Mailbox: Howard and God

ST writes: So now apparently Dean’s logic supercedes that of God….

Well, in fairness, Howard only said he’d be talking about God. He didn’t say he’d be listening to Him.

Mailbox: Protected against yourself

DW writes: I read your blog with interest. Much of it is well-reasoned (NFL allegiances aside, although I certainly can claim no better!). And want to or not, one leaves the blog thinking. Certainly I did not expect to bethinking about cannibalism this morning. Regarding Brandes consent, what about codes that are in place to preventone from inflicting serious harm on oneself?

I do not know the laws pertaining to this in Germany, but that’s not the point of my question. Are codes like this an example of state interference in individual choice and morality? If not, could such a principle be applied to Brandes, and if so, would you prefer to see these laws eliminated?

Yes, they absolutely are. Seat belt laws and helmet laws are good examples of this. Such an example certainly applies, and I would absolutely prefer to see these laws eliminated. If the State has the power to tell you to wear a helmet on a bicycle, they also have the power to tell a woman to wear the chador.

Tax trial verdict – the end of justice

The jury has sent the judge another question.

Question: Since no proof has been offered by the government that the defendant’s business is required to file under Section 7202, are we to assume that they are not required to file or are we to read all 7000 pages of businesses required to file?

Answer from Judge: I have made a legal determination that during the years in question, Arrow Plastics had a legal duty to collect Social Security, Medicare and FICA and forward those taxes to the U.S.A. and the defendant’s business falls into the category of businesses required to file. They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant’s business to file.

The defense objected that this amounted to a directed verdict. The judge overruled the objection.

After this, the verdict came back guilty on 29 of 31 counts. Which is understandable, given the fact that the judge simply made up the law and directed the verdict. “They should not concern themselves as to the requirement for the defendant’s business to file.” That was what the whole case was about; it was precisely what the jury was there to judge! This is why you must never use a lawyer in these circumstances. The jury has the power to judge the law; the judge does not, but no lawyer will dare to bring up jury nullification for fear of being disbarred. It’s too bad the Simkanin jury did not know its own power.

Since there’s now no law as written, it’s clear that Aleister Crowley’s rule is now in effect. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” I don’t expect this to turn out well, in the long run. The socialist crisis is approaching – what will they do when strong arm tactics such as these still don’t cause freedom-loving people to submit? And what will the next honest and informed entrepeneur take from this lesson in judicial tyranny? Some will submit and pay the taxes they know they don’t owe. Some will resist and go to jail with their head held high. And some will quietly leave the country, never to return.

A nation that persecutes its best and brightest doesn’t tend to survive long.

Mailbox: No taste for freedom

JM writes: Your answer to the question freaked me out. What about the people in the society? Don’t they have the right to be protected from such an act happening in their midst? If there were the possibility of a man murdering and eating another man next door to me, and it was a common practice (who knows where we will be in 30 years?), I would not be able to live in peace. I would never even consider bringing children into the world. Such acts cannot simply happen “behind doors”, their very presence in a society effects every member of the society. The act is so reviling to basic human nature that everyone is effected.

For some reason the consent makes it far more bone-chilling than your run of the mill “jungle cannibalism”. It is as if you get a glimpse of hell. And by your logic you could have this sort of stuff on pay-per-view. I would rather be persecuted under a tyrant than to live in such a society. Personal freedom in this life is only so valuable, it is not to be idolized, which is exactly what you border on doing.

I think this is absolutely a glimpse of Hell. This is what happens when people turn from God. And legal or no, the possibility already exists. But instead of expecting the government to stop it, I would say that the correct response is social ostracism and a refusal to do business or have dealings with such a person. Sans a government that violates the right to freedom of association, you would be very unlikely to have such a person living next door for long; he would not be able to do so in a town where no one would have anything to do with him. Ostracism is a very powerful force, unfortunately Americans have lost the ability to use it.

Otherwise, you have a society where the government has the power to prevent people from worshipping God next door. You can’t have things both ways. I don’t idolize personal freedom. God, who has far more power than any government, decided to give it to us as a gift. Who are you to attempt to take away what He has chosen to give? Private property and a philosophy of my rights ending where yours begin is the only reasonable foundation for secular law. I would say, however, that it is foolish to think that it would be better to live under a tyrant – there have been tyrants in the past thirty years who have practiced such abominations themselves. You would prefer to allow them the power to force you to do the same?

Neither governments nor people can be controlled for long. Not for good, not for evil. This is the great lesson of history.

JM responds: This is a very good argument. I gladly submit to it. I never considered the effect two seemingly disconnected freedoms can have on one another. My nightmare scenario was actually a form of tyranny because we would be forced to “get along” with persons who engage in such behavior in the name of respecting their liberty. It is not really a respect of liberty, [though], it is a respect of sin.

Indeed.