Editor of 'Reason' Discusses Federal Subpoena To Unmask Commenters

mi points out an article from Nick Gillespie, editor of libertarian website Reason, who was recently asked by the federal government to provide identifying information on anonymous commenters from one of the site's blog posts. Not only was Reason issued a subpoena for the commenters's identities, but they were also placed under a gag order, preventing them from even mentioning it to somebody who wasn't their lawyer. Gillespie says the comments in question were "hyperbolic, in questionable taste–and fully within the norms of Internet commentary." He continues: To the extent that the feds actually thought these were serious plans to do real harm, why the hell would they respond with a slow-moving subpoena whose deadline was days away? By spending five minutes doing the laziest, George Jetson-style online "research" (read: Google and site searches), they would have found publicly available info on some of the commenters. I'm talking things like websites and Google+ pages. One of the commenters had literally posted thousands of comments at Reason.com, from which it is clear that he (assuming it is a he) is not exactly a threat to anyone other than common decency."

Comments

Fairly clear

[sjames]

It's fairly clear that either the whole incident was specifically meant to cause a chilling effect or that the feds can't be trusted with permanent markers or grown-up scissors, much less the ability to obtain a gag order.

Re:Fairly clear

[Noah Haders]

I'm a bit puzzled by this. Reason has no responsibility to police its comments, so the govt leaning on them won't push them to do so. It could send a chilling effect among internet commenters, but only if people knew about it, so what was the gag for? they could have legitimately wanted to investigate these particular people, but that wouldn't have held up. one possibility is a hissy fit by the judge who was the author of the article.

Re:Fairly clear

[ShanghaiBill]

the whole incident was specifically meant to cause a chilling effect

It is likely to have the exact opposite effect. The readers of Reason are mostly libertarian kooks that are already highly prone to conspiracy theories. Actions like this are just throwing gasoline on the flames.

Disclaimer: I am somewhat of a libertarian kook myself.

Re:Fairly clear

[russotto]

It's fairly clear that either the whole incident was specifically meant to cause a chilling effect or that the feds can't be trusted with permanent markers or grown-up scissors, much less the ability to obtain a gag order.

I think it's both. Certainly delivering the subpoena before obtaining the gag order was ridiculously amateurish. I mean, did they really expect _Reason_ to voluntarily comply? Or did they try to say "voluntarily" in the tone of voice used by Mafia dons and IRS agents, but their voice cracked?

Re:Fairly clear

[Anonymous Coward]

They should just tell the Feds the information they want is in the same place as the missing IRS e-mails and Hillary Clinton's e-mail from her time at the State Department.

Re:Fairly clear

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Example messages:
* (Agammamon 5.31.15 - 10:47AM) Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.
** (Alan 5.31.15 - 12:09PM) It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot. FTFY.

To quote Telly Savalas, while playing Kojak and answering to someone who feels threatened by him: "Greeks... they don't threaten - they utter prophecies!".

To quote you: "[...] so what was the gag for? they could have legitimately wanted to investigate these particular people [...]" - i think that is the reason.

Re:Fairly clear

[sjames]

You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

It may have been testing the water to see if they could harass the editors of Reason enough to make policing the comments less hassle, required or not.

Re:Fairly clear

[sjames]

What else could it have been for? Read TFA, particularly the comments that were singled out for 'investigation'.

It could be that they need safety scissors, of course.

Re:Fairly clear

[Noah Haders]

here's the problem though. there's nothing remotely illegal about the statements that were made. almost all speech is protected under the first amendment, especially speech about political matters. There are some specific exemptions, including making imminent and specific threats. So something like, "I'm going to go to this judge's house at X address on Y date and do this thing". The commenters didn't do that.

So it's clear on its face that the comments are free speech and not actionable. so why was the govt looking into taking action? that is the question mark.

Re:Fairly clear

[Bartles]

It's not a theory when the conspiracy turns out to be real. This is the wrong story about which to be making conspiracy theory comments.

