Judge "justifies" himself

Yesterday, on Debbie Harbeson's THE SUBURBAN VOLUNTARYIST blog, she posted a retired judge's response to her criticisms of his questionable (and I think, downright crooked) acts while in his position of coercive power.

One of the parts she quoted has the judge writing:

I suppose when you view the world from her “all government is evil” libertarian perspective, some of what I wrote in my response really does seem “hysterical” to her.

How could any person honestly see the government as anything other than evil? Unless he or she was so invested in the system that they had built a fortress of denial around themselves. Of course, the former judge we are discussing proved by his actions that he probably doesn't see anything "honestly". (You can read the entire story on Debbie's blog and judge the judge yourself.)

Sure, sometimes government might do something good, but it can only accomplish those good things through evil means. Coercion and theft negate any "good" that might come about as a result- and every single thing government at any level accomplishes is accomplished through coercion and theft. Without exception. The former judge is guilty of participating in this, and now of defending it. That shows his lack of character very clearly, whether he wants it to or not.

So, he can try to sound condescendingly "reasonable" by saying his critics are "hysterical", but he can't hide from the truth. He can justify the theft and coercion he precipitated, but they were still wrong. He can point to supposed "good outcomes" or "benefits" of the theft and coercion he facilitated, but the means to the end are important, and even his "ends" are wrong and a violation of liberty.

He denies the presence of the gun in the room because to see it would be to admit he is a thug. A member of a violent, aggressive gang which will (and does) murder anyone who resists submitting to the theft and coercion long enough.

He claims "...most of us can distinguish between reasonable exercises of governmental authority, like requiring us to stop at red lights versus the Gestapo coming for us in the middle of the night..." without realizing this is only a matter of degree.

Remember the success of cities which have dispensed with traffic signals, then consider what happens if a reaver tries to stop and fine you (rob you) for failure to stop at a red light (even in the dead of night with no other cars anywhere near). If you resist, the reaver will shoot you. The penalty is always death. It's just that few people refuse to comply up to that point- for obvious reasons. This is not "reasonable", and the government has no legitimate authority to do it. The same is true for almost anything the State claims the authority to do.

He thinks that the fact that "...all governments make people do some things and refrain from doing other things" justifies it. No, it just shows that all governments are thugs. "He does it too!"

If a government is making someone do something against their will- such as hand over some of their property or submit to gate rape- that government is doing evil. If a government is forcing people to refrain from doing something they have a fundamental human right to do- such as carry any kind of weapon wherever they go, in any manner they see fit, without asking permission from anyone, ever... or introducing any substance into their body they want- then that government is committing evil. This doesn't prove your government isn't a tyranny, ex-judge; quite the opposite. It shows it is impossible for any government to be anything other than a tyranny.

A couple of times he uses the word "libertarian" as if he is smugly insulting Debbie. It backfires. He shows what a statist scum he is by his failed attempt at an insult.

He goes on to quibble over the meaning of "fine" and "fee". Theft is theft, no matter what fancy words you call it by. The only way it isn't is if it is voluntary, or is restitution to be paid to an individual who has been harmed. There is no such individual here.

He tries very hard to explain why he did what he did- not that his scheme was more evil than the state police extortion scam; his was just no better. That you took people's property from them is the offence- who you gave the stolen property to is of no consequence.

He drones on about all the good gestapo programs the stolen money was used to finance, such as the irredeemably stupid and evil war on (some) drugs. And how he hopes "the majority of citizens who accept the validity of traffic laws and consequences for breaking them" will approve of his dispensing of the fruits of theft in a way that keeps the loot at home- well, in a local kleptocracy's treasury, anyway.

How I wish... But he will never get it. He is too deeply invested and wants, desperately, to believe he isn't a bad guy. He is lying to himself first, and to everyone who listens to him second. What a waste.