We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Radley Balko, take a deep bow Great respect is due to Cato’s Radley Balko, who has tirelessly campaigned against the the ‘no-knock’ search and entry powers employed by law enforcement agencies in the United States. I was surfing around the blogs and came across this story a few days after it broke. This is a glimmer, a start in what hopefully may be a change in the law. Radley’s work on the Cory Maye case is a bit of a result for blogs, too. This is a US issue, but as we know with stuff like eminent domain, it is always worth we Brits watching developments like this for signs of similar trends closer to home.
Jim Henley has related thoughts on the issue.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Deleted by editor: interesting but utterly off-topic
Yes, no doubt about it, the Boy’s done good.
On the matter of your post – it’s too late [Capitol Hill legislation]. On another matter, why don’t you make it easier for primitive 56kb modems to enter Samizdata? It takes a full two minutes to get in and that’s why I can’t check you every morning. Also, how to e-mail you? I wanted to mention a piece on Tim Worstall.
Huh? Who is this guy? What happened?
Laws can also be undermined and un-done.
Techno-primitivists are encouraged to use the print-version, found in the sidebar under ‘network’.
In the right sidebar there is a link under ‘editorial policy’ for contacting us.
Simon… in short, Radley was working to save a man in the USA who was well and truly shafted by ‘The System’ from being executed… and Radley was indeed successful.
Although I am not in principle opposed to visiting death on the vilest evil doers, the demonstrable fallibility of judicial processes is what makes me an opponent of the death penalty in 99% of all cases where the accused does not confess to guilt of his own free will (I would except cases such as war criminal national leaders like Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, where ‘guilt’ is so incontravertibly established that quite frankly I think even a trial is a pointless affectation… summary execution a la Mussolini is really the appropriate solution).
(Not to blast topicality all to bits or anything…)
Perry: the point of classic government incompetence to deal in something so important is undeniable and well taken. In my case, though, the principal objection is radically and righteously individualist: these indictments and warrants read “the People [or the necessary corollary, “the State”] vs…”, and they should count me out. I don’t want my name anywhere near the matter unless I want my name in the matter (in, say, the matter of a case in which I have a personal interest, just the way that we all hold or act for values naturally and characteristically as individuals). This is my stand on all criminal matters, but the death penalty is obviously particularly serious.
There are cases in which if people with personal interests (family, close friends, etc.) wanted to tear a convicted perp to shreds on the town square, I wouldn’t lift a finger to stop them. Also: cases in which conviction or worse (like; sometimes, even an indictment) are impossible or worse (like; ludicrous and outrageous). I’m the one who has to make that call for me, and that’s why I won’t have the state’s presumption of my interest in any of it.
I think the principles are discernable here.
Balko’s done splendid work, hasn’t he?
Ps. — re Saddam, et. all: to me, that’s a military matter. Just kill ’em on sight.
Indeed and I take a fairly similar line.
That is more or less my view too. A bit of theatre as a warning to others (such as Mussolini) does not go amiss however. Writing Sic Semper Tyranis in marker pen on their foreheads first would makes the point rather well.
In my experience, Radly Balko can be one of those commited theorists that give libertarians a bad name. There seems to be not much available in your links as to what he is tryting to do to/for this Cory character. How ever, the campaign against “no-knock”entry and search sounds like the naive theoretical nonsense akin to fevered libs in the USA claiming that NSA tapping of terrorist phone calls will lead to all our phone calls to grandma to be recorded by government agents.
If Mr Balko doesn’t understand at this late stage in his life that these types of searches go through extensive legal review and oversight, then perhaps he needs to change his political label to “kook left”
He seems a fairly practical fellow to me, rather than a frazzled ideologue.
When some police goon smashes your house down on the mistaken assumption – as in the CMaye case – that you are a criminal, and you get hurt or worse, don’t expect any sympathy from me. Your faith in the benevolence of state forces is touching, if not downright naive. There is nothing “theoretical” about such concerns about the abuse of no-knock powers. In the disastrous War on Drugs, for example, the US authorities are becoming increasingly fond of using quasi-military powers to do the job of law enforcement. That people like Radley are kicking up a strink about this is a great thing.
Your faith in the issue of legal oversight is again, most touching. Of course, we like to convince ourselves that the use of forced entry powers in a country like Britain or the States is not of the same dimension as that used in the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, but we are moving towards a situation where people are less and less secure in their own homes, have fewer rights to prevent violent search and seizure.
Good for Radley Balko and bugger the apologists for this sort of stuff.
I could not disagree with you more. There are a great many accounts of such searches which were either in error or simply examples of vindictive officials abusing their powers. Your faith in The System is greatly misplaced.