Standing naked on my property

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf seems afflicted with a proofreader's mentality.

Running out of high caliber smears? Here, let me help you.

He was at once the commonest and the most remarkable product of civilization. He was nine out of ten people that one passes on a city street -- and he was a hairless ape with two dozen tricks. He was the hero of a thousand romances of life and art -- and he was a virtual moron, performing staidly yet absurdly a series of complicated and infinitely astounding epics over a span of threescore years. [Fitzgerald, The Beautiful and Damned]

-- none of which matters, because ad hom is irrelevant and inadmissible. Just answer the salient question: What is justice?

[Wolf DeVoon]

an honored patriot of our society is assassinated by culprits unknown...

a spectacular banking fraud wipes out hundreds of accountholders...

people die of old age...

the imperative of national security will never recede...

when shit comes to holler and tests our community...

In simple, 18th century language: Men are not angels...

These were factual issues, not fairy tale "state of nature" conjecture. The rule of law was urgently needed in Laissez Faire City.

You can argue that I provided poor legal guidance. It is unarguable that lawless anarchism is a disaster.

[Brant Gaede]

an honored patriot of our society is assassinated by culprits unknown...

a spectacular banking fraud wipes out hundreds of accountholders...

people die of old age...

the imperative of national security will never recede...

when shit comes to holler and tests our community...

In simple, 18th century language: Men are not angels...

These were factual issues, not fairy tale "state of nature" conjecture. The rule of law was urgently needed in Laissez Faire City.

You can argue that I provided poor legal guidance. It is unarguable that lawless anarchism is a disaster.

The libertarian anarchists I've stumbled upon decry the state, not governance. "Lawless anarchism" can only mean the breakdown of everything, even the family where Pops calls the shots. You seem to advocate, actually, considering your other ideas, a kind of minarchy--at best--based on a self-generating structure that will somehow keep the bad guys from taking over and running the joint. It's as if you don't know how the bad-guy power seekers operate. Unlike Rand you eschew philosophy, which comes out of people, and even libertarians who are oriented to human (natural) rights. Your rights come out of the law itself and that makes everything circular within and from the law with the only input from lawyers. It's rule by the lawyers, but rule by the lawyers is what we have right now. The philosophers have been pushed aside, by them and by you.

I'm beginning to wonder if much of the human rights palaver from many of the Founding Fathers was from the necessity to seduce an essentially individualistic society in order to bridle it with a constitution. If so they were dishonest--hardly all of them of course--and you are honest but blinded by what you do not know.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

It's as if you don't know how the bad-guy power seekers operate.

I suggest you think twice about that.

[Brant Gaede]

It's as if you don't know how the bad-guy power seekers operate.

I suggest you think twice about that.

I'll be reading your L.F.L. soon. I hope it's there or there's another reference I can grab right now. Since you "know"--which I take your word on--that has to be reflected in your writings about what in turn gets reflected in lawgivers' law. (Do I have that right?) I hate to get inappropriately ahead of myself, but this thread is happening now.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

It's as if you don't know how the bad-guy power seekers operate.

I suggest you think twice about that.

I'll be reading your L.F.L. soon. I hope it's there or there's another reference I can grab right now. Since you "know"--which I take your word on--that has to be reflected in your writings about what in turn gets reflected in lawgivers' law. (Do I have that right?) I hate to get inappropriately ahead of myself, but this thread is happening now.

--Brant

I've never written about it. Dictatorships of North Africa and SE Asia, big city drug lords, company CEOs, Russian mobsters, ministers of state, Hollywood producers, A-list stars and agents, prison guards, riot police, and "OGAs" are not abstract ideas to me.

[Brant Gaede]

It's as if you don't know how the bad-guy power seekers operate.

I suggest you think twice about that.

I'll be reading your L.F.L. soon. I hope it's there or there's another reference I can grab right now. Since you "know"--which I take your word on--that has to be reflected in your writings about what in turn gets reflected in lawgivers' law. (Do I have that right?) I hate to get inappropriately ahead of myself, but this thread is happening now.

