tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post7053714401491014098..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: The Rittenhouse Verdict and the Future of Vigilante ViolenceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-30598685398006710962021-11-21T08:06:59.020-05:002021-11-21T08:06:59.020-05:00the state grant me anything....... posh
cultural ...the state grant me anything....... posh<br /><br />cultural marxism paddy kivlinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-57602243213456677512021-11-20T17:18:32.501-05:002021-11-20T17:18:32.501-05:00This case is wrongly framed as being about justice...This case is wrongly framed as being about justice. What it is really about is incompatible conceptions of liberty. The end of the pledge of allegiance promises "liberty and justice for all." Liberty AND justice, not liberty or justice with liberty as the <i>predicate</i> for justice.<br /><br />One conception of liberty is the sacredness of property. You can do what you want with what you own and nobody has a right to take it from you. We know where that ended up when people were property.<br /><br />The competing conception of liberty revolves around the right of the person to live and participate civilly be unmolested. <br /><br />The first conception is positive and coercive, the second is negative and non-coercive. Justice presumes to mediate between the two. In the U.S. -- and increasingly so -- that mediation consists of elevating the property conception of liberty above the civil. <br /><br />What that means in practice is that those who are excluded from property are excluded from liberty and excluded from justice. "No shirt, no shoes? No service." With "shirt" and "shoes" standing for property and "service" for justice.<br /><br />The problem with this kind of no justice justice resides in the first premise, not the conclusion. "Property" is not foundational and transcendent. Property is <i>already</i> a privilege granted by the state that relies on violations of civil rights.<br /><br />Vigilantes roam free and "commit self defense" only because the police protect them.<br /><br />Without challenging the legitimacy of the American definition of "liberty" hand wringing about (in)justice is futile. This is classic legal realism stuff and it needs to be made front and center of the conversation.<br /><br />Bargaining, Duress, and Economic Liberty, Robert L. Hale, Columbia Law Review , Jul., 1943, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 603-628.<br /><br />https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1117229.pdfSandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-84087598998097069562021-11-20T14:12:12.098-05:002021-11-20T14:12:12.098-05:00interesting idea - and can we at least restrict th...interesting idea - and can we at least restrict these military rifles as opposed to handguns from being openly carried in public (though they both inflict alot of damage). Supreme Court is going in the wrong direction on this I am afraid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-5380870255049322862021-11-20T07:50:08.330-05:002021-11-20T07:50:08.330-05:00regulate the 'competition' between antifa/...regulate the 'competition' between antifa/blm and white nationalists.....paddy kivlinnoreply@blogger.com