Posted by Darien on 05/04/10

You may have heard about this -- it's been all the rage on the internets lately -- but the police recently tasered a dude who ran out onto the field during a Phillies game. This led to an interesting conversation with a friend of mine who, while a libertarian, is considerably less extreme than I am, on the subject of the appropriateness of the use of force. I'll expand upon this below.

First off, just so there's no confusion about agendas, let's play full disclosure: I'm a full-on anarcho-capitalist, and, as such, I tend to side with the individual against the state, and I am generally sympathetic to the rights of the accused, arrested, and served-and-protected, and suspicious of the police. Also, my brother is a police officer, and I was at one point certified (though I was never hired and my certification has since lapsed). Make of that what you will.

My friend said the police acted appropriately, and I dissented. His argument was three-fold: that property owners have a right to protect their property rights from violation by others, that the police have a right to see to their own safety in the course of their duties, and that it was important to stop the guy before he could do some crazy thing he may have had planned. I'll deal with these arguments in reverse order.

First off, all apologies to fans of the third argument, because: it's garbage.  I do not (and have no plans to) support the idea that it is in any way morally or ethically sound to punish people for crimes they may or may not commit at some later time. There was no evidence here that the dude had any sinister plans -- he was just running around waving at his buddies. Now, if they caught him going for Ryan Howard with a hatchet, that would be one thing -- and no doubt Mayor Bloomberg would say it was because he was clearly politically offended by Howard's new contract -- but if there's no evidence that he intends to commit a more serious crime (and, more to the point, that he intends to do it right now), there's no justification for treating him as though he had. Worth noting here is that this is hardly the first dude ever to run onto the field during a sporting event, and they're pretty much exclusively harmless pranks. Very much including this lady, who I'm fairly sure was never tortured with an electro-shock device by the state as punishment for her terrible crimes.

As for the second argument, first I have to ask: why were the police involved at all? It doesn't seem proper to me that the taxpayers should subsidise the security at private events hosted by billionaires. I'm sure the justification involves nebulous, state-glorifying concepts like "public order" and dodges behind the fact that stadiums are financed by the taxpayers also (which is another thing I don't care for, but is beyond the scope of this article).

But never mind that. We'll just take it as understood that the police are there.  Do they have a right to keep themselves safe? Of course they do, but there are limits. And when the police start using overwhelming force at the first sign of trouble just because, hey, it could get more dangerous down there if they let the situation escalate, well, then there's no real restraint at all on their ability to use force.

This ties directly into argument three, which is the most interesting and nuanced of the set. Is it appropriate to use force to protect your property against others? I would say yes, personally -- the right to be secure in person and possessions is fundamental, and it necessarily implies a right to protect your person and possessions against others. But are there limits? Let's consider an example.

Say you own a house. Like many houses, your house is on a street, and there's a sidewalk running by in front of it. One day, somebody is walking down the sidewalk, minding his own business, and another person comes by going in the other direction in a motorized wheelchair. There isn't enough room on the sidewalk for both of them, so our pedestrian steps off the sidewalk to allow the wheelchair to go by, and, in doing so, steps on to your lawn. Are you within your rights to kill him? I think the answer is very clearly no.

Now, some of you are thinking, wait just a cotton-pickin' minute. That's totally unfair. It's an absolute crazy limit situation, and isn't a proper analogy for the baseball game. And you're right. But the point we demonstrate with this situation is that limits to your right to use force to secure your property do exist, since it is clearly possible for there to be a situation in which you have gone too far. So now that we know that it's possible to apply too much force, we can try to figure out whether or not this is such a case.

As near as I can determine, there are three ways to judge the appropriateness of the amount of force used: one can attempt to minimise the harm done to the recipient of the force, minimise the risk taken by the people applying the force, or attempt to seek a  middle ground which minimises total harm/risk to all participants.

If we use the first method, it's clear that the force used was far in excess, since the victim was harmed rather considerably. Tasers, contrary to the government line, are lethal, and often cause permanent (though subtle) damage to targets they don't kill. Even notwithstanding that, the very purpose of a taser is to incapacitate a target with extreme pain. This is torture. This is way too much force to apply against a trespasser.