--Brant

I've never written about it. Dictatorships of North Africa and SE Asia, big city drug lords, street gangs, Russian gangsters, ministers of state, Hollywood producers, A-list stars and agents, prison guards, riot police, and "other government agencies" are not abstract ideas to me.

Got it, but I'm still reading your book.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Something I wrote in 1984, the first words of Laissez Faire Law, still rings true:

"I am not a particularly learned man, nor particularly clever. My ideas about government were formed through hard experience

and frequent battles with society. Frankly, I believe that better minds and abler writers should be doing this kind of work..."

[Brant Gaede]

I'm afraid you're in an intellectual wilderness.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Wolf seems afflicted with a proofreader's mentality.

Running out of high caliber smears? Here, let me help you.

He was at once the commonest and the most remarkable product of civilization. He was nine out of ten people that one passes on a city street -- and he was a hairless ape with two dozen tricks. He was the hero of a thousand romances of life and art -- and he was a virtual moron, performing staidly yet absurdly a series of complicated and infinitely astounding epics over a span of threescore years. [Fitzgerald, The Beautiful and Damned]

-- none of which matters, because ad hom is irrelevant and inadmissible. Just answer the salient question: What is justice?

I addressed that question previously. Viewed from one angle, justice is the recognition and enforcement of natural rights.

You have repeatedly been asked questions pertaining to the philosophy of law. But instead of explaining what, in your theory of law, should be the case, you have persistently stated what, in your opinion, is the case in matters of legal procedure, as if established procedures should be our ultimate standards of judgment. And you sometimes follow up with a laundry list of procedural rules without providing a philosophical foundation for them. This is why I mentioned your proofreader's mentality. You submerge yourself in details, many of which are irrelevant to the problem at hand, and ignore basic normative questions. Thus, when asked why police should be permitted to initiate force, you responded that the police do in fact initiate force. That's about as nonresponsive as it is possible to get.

Moreover, you seem fond of English common law. Well, blasphemy and seditious libel (i.e., criticizing the government) were crimes in that tradition. (Unlike civil libel, truth was not a defense in seditious libel.) In fact, Thomas Jefferson regarded the writings of William Blackstone on common law as a great threat to American freedom, and he opposed efforts to incorporate common law into the American legal system. You don't need to agree with Jefferson, of course. My complaint is that you show no awareness of the problems involved.

Btw -- and hopefully for the last time -- I need to remind you that I did not use an ad hominem argument against you. I merely insulted you. You should know something about logic before you invoke it.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Hospers did end up at USC of course. He was editor in the 1970s of The Personalist. He was the Ph.D. advisor to Jack Wheeler (philosophy).

--Brant

I corrected my mistake. See here:

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/ayn-rand-altruism-part-4

Thanks again for calling this error to my attention. If you or anyone else finds errors in any of my Cato Essays, please let me know. Writing over 140 substantive essays in almost as many weeks is a brisk business, and errors are bound to creep in now and then.

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

1. ...justice is the recognition and enforcement of natural rights.

2. ...instead of explaining what, in your theory of law, should be the case, you have persistently stated what, in your opinion, is the case in matters of legal procedure

Repeated personal attacks are arguing to the man, George.

1. "Innocent liberty" is a precise idea. It exonerates and protects children younger than the age of reason, generally understood to be ages 0-9. It extends a much wider presumption of innocence to women, compared to men. I have argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law and responsible for law enforcement, with customary legal restraint on law enforcement made more stringent by Articles II, III, and especially Article IV of the Freeman's Constitution. Perhaps the sharpest understanding of "innocent liberty" consists of killing a man, whereafter no one complains of legally actionable loss. This is explicitly addressed in the matters of willful contempt of court, flight to avoid arrest, and wrongful use of the police power. Lawlessness can be legally and innocently met with lethal force. Innocent liberty does not convey a license or competence to hold property, and in most cases settled possession of property imposes more duties than privileges. There are no natural rights. The Article I right to petition is a legal right (a synthetic construct) in aid of constitutional due process and the administration of justice, vis: armed defense of innocent liberty.

