fire) or removing existing invalid
government functions all in one day.Lastly, although I may be accused of the same
negativity that I accused of Ron G., I personally
don't think people will decide to take security
matters into their own hands when government security
has failed. In fact, they appear to do the opposite.
For example, Ashcroft has essentially enjoyed
unfettered increases in power since 9/11, not because
he took more power but because congress and their
constituents gave it it to him out of capitulation and
desperation. Even after it was clear that the CIA and
FBI had sufficient prior evidence of the attacks with
their existing level of empowerment, it was not
sufficient to stop the Patriot Act. Oddly enough, when
I lived in Texas I believed in personal responsibility
of security, which is the common texan mindset, but
now that I've been around I see how obscure this
mentality is in the rest of the world.cheers,
David
David,
I agree that the real answer is to repeal drug laws
(and all the other
laws against victimless "crimes"). An arrest
*should* mean that you are
not considered guilty, but in practice the police
treat arrestees as if
they *are* guilty.Until these things are changed, I am in favor of
limiting the power of
the police as much as possible. Even if it means
effectively tying
their hands behind their backs (which I don't think
a different ruling
in this case would have done).As long as they can arrest people for all sorts of
phony reasons, and
routinely deny due process to those arrested, it is
in our interest for
it to be as difficult as possible to make an arrest
that will hold up
in court. Yes, this will mean some people who
should be arrested won't
be, but better that than the reverse.The more obvious it becomes that the police are
ineffectual in
stopping violent crime or getting violent criminals
off the streets,
the more people will be motivated to take
responsibility for their own
protection, and that will do much more to reduce
real crime than
empowering the police at the expense of our
constitutional rights ever
will.Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>Any law or step designed to take away any facit
of
any civil liberty in the name of the war on
crime
or the war on drugs is a loss of civil liberties
and
who knows where that will stop?
Ron Getty
Ron - As a former victim of police brutality and
wrongful arrest (I was driving in the 'wrong'
neigborhood at 3am, 3 blocks from my home), I can
certainly relate to this issue.On the other hand, I don't see what is so earth
shattering about this ruling. As it stands now,
probable cause is so subjective on behalf of the
arresting officer, one can be arrested for notwearing
a seatbelt, jaywalking or a litany of other minor
offensives we all commit every day.I think the real answer here is to repeal drug
laws,
not to expect police to witness someone holding a
smoking gun before they can make an arrest.David
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comYour use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/69cplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/