Re:Fairly clear

[antiperimetaparalogo]

here's the problem though. there's nothing remotely illegal about the statements that were made. almost all speech is protected under the first amendment, especially speech about political matters.

I am Greek, i am not so informed about the first amendment, i know very well that in the USA free speech is respected and protected more than anywhere else in the world (much more than Europe for example), but...

There are some specific exemptions, including making imminent and specific threats. So something like, "I'm going to go to this judge's house at X address on Y date and do this thing". The commenters didn't do that.

...you mean that the phrase "It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot." should be taken like... what i quoted from Telly Savalas ("Greeks... they don't threaten - they utter prophecies!")? Hmmm... as a Greek i must inform you that my fellow Greek Telly Savalas WAS making a threat!

So it's clear on its face that the comments are free speech and not actionable. so why was the govt looking into taking action? that is the question mark.

Because the guy writing "It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot." may be a Greek? Also remember: a treats may be used just as a way to terrorize a judge, BUT a civilized society can NOT function with judges living in fear.

Re:Fairly clear

[buybuydandavis]

Reason has no responsibility to police its comments, so the govt leaning on them won't push them to do so. It could send a chilling effect among internet commenters, but only if people knew about it, so what was the gag for?

The point is to abuse Reason with legal process so that they shut down their comments sections, eliminating a forum for people who generally disapprove of government power. Also, naturally, to terrorize commenters and make them all think twice about communicating this disapproval in public.

Re:Fairly clear

[buybuydandavis]

here's the problem though. there's nothing remotely illegal about the statements that were made.

So it's clear on its face that the comments are free speech and not actionable. so why was the govt looking into taking action? that is the question mark.

Why? BFYTW.

The government hardly confines it's abuse to those who actually break laws. Government thugs abuse their enemies, high among them being those who highlite and oppose government thuggery.

Re:Fairly clear

[buybuydandavis]

It is likely to have the exact opposite effect. The readers of Reason are mostly libertarian kooks that are already highly prone to conspiracy theories. Actions like this are just throwing gasoline on the flames.

Disclaimer: I am somewhat of a libertarian kook myself.

Yes, the readers are of course generally provoked. Many have changed their names to incorporate variations on the wood chipper theme.

Wouldn't you like to be a Chipper too?

Re:Fairly clear

[Noah Haders]

so you think it was just heavy handed thuggery. I agree, that's like the only thing that makes sense.

Re:Fairly clear

[buybuydandavis]

Or did they try to say "voluntarily" in the tone of voice used by Mafia dons and IRS agents, but their voice cracked?

I believe what they did was send the gag order *directly* to the Reason editors, instead of their legal counsel, which is considered a huge and threatening breach of process in the legal world.

Re:Fairly clear

[Noah Haders]

I agree, they seem over the top. but imma provide a bit of knowledge, maybe you'll find it interesting. Much of 1st amendment law is controlled by a landmark, precedent-setting case, brandenberg v. ohio which laid out definitions like "imminent threat exemption." This superceded the often-misunderstood "fire in a crowded theater" idea from the 1910's. The three components of the "brandenberg test" are intent, imminence, and likelihood. The troll comments fall short of imminence and likelihood, at the very least.

A question for you, no trolling, what's it like in Greece with the fiscal stuff? is everybody freaking out? is it like being on an out-of-control freight train?

Re:Fairly clear

[PlusFiveTroll]

They very well may have expected Reason to comply voluntarily... An interesting piece of information the government is not going to give up here is how many other sides have given up information voluntarily? If it is a high percentage, it is very easy for law enforcement officials to come to expect this information from everybody. Anyone that doesn't instantly give up their rights now has something to hide and needs to be punished by the full force of the law. Power is a dangerous drug.

Re:Fairly clear

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't count on free speech being protected for much longer.