2. I have NOT described or endorsed current law or legal procedure. I briefly answered Darrell's questions from the standpoint of laissez faire law as I understand it, which incorporates adversarial litigation (A vs B), concurrent equity jurisdiction, unbiased rules of evidence, and procedural due process evolved by judges without reference to historical "lawgivers" (sovereigns, legislatures, obiter dicta).

Sadly, the only way to unravel the mystery of my work is to read some of it. You'll find it incomplete and sketchy. However, the main ideas are clear enough. Women are charged with special privileges and duties. Defying due process of law is a death sentence. No natural rights or natural law.

[Brant Gaede]

Natural rights envelope everything you do that's not an initiation of force against another person. Codification is rights' protection, not creation, no matter what is mentioned in, say, the Bill of Rights. Thus they are an epistemological construct with a metaphysical referent of men qua man. Or, natural rights are a human philosophical invention and in no ways arbitrary.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Repeated personal attacks are arguing to the man, George.

A reply is ad hominen only if its seeks to rebut an argument by discrediting the person who presented that argument. In saying that you are afflicted with a proofreader's mentality, I did not attempt to refute any of your arguments (mainly because I don't even know what your arguments are supposed to be). I merely made an observation, unflattering but accurate, about the way you approach ideas,

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

natural rights are a human philosophical invention and in no ways arbitrary.

Could be right. Doesn't much matter what's right or wrong logically, metaphysically, or ethically. You can't exclude someone from making a novel claim, or prejudicing due process by slamming the door shut without fair trial of fact. The law is not an agency of political war, given marching orders by moral lawgivers.

[George H. Smith]

1. "Innocent liberty" is a precise idea. It exonerates and protects children younger than the age of reason, generally understood to be ages 0-9. It extends a much wider presumption of innocence to women, compared to men. I have argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law and responsible for law enforcement, with customary legal restraint on law enforcement made more stringent by Articles II, III, and especially Article IV of the Freeman's Constitution.

Women "should be exempt from the criminal law"? So much for equal rights and the rule of law.

Your post is a good example of what I have called the proofreader's mentality. Lots of specifics with no general theory to back them up.

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

Repeated personal attacks are arguing to the man, George.

An argument is ad hominen only if its seeks to rebut an argument by discrediting the person who presented that argument. In saying that you are afflicted with a proofreader's mentality, I did not attempt to refute any of your arguments (mainly because I don't even know what your arguments are supposed to be). I merely made an observation, unflattering but accurate, about the way you approach ideas,

Ghs

Oh rubbish. You have no interest in addressing substantive issues, made plain again by characterizing me "accurately"(?)

Children, women, the elderly and infirm, the insane, immortal trusts and states -- all treated differently. Big surprise.

FFS make a modicum of effort. Read the Freeman's Constitution.

[Darrell Hougen]

1. "Innocent liberty" is a precise idea.

Then what is it? Spit it out, man! You just gave a bunch of examples without ever defining innocent liberty.

It exonerates and protects children younger than the age of reason, generally understood to be ages 0-9.

Why?

It extends a much wider presumption of innocence to women, compared to men.

Why?

I have argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law ...

Ok. What is the reason?

Do you think it will result in a better society?

Do you think it will result in better protection of individual rights? <-- I suspect not since you've already rejected that concept.

Do you think it will result in better protection of "innocent liberty"?

My question is, what would make your society better to live in than the one I'm already living in? Why would it's governmental system be better?

Why should anyone bother to listen to you? Why should anyone bother to implement your suggestions? How does it benefit them?

Darrell

Edited September 5, 2014 by Darrell Hougen

[Wolf DeVoon]

I have argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law ...

Ok. What is the reason?

My question is, what would make your society better to live in than the one I'm already living in?

Why should anyone bother to listen to you?