Looking from the second perspective, we see that many of the other options that could have been pursued -- such as attempting to tackle the trespasser, or attempting to "herd" him toward an exit, could have exposed the police to greater harm. This would seem to indicate that the police acted rightly. However, this ignores the fact that another option -- letting the dude run around the field and leave of his own volition, and then lawfully cite him for trespassing -- was left totally unexplored. This would have explosed the police to far less risk and far less harm than firing the taser.

What about option three? Option three, on the face of it, also seems to indicate that the police were out of line, since it includes a "harm caused to the target" component, and the harm caused to the target was rather severe. In fact, in this case, option three appears to be very similar to option one, since there is no indication that the trespasser posed any risk whatsoever to the police or to the crowd; all risk the police were subjected to was created by them in the process of apprehending the trespasser, and he was no danger to the onlookers at all, so this also seems to indicate that resolving the situation with minimal harm done to the target would be the best course of action.

By all three lines of reasoning I've explored here, I've determined that the police vastly overreached in tasering this individual. But am I leaving something out? Am I not considering the inconvenience to the players and fans created by the delay in the game? Of course not. However, I don't see how a few seconds' delay in the game possibly warrants the amount of force employed by the police in resolving the situation. I also think that the police involvement probably prolonged the delay. It's impossible to know for sure, of course, but it's highly unlikely the dude planned to throw up a tent out in center and hang out there indefinitely. As with most such pranks, probably he was going to run around and wave at his buddies, and then leave. The police involvement, however, basically eliminated the option of leaving under his own power (because he knew as well as you and I know that the police would have continued pursuit), and getting tasered created a substantial delay caused by, you know, the writhing and the agony and stuff. So if you're looking at it from the perspective of the fans, the actions of the police almost definitely made the situation worse.

I can't find any way of looking at this situation that shows anything but a massive overreaction. The sane, proper approach would be to let the dude have his fun, and then meet him at the exit (or returning to his seat, or whatever), escort him out of the stadium, and cite him for trespassing (or whatever civil violation best applies, on which I am not an authority). If he doesn't look like he's keen to leave, then security should approach him calmly -- which is to say, not in some SWAT-style attack posture -- and tell him to get out. If he refuses, then force can be applied, but starting from the smallest amount and escalating. Menace him first, then try to herd him, then try to tackle him, and only use debilitating or potentially-deadly force -- like a pneumatic nail gun firing two two-inch metal spikes that apply a fifty-thousand-volt shock fifteen times per second for five seconds -- as an option of absolute last resort. But the police, by pursuing their usual shock-and-awe tactic of maximum force at all times, made a harmless or maybe slightly inconvenient situation worse for everybody.

But look on the bright side: at least it was really, really expensive!

Posted by Darien on 03/23/10

The House passed that health care bill. I guess you've heard. So where do we go from here? It's over, right?

No, my friends, it is not over. It is now, I fear, that it may begin. There's a lot of anger out there, and it's not hard to see why -- Americans overwhelmingly disapproved of this bill, but congress is ramming it down our throats anyhow. This is an odd moment in history, and I, for one, am very interested to see how it pans out; we, fighting the good fight, have an opportunity here like we've never had before, and we need to make sure we handle it correctly -- the stakes are very high. So, as teen heartthrob and president of the United States Barack Obama would say, let me be clear.

You seen this dude? Don't be like him. Violence -- and that very much includes violence against property -- is not the way to go. Not only does it offend the non-aggression principle (which is just the core principle of deontological libertarianism), it also just plain doesn't work. Committing acts of violence may make you feel like a righteous dude for a little while, but what it does in the greater scheme is make a whole lot of people sympathise with your victim, and make you look like a misbehaving little child. If your goal is to win popular support -- and, hey, correct me if I'm mistaken, but... isn't it? -- then that's the exact opposite of what you want. So don't hurt people, don't threaten to hurt people, don't break their stuff. It's stupid, it's juvenile, it's immoral, and it's counterproductive. If baseball had a four-out play -- like a quadruple play -- then this is where I'd be using that as a metaphor to indicate how much damage that does to our team.