Re:Fairly clear

[antiperimetaparalogo]

I agree, they seem over the top. but imma provide a bit of knowledge, maybe you'll find it interesting. Much of 1st amendment law is controlled by a landmark, precedent-setting case, brandenberg v. ohio which laid out definitions like "imminent threat exemption." This superceded the often-misunderstood "fire in a crowded theater" idea from the 1910's. The three components of the "brandenberg test" are intent, imminence, and likelihood. The troll comments fall short of imminence and likelihood, at the very least.

Very interesting link - it supports my claim "in the USA free speech is respected and protected more than anywhere else in the world (much more than Europe for example)"! This case (mentioned in the Slashdot story), is one of those that (because of different ethics) a Greek/European like me can examine/understand only after reading links like the one you provided, so thanks.

A question for you, no trolling, what's it like in Greece with the fiscal stuff? is everybody freaking out? is it like being on an out-of-control freight train?

Don't worry Sir, i understand very easily when someone is trolling and when just asks a reasonable question about the situation.

People here are calm, considering the situation. While we had about 1/4 of our GDP/GNI vanishing, Greeks have a social net based on family that protects almost all from dramatic financial situations... e.g., no one is starving, the images with those waiting for some food are from illegal immigrants that the international media display just for drama!

Technically we are 5 days before declaring bankruptcy (in reality we have one more month before this bankruptcy becomes legaly valid). Greece is in a situation where we can declare bankruptcy (i.e., stop repaying our debt), continue public spendings at current levels (since we have a state's budget surplus), and staying in the EUROzone (i.e., using the "Euro" currency - our EU membership is not an issue even if we had to leave EUROzone) - this solution would be problematic because we could not fund our economy (we can not print Euros!), so if we declare bankruptcy the most logical and likely is to leave EUROzone (but not EU) so we can print Drachmas (our national currency, which we can devalue so our economy can start "moving"). Things are not so dramatic as most/all the international media describe, but are not good also - most Greeks (including myself) want to just continue using the Euro, but many Greeks (not me!) believed our current, 4 months old, (ridiculous) left-wing goverment that promised staying in EUROzone AND relaxing austerity... i am very pro-austerity and pro-EU/EUROzone, i hope that in the next weeks our current goverment will loose the support so our previous goverment can take control again, continue repaying the loans and you know... do what it must be done. Keep in mind: Greece is a poor state with rich citizens!

Re:Fairly clear

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Keep in mind: Greece is a poor state with rich citizens!

what does this mean?

It means that we Greeks, as citizens, have personal income AND wealth (tangible and intangible) that is beyond of our state's reach - in other words, we are extreme tax-evaders (e.g. 1/3 to 1/2 of our economy is "gray/black")!

Re:Fairly clear

[Rockoon]

An interesting piece of information the government is not going to give up here is how many other sides have given up information voluntarily?

You mean such as slashdot that has never opposed such requests for information, or revealed any of the gag orders against it?

Re:Fairly clear

[Paradise Pete]

Here's a good rundown of the story.

Re:Fairly clear

[GoddersUK]

You should be able to engage in hyperbolic speech, that nobody would believe is intended in any other fashion, without legal consequences, so even if the consequences were entirely foreseeable (thousand of such comments are made online every day without consequence, so I'd dispute that assertion) that doesn't make the governments actions right. I'm sure you wouldn't be invoking this logic in a discussion about rape?

Re:Fairly clear

[Eunuchswear]

. i am very pro-austerity and pro-EU/EUROzone, i hope that in the next weeks our current goverment will loose the support so our previous goverment can take control again, continue repaying the loans and you know... do what it must be done. Keep in mind: Greece is a poor state with rich citizens!

So pay your fucking taxes already. There is no way the rest of us are going to subsidize you at the rate of 36 billion euros a year.

(Actually, now we've got you to pay off all the debt you owed to our private banks we're going to throw you to the wolves any day now).

Re:Fairly clear

[antiperimetaparalogo]

. i am very pro-austerity and pro-EU/EUROzone, i hope that in the next weeks our current goverment will loose the support so our previous goverment can take control again, continue repaying the loans and you know... do what it must be done. Keep in mind: Greece is a poor state with rich citizens!