There's some homework involved if you want to pursue it. Mars Shall Thunder, The Good Walk Alone

Sunni Maravillosa says: DeVoon competently combines the pull of a space story with suspenseful twists and turns of a thriller. He reaches out to the thinking reader, providing a savory touch of art. An example: "History is predictable while the pressure builds, then it explodes in a crescendo that no one expected or understands except in awe of its might, just as rocks melt beneath an atomic bomb." In Book Two, the story takes on a much more intimate tone; and although DeVoon's touch is sometimes heavy, his obvious familiarity with the concepts he explores makes that easy to overlook. He also appears to be another of the select group of men with the uncanny ability to portray exclusively female experiences accurately. Almost up to the book's very end, the reader's pulled along and kept guessing as to what's going to happen. Mars Shall Thunder is a satisfying tapestry of space thriller, love story, and thought-provoking observations on the human condition and its systems.

Samuel Jones says: Mars is magnificently realised, both in the description of the setting and in the politics and intrigue that go on there. The dialogue and interaction of the characters is gripping, the action scenes marvellously portrayed. Wolf is one of the best independent authors I've ever encountered, and a man whose work deserves far more exposure.

Mike Marotta says: The Good Walk Alone is a novella, set in a post-apocalyptic Costa Rica. The cops are women. Wolf DeVoon's personal experiences working in prisons and working for prisoners showed him reasons to assert that women should not be subject to criminal law and that law enforcement should be entrusted to them exclusively. It is a radical theory. But I found it empirically supported. As I was earning a baccalaureate (Summa cum Laude) in criminology administration in 2008, I was shown statistics proving that women write more citations than men, and with fewer complaints from the public. Tangentially, college-educated police (2-year or 4-year degrees) also conduct more stops and write more citations with fewer complaints from citizens than do police officers with only a high school education. If you want the best police force, get college educated women. The story has all the usual elements: love, jealousy, some suspense, and gunfire, with a conclusion that is not quite resolved. http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2014/06/wolf-devoon.html

Women should be exempted from the criminal law and responsible for law enforcement. This will end male "input" on abortion and domestic violence. I trust that women will do justice. [Laissez Faire Law, p.113]

The arguments in favor of a female judiciary seem to gain weight and additional merit, no matter which way I turn. [COGIGG, p.84]

I witnessed Maggie Thatcher in action at a NATO Summit, away from the cameras and microphones. I know precisely what I'm talking about. She made Bush and Kohl squirm like scared little boys, and she couldn't have done it without Rand. The bottom line on history is that Ayn Rand and Simone de Beauvoir were political shipbuilders who launched a thousand warrior queens... Our revolutionary sisters will triumph (eventually) because they have more at risk and because Women Are Men Plus. It only takes one of them to defeat ten of us, if she decides to wage war. Ayn Rand took out male opponents by the hundred and won the hearts of six or seven million, because she was brave enough to say that she had a right to live her own life. Her novels toppled the Berlin Wall (via Thatcher)... Personally, I'm in favor of two party platform planks that I hope the Democrats (who else?) will consider as speedily as possible: (1) We should exempt women from the criminal law. The vast majority of criminals are men, and when women kill, they usually have a good reason for taking life. This includes abortion. Anything less means slavery: tied to an unwanted child for the rest of her life, or living with the terrible shame of having lost a child by adoption to someone wealthier and "better" than its natural mother. (2) Amend the U.S. Constitution to bring it into line with reality, and give women one of the two houses of Congress. It doesn't matter which one. Men can keep the Senate, if they think it's a sacrosanct club with special magic powers. Women will feel right at home in the House of Representatives, anyway, since a lot of them can only serve a couple years between bouts of infant care. They will also feel at home with the purse-strings, since all spending bills have to originate in the House, and women are known to be de facto financial managers of most American households. Recent research indicates that female Wall Street traders and money managers earn a slightly higher return on portfolio, mainly because they take fewer risks with the client's money and don't panic in an emergency. https://web.archive.org/web/20020601114021/http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.29/badcop_nodonut.html

[George H. Smith]

Repeated personal attacks are arguing to the man, George.