Swearing is okay in moderation -- at least, that's what the vice-president tells me -- but, really, it's not going to help. The media (which, as always, is in the pocket of the Democratic party) has been trying to portray the liberty movement as a bunch of backwards, racist, profane, ignorant hicks since time immemorial, and it doesn't do us any good to give them any more fuel for their fire. If you're angry, try to channel that into zeal or effort -- even eloquence, if you can -- instead of ranting or tirades. Don't play the race card; you can't win that hand, I promise.

So that's enough about what not to do. What should we do? Do as the Eli Vance has done before you: resist. We need to keep making noise, keep getting in the way. Actually hurting people or breaking their stuff is the wrong thing to do, but being a gigantic nuisance is just fine. There are a lot of people out there -- like, an actual clear majority -- who stand opposed to this latest power-grab. We need to reach those people, and we need to do it in a way that makes it clear exactly what we stand for and exactly how much moral high-ground we can claim. I mean civil disobedience, of course. Do not follow this new law -- American citizens, as a free people, have no duty or obligation to follow laws not rooted in the Constitution. State nullification / interposition is a great thing, and an invaluable check on this type of federal tyranny, but it is not the ultimate arbiter of our rights. We, ourselves, have the right to disobey. They want you to buy health insurance? Don't buy it. They want you to pay a fine? Don't pay it. They try to force you to pay it? Fight them every step of the way.

The federal government, of course, doesn't see it this way. It considers itself supreme in all respects, and an awful lot of Americans don't realise their own power (thanks, public education!). So we need to tell them. They can repress a few isolated activists. They can't stop a significant mass of disobedient free people. So make some noise, and disobey. Let's show our upstart rulers that we have the steel to stand up for what's right and not be silenced by power.

Posted by Darien on 03/19/09
Last updated 03/19/09

My friend Dave, during the 2008 Republican primary season, found himself talking with a group of people about the crowd of potential Republican nominees. They were all discussing who they supported. The majority of the group was Huckabee supporters, with a few Romneyites (who clearly haven't been to my beautiful home state -- but I digress), and then there's Dave coming out with "I like Ron Paul." Immediately the crowd turned on him and had pretty much exactly one thing to say.

"Who," they demanded, "will maintain the roads??"

It is my firm belief that if you intend to dismiss the entire body of libertarian thought, everything libertarians stand for and hold dear, with one snippy question about roads, that's a pretty good sign that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Which isn't to say that the issue of roads isn't a sticky one -- it is, a bit. I'll freely admit that, even as a bona fide dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, I'm still a bit uncertain on the subject of roads. But I don't really see that as a big issue. What is the current government failing at right now? It's failing at managing foreign policy, it's failing at managing the domestic economy, it's failing at managing national security, it's failing at managing civil unrest, it's failing at managing even so much as its own budget -- and you're worried about roads? I mean, the current government can't even figure out a way to deliver mail without taking losses, and you're seriously calling libertarianism nonviable because you're concerned about roads?

Let's try a little thought experiment. Imagine with me for a minute that the libertarian revolution comes to pass, and America becomes the perfect libertarian society that we all advocate. Now imagine that every libertarian ideal turns out to work perfectly and flawlessly -- the people are happy, free, and wealthy; there is ample supply of goods, low crime, we're not entangled in embarassing nation-building wars. It's all totally perfect and pristine and happy. Except for one little defect: the roads are falling into disrepair. Which sounds better to you? A society of freedom, prosperity, progress, and happiness that happens to have crummy roads, or an impoverished police state where people wait in lines to buy bread, but at least get to line up on well-maintained asphalt?

Seriously, guys. Get a grip. Even if you're right about the roads thing -- and it's pretty far from clear that you are -- is that really a sufficient reason to discredit the whole libertarian ideal?

Posted 03/19/09 Ryan Sheets Louisville, KY

Man... it's weird to see all this talk about roads lately. I just coincidentally wrote about it the other day and I've seen like 5 blogs about it since. I never saw any before that. I guarantee the oil industry, if not the auto industry or someone else, would pick up road maintenance and construction as they will make very little profit without roads to drive their vehicles on. It is indeed a silly argument. Truthfully the only things I think the government needs to be involved in is national defense and emergency services, and even these can be cut dramatically if the citizens take up arms and learn to defend themselves as it should be.