So pay your fucking taxes already. There is no way the rest of us are going to subsidize you at the rate of 36 billion euros a year.

(Actually, now we've got you to pay off all the debt you owed to our private banks we're going to throw you to the wolves any day now).

While i think i understand what you write in your parenthesis (i.e., the debt of Greek's state was to private entities - it become debt to public entities -EU citizens- after some foreign countries decided to save their private entities from the risk they took for decades... enjoying huge profits for decades since we Greeks payed them for decades huge interest rates!), allow me to provide some info and details (for those not understanding the situation): the money we Greeks get AS NEW LOAN from the "Troika", is used ONLY for paying our old loans (so we don't default and "Troika" loose all the amount)... and it is about 7 billions a year (the yearly interest of our whole debt). Many people wrongly believe that "Troika" gives us free money so we can "live": it is just a new loan, added to our old, used to repay the old debt. For everything else, we use our state's budget surplus.

Anyway, after that, i must write that i don't feel that our EU partners "throw us to the wolves", instead i think that they do help us (for the above reason of course, but it is a help for us) so everyone -Greece and "Troika"- can use each other for the better - don't feel guilty!

Re:Fairly clear

[Anonymous Coward]

It's judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.
It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot.
Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse.

Re:Fairly clear

[khallow]

Unless you're a prosecutor. Sovereign immunity protects a lot of bad faith.

Re:Fairly clear

[david_thornley]

And I like having kooks of various persuasions around. Every so often, you learn something valuable from them.

Re:Fairly clear

[khallow]

Interestingly, prosecutors are prohibited from lying in court but defense attorneys are not.

Sure, they are. I think this story is an obvious counterexample for the prosecutor side. The burden of proof is too high. And since when have defense attorneys been able to lie in court? I see that they can be disbarred for doing so and there are other consequences.

Statists vs. Libertarians

[mi]

Didn't want to put this partisanship into the submission, so here it goes. In my opinion, this is yet another battle in war of Statists against Libertarians — and all the rest of us.

Pick your side...

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of us concerned about privacy, that begs the question. There isn't a great deal of difference to me between a government or a multitude of corporations making themselves privy to an increasing share of our personal lives, especially given the extent to which they're all in bed together. Or, for that matter, the chilling effect of a subpoena vs. the chilling effect of payment processors shunning activity they disagree with. (Bitcoin hopefully serving to address the latter, anyway.)

The aspects of Libertarianism that relate to being largely left alone to pursue our lives appeal to me. The eagerness of Libertarians to remove regulations on corporate behavior does not bode well for Libertarianism delivering the aspects that appeal to me.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[quintessencesluglord]

Not really. This is more a battle in Those Who Believe in the Rule of Law vs. The End Justifies the Means crowd.

A similar event happened when the NSA issued "official" letters to telecos demanding information. The NSA knew what they were asking for was illegal, the telecos also knew the requests were illegal, yet all complied except for Qwest. That didn't end well for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Of course. it is a different world now, where we can justify torture in the name of All-That-Is-Holy-And-Just, and the government regularly flaunts its power as it is accountable to no one.

What should be happening is an investigation into the Justice Department's request, and the rubber-stamping of the gag order. Not going to happen for small fry like Reason, but sends a clear message to those who question the status quo to mind your tongue. You are being monitored.

Welcome to Police State 2.0.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

There isn't a great deal of difference to me between a government or a multitude of corporations making themselves privy to an increasing share of our personal lives, especially given the extent to which they're all in bed together.

There are two obvious differences. A government has far more power and a captive revenue stream. A corporation doesn't get to just take a significant fraction of your paycheck whether you like it or not.

Second, there are a multitude of corporations which is a tremendous dilution of power. Sure, if all those huge corporations were to act in concert to screw you over, then you're pretty fairly screwed though still not as badly as if a government were doing it. But why would they do that, unless some powerful agency, like a government, is coordinating the assault?