An argument is ad hominen only if its seeks to rebut an argument by discrediting the person who presented that argument. In saying that you are afflicted with a proofreader's mentality, I did not attempt to refute any of your arguments (mainly because I don't even know what your arguments are supposed to be). I merely made an observation, unflattering but accurate, about the way you approach ideas,

Ghs

Oh rubbish. You have no interest in addressing substantive issues, made plain again by characterizing me "accurately"(?)

Children, women, the elderly and infirm, the insane, immortal trusts and states -- all treated differently. Big surprise.

FFS make a modicum of effort. Read the Freeman's Constitution.

First, I merely pointed out that you don't know what an ad hominem argument is.

Second, you say, as an assertion of fact, that women are "treated differently" (in the law, I presume). Thus according to your method of reasoning, it follows that women should be treated differently. I cannot begin to understand how your mind works.

Third, you say that I should read the Freeman's Constitution. Okay, let me apply your own method of reasoning to that request, to wit: I have not, in fact, read the Freeman's Constitution. That settles the matter; there is nothing more to say.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I have argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law ...

Ok. What is the reason?

My question is, what would make your society better to live in than the one I'm already living in?

Why should anyone bother to listen to you?

There's some homework involved if you want to pursue it. The Good Walk Alone

Mike Marotta says: The Good Walk Alone is a novella, set in a post-apocalyptic Costa Rica. The cops are women. Wolf DeVoon's personal experiences working in prisons and working for prisoners showed him reasons to assert that women should not be subject to criminal law and that law enforcement should be entrusted to them exclusively. It is a radical theory. But I found it empirically supported. As I was earning a baccalaureate (Summa cum Laude) in criminology administration in 2008, I was shown statistics proving that women write more citations than men, and with fewer complaints from the public. Tangentially, college-educated police (2-year or 4-year degrees) also conduct more stops and write more citations with fewer complaints from citizens than do police officers with only a high school education. If you want the best police force, get college educated women. The story has all the usual elements: love, jealousy, some suspense, and gunfire, with a conclusion that is not quite resolved. http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2014/06/wolf-devoon.html

Women should be exempted from the criminal law and responsible for law enforcement. This will end male "input" on abortion and domestic violence. I trust that women will do justice. [Laissez Faire Law, p.113]

The arguments in favor of a female judiciary seem to gain weight and additional merit, no matter which way I turn. [COGIGG, p.84]

Even the Black Widow?

--Brant

exempting women from criminal law is irrational fantasy, Wolf, and as for masculine law enforcement problems, let them wear body cams

[Wolf DeVoon]

you say, as an assertion of fact, that women are "treated differently" (in the law, I presume).

Point of information. Women are not treated differently in the current state. I have proposed they should be.

[Wolf DeVoon]

exempting women from criminal law is irrational fantasy, Wolf

Exempting a class of persons (small children and as I've proposed: all women) from criminal prosecution does not mean that they can't be sued for damages (assault, negligence, wrongful death) or deprived of liberty and remanded into custody for care of the insane. The only irrational fantasy is to think that the current state and its "natural law" source are the only possible legal regime. The goal of laissez faire is to increase personal responsibility and to diminish the power of law courts.

When people live in practical anarchy, they seldom attack one another, because it’s too damned dangerous. The Code of the Old West was backed by an armed citizenry. Law and order hardly existed, except as an attribute of common sense. This suggests that weak "due process" is better than a police state, if the goal of polity is non-violence. I would be happy to exclude most common law cases from court, unless someone suffered a grievous injury. We should encourage people to learn the meaning of common law by negotiating their own agreements and settling minor disputes in propria persona, instead of running to a lawyer every ten minutes, threatening suit. Attorneys should be few in number. [COGIGG, p.84]

[Selene]

Point of information. Women are not treated differently in the current state. I have proposed they should be.

Wolf:

If this is your perception and if the jurisdiction(s) are not in the United States, you may be right.

However, if you are making that statement about the current Court system, you are one hundred percent

[100%] incorrect.

Women are a preferred 'class" in the legal system today, and have been since the early 80's.

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

Women are a preferred 'class" in the legal system today, and have been since the early 80's.

In criminal cases?