Posted 03/19/09 Daniel Gerke clinton, MO

Maybe this will clarify it for them. The Autobahn was a great highway.

Posted by Darien on 03/18/09
Last updated 03/18/09

Via the Liberty Wire, I found this story about former president George W. Bush's first public speech since leaving office. Unsurprisingly, he's still the same old Bush, still urging people to support the executive no matter what, and still convinced that only through a strong executive can anything good ever actually happen. Perhaps it's a little unexpected that he's come out so vocally in support of Barack Obama, but then again perhaps it isn't; their agendas are really quite similar, but, more importantly, one gets the impression that Bush would support any president due to his belief that the president is de facto deserving of that support.

I said at the time, and I'll say it again now: I don't believe that George W. Bush is a bad man. I don't fall into the trap that a lot of pundits do, and assume that he woke up in the morning thinking "okay, let's see what I can destroy and pillage today!" I think that Bush was a fundamentally good person who really, honestly believed he was doing the right thing, but suffered the misfortune of being completely, catastrophically wrong.

You know. Kind of like Barack Obama.

Posted 03/18/09 jsigman Flemington, MO

That man is responsible for the deaths of a lot of innocent people around the world. That qualifies as evil in my book. Sorry, I'm not trying to troll. I agree in the sense that we need to take a look at these issues(and people) realistically and avoid the black white paradigm. Bush like the rest of us has the capacity to do both good and evil. Looking back at the last 8 years it seems pretty obvious to me which option Bush used his considerable power and influence to accomplish. Good Post. It really makes you wonder whether he really believes the bull coming out of his mouth. I guess if you say it often enough then you begin to believe it.

Posted 03/19/09 Darien Greenfield, MA

You're absolutely correct -- Bush *did* commit a lot of evil. What I meant, and perhaps I wasn't as clear, is that I don't think he went into it with evil intentions, deliberately trying to cause death and destruction and destabilisation. I'm not saying that excuses the things he did. It doesn't. The road to hell, as has been said, is paved with good intentions, and I think that president Bush (like president Obama) was full of good intentions, but headed straight down that road.

Posted 03/19/09 Ryan Sheets Louisville, KY

Honestly I don't really view Bush as a bad man, I view him as a gullible and foolish man. I think he's uneducated and underqualified for such a leadership position, but not necessarily evil at heart. He has authorized some pretty terrible things, but as far as I can tell he is hopelessly enthralled in the propaganda and lies of his advisors. Cheney on the other hand is, in my estimation, a very bad man. The only piece of evidence I can find of Bush possibly having evil intentions is that he made Cheney his vice president. Who knows, the stupidity could all be an act, but something tells me that the powers that be simply want someone that can be shaped to their will in office. McCain and Obama seem like proof of this argument; neither seems to possess any principal whatsoever.

Posted by Darien on 03/18/09
Last updated 03/18/09

I just watched Peter Schiff's speech at the Mises Institute, and I have to say he was fantastic. Highly personable, and I definitely laughed a fair few times.

That aisde, he was well more than just funny. He was also extremely correct. I have no reason to believe that the fallout from the current and previous ignorant, destructive government policies will be any different from what he says. I hope you're all ready for a long, difficult battle; funding will be difficult, and there will be plenty of morons fighting against us and saying that, hey, if we just spent a little bit more on the government, it would use its magic unicorn harp powers to save us all from the evil market. But I think that if we stay focused, and stay organised, we can really shake things up. I think the American people aren't quite ready for our message yet, but they will be once things really start to fall apart. As soon as the dollar starts its inevitable plunge, people are going to lose what faith remains in the ability of epic central planners like Emperor Stupid to manipulate the entire body of world population in the best possible way. When that happens, we need to make sure we're ready to explain how freedom is the way out.

In the meantime, well, I've made my shopping list. It goes like this: a) guns 2) gold. Just sayin'.

Posted 03/18/09 Elaine Prairie City, OR

Ummmm---Don't forget ammo! ;-) (I'm sure you haven't)