Or, for that matter, the chilling effect of a subpoena vs. the chilling effect of payment processors shunning activity they disagree with.

The former can force you to engage in certain behavior by people with guns, like talk about your subpoena.

I find this sort of argument silly because it pretty much equates the power to throw you in jail or to shoot you and leave you in a mass grave, with the power to toss a few extra monthly fees on your phone service or go through a few years of your grocery bills. There is a huge qualitative difference which is ignored.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[mi]

There isn't a great deal of difference to me between a government or a multitude of corporations making themselves privy to an increasing share of our personal lives

Actually, the difference is vast: for a corporation to compel either you or another corporation to reveal any data, it has to win legal case — or, a least, convince a judge to issue a subpoena. The government has been gradually lowering this bar for itself over the years — recall the "National Security Letters" (and how easy they are for the government to obtain).

And that's when it bothers with the legal process at all — often it can simply just bust in and take your stuff (without warrant), seize any property on mere accusation of it being used in a crime, and confiscate bank accounts without even an accusation, only suspicion , or, as was the case with Reason.com, demand your "voluntary" cooperation or else...

But my point was not, that the government ought not to investigate legitimate threats against judges and public officials — even hard-core Libertarians would agree, that this is, actually, a proper role of the government. The point is, this particular investigation was patently illegitimate — the "threats" were bogus and hyperbolic and DoJ could not possible have hoped to ever win a conviction.

Their intention was to simply harass the dissenters by hitting them with subpoenas and giving them threatening "talking-tos". The prosecution, in other words, was malicious. That's the disgusting part.

The aspects of Libertarianism that relate to being largely left alone to pursue our lives appeal to me [...] The eagerness of Libertarians to remove regulations on corporate behavior

But there is no difference! What's good for the goose, is good for the chicken as well:

• If a corporation can not discriminate on race or age in hiring a secretary, then you can not discriminate on same in hiring a babysitter.
• If a corporation's employees can vote to obligate their employer to only hire from the same union they just joined, by what logic should your local supermarket be unable to vote itself into becoming the sole legal source of groceries for you?
• If a strip-club can not turn away a transgender entertainer, then you can not be averting your eyes from "her" either — and it would be manifestly bigoted of you to not stick your dollar-bills right next to "her" penis.

Even more obvious examples abound. For example, the EPA considers any billabong in the US to be under its control and protection — so both private citizens and corporations alike now need a Federal Government's approval to build anything on their property, if it happens to have a lake, a stream, or a swamp, however small...

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[mi]

Rule of Law vs. The End Justifies the Means

But there is no particularly deserving end in this case. Nothing to justify the means with... Torture, at least, was claimed to prevent some acts of terror and even capture bin Laden.

Welcome to Police State 2.0.

Contrary to the "not really" you began with, Statism is the problem:

"If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."

— Thomas Jefferson

In other words, if you want Federal government to give you "free" public schools, you'll have to accept Department of Education Police — along with the (not-) SWAT teams.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[mi]

The part of your argument that everyone else finds silly is that you think that the power to throw someone in jail or shoot them goes away if the government doesn't have it.

But it does have it — and ought to retain it. It just must be made to wield that power less — much less. That is the Libertarian argument.

We wrote the Constitution — and, in particular, the Bill of Rights — to limit the government's power, but (and this was predicted) the Statists have been eroding the limits since then. Even the right explicitly declared in the Second Amendment as such is now considered a mere privilege, for example.

violent government is the only solution to violent anarchy

Strawman.

The fundamental conceit of libertarianism is treating individual rights as being more powerful and having greater primacy than the rights dictated by collective force.

Yes. Because the Collectivism is the direct cause of Fascism and/or Communism. Once you subjugate the silly, selfish, cantankerous Individual to the Glorious Collective, any and all human rights abuses become immediately possible. From forcing you to pay for somebody else's education, to forcibly changing your opinion on what the word "marriage" means, to the outright killing fields. As long as it is done for The Greater Good (a.k.a. General Welfare, as the Statists like to intrerpret US Constitution), it all becomes justifiable.

In this world, there will always be some group of people with guns telling you what to do. Deal with it.

I am dealing with it — by arguing for the reduction of this group's size and power. Both have grown alarmingly since the inception of our Republic. But I see, that you have picked your side already.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[quintessencesluglord]

The end, as you noted elsewhere, is to compel Reason into suspicious activity to its user base under trumped up charges. Not to mention what good is power unless you flaunt it every now and then?

The typical libertarian argument against government posits it as an all or nothing deal. The difficulty is not that the government gives you everything, it's that the beast must be tractable to, at a minimum, the rule of law and the will of the people. That holds true regardless of the size of government. Or corporation for that matter.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[mi]

no one is forcing strip clubs to hire anyone, period

That's only because the entertainers are not, formally, employees, but are all "independent" and "renting" space in the joint. This legal dodge has been in place for ever and it is only a matter of time before some future Eric Holder or Elliot Spitzer puts an end to it.

a bigoted asshole like you.

Now that's fresh... We are done here.

I thoroughly loathe and despise your views.

Thank you, sergeant Painfully Obvious. I wonder, what happened to the "Please, don't hate" sentiment, though...

I have some wonderful arguments against them.

No, you don't. At most, you have something tortured, or else you would posted it here. Your best was to try the hair-splitting over striptease dancers — and even that failed. But now that you called me "asshole", it is too late to even try again.

Dragging in bigotry against gays, blacks, transgender persons

I, actually, did nothing of the kind, but with over half of Americans being less-than-proficient readers, I'm not surprised, you misunderstood me... Hop along.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

The part of your argument that everyone else finds silly is that you think that the power to throw someone in jail or shoot them goes away if the government doesn't have it.

In practice, it does.

The power vacuum will be filled.

Only if there is a power vacuum. When there isn't, then nothing gets filled. The key piece missing here is that people can fill that vacuum themselves.

The fundamental conceit of libertarianism is treating individual rights as being more powerful and having greater primacy than the rights dictated by collective force.

That is not even wrong. Rights are precisely the constraints on collective force. There are no rights dictated by collective force by definition.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

A corporation doesn't get to just take a significant fraction of your paycheck whether you like it or not.

I guess all those transaction fees don't count.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[mi]

The end, as you noted elsewhere, is to compel Reason

Of course, this was the end. It is just, as I noted elsewhere, not a particularly worthy end...

what good is power unless you flaunt it every now and then?

Ok, at least, we agree, Statists are wrong...

The typical libertarian argument against government posits it as an all or nothing deal.

No, that's not true at all. The Libertarians do recognize the government as necessary — we just want its role to be as limited, as it was during the times of Jefferson and Franklin. It is to only play the roles given to it by the Constitution they wrote. And given explicitly — not the carte blanche, that Statists try to derive from the "General Welfare" and the "Commerce" bits. Namely:

1. Defend the country from enemies without
2. Maintain law and order within

Nothing else. No spending tax-monies on benevolence; no telling us, who we can hire; what we can smoke, what we must consider "marriage", how we can build our houses or what sort of appliances we can place into them, et cætera ad infinitum et nauseam.

the beast must be tractable to, at a minimum, the rule of law and the will of the people

First of all, take the "will of the people" part off — that's just a better-sounding spin on the "mob rule". If it is not prohibited by some law, it is legal even if most everybody else hates it (as was the case with Larry Flynt, for a well-publicized example). "Lynching" is an ultimate manifestation of the "will of the people" — stop bringing it up...

Second, the bigger the beast, the less tractable it is — and that's the point of the Libertarian teaching in general and the already cited Jefferson's quote in particular.

Or corporation for that matter.

Yes, "corporations" are the scary bogey-man of all Statists these days. But its nonsense — corporations compete with each other and are thus automatically less powerful than the government — which, by definition, is a monopoly. Sorry, I'm repeating myself (and others) here...

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

I guess all those transaction fees don't count.

You can always choose not to get that service.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

You can always choose not to use a bank and get ripped off by the cash exchanges too. Please, save it. The privates have got you by the privates also.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

You can always choose not to use a bank and get ripped off by the cash exchanges too.

I do and it works.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

You're still paying a 'tax' to the exchange house.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[quintessencesluglord]

No, that's not true at all. The Libertarians do recognize the government as necessary — we just want its role to be as limited, as it was during the times of Jefferson and Franklin. It is to only play the roles given to it by the Constitution

Then strictly speaking, you aren't a libertarian, but a peculiar brand of constitutionalist that ignores the following 200 years of changes to the Constitution and evolution of the government. Turn back the hands of time, and you still end up with more government centuries later. You are living in the end result of that document.

When so called libertarians pay lip service to necessary government, it is always a given that the government services they think are needed are Good and Right, and everyone else who wants superfluous services, but when you get down to brass tacks, the situation isn't nearly as clear. Is public health a necessary government function? What about in a time of biological warfare? And when you speak of not having welfare in the time of Jefferson, are you forgetting An Act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen? What a terribly ignorant and romanticized view of history.

First of all, take the "will of the people" part off — that's just a better-sounding spin on the "mob rule".

Why? Do you believe the Constitution was transcribed from the mind of god? Any, organization of more than a few ends up with some form of government, or as you so euphemistically put it, mob rule.

The rest of us know it as the give and take of working within a group, and essentially "the will of the people" as opposed to "the will of the king". If your associations end in lynchings, I feel badly for you.

Second, the bigger the beast, the less tractable it is — and that's the point of the Libertarian teaching in general

As proven by monarchies being smaller than republics, therefore must be easier to control, no? Or are platitudes by someone who has never had to deal with a corrupt small town government pass as fact now?

We can further reduce the size of the Federal government by getting rid of the checks and balances. Or maybe there is a flaw in your logic.

Yes, "corporations" are the scary bogey-man of all Statists these days.

And with good reason. When a Mouse can buy legislation outright, nullifying that precious Constitution, you understand where real power lies.

It's not as if corporations or business are outside the realm of government, but inherent to it, and also compete with each other to insure the government reflects their own goals.

thus automatically less powerful than the government.

Except governments are at least localized, while corporations are trans-global. They can influence the polices of multitudes of governments.

You might rethink your notion of monopoly.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

You're still paying a 'tax' to the exchange house.

I only pay for use. I get to pay for government no matter what obscene thing they do.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

Save this one for more bigoted audiences.

Reading the rest of yourv hate-filled post, I have to say, you're the target audience.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

Where else are you going to cash your paycheck if yo don't use the bank?

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[tehcyder]

Didn't want to put this partisanship into the submission, so here it goes. In my opinion, this is yet another battle in war of Statists against Libertarians — and all the rest of us.

Pick your side...

The only non-"Statists" are pure anarchists. That is an interesting political theory, but it certainly doesn't have much in common with the right wing pro-commerce Randian extremists who call themselves libertarians in the US.

Re: Statists vs. Libertarians

[tehcyder]

Corporations are government granted entities. In a libertarian society there wouldn't even be any corporations.

And how precisely would you stop wealthy individuals grouping together and operating as a combined entity with ever-increasing power and reach? Make it illegal?

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[mi]

So providing education for poor people and recognising gay marriage lead inevitably to the Khmer Rouge?

First of all, corrections:

• Not "providing education for poor people", but "forcing taxpayers to provide education for poor people". Tax-collection happens at gun-point — using thus-collected monies for benevolence is tyranny — and decidedly against the intent of Constitution-framers.
• Not "recognizing gay marriage", but "forcing people to consider gay unions equivalent to married couples".

And now, yes, the above are made possible by the Collectivist sentiment — that the Individual's interests and desires are inferior to those of the Collective. Once that sentiment is adopted, there is no longer a legal barrier to prevent some future Khmer Rouge from killing millions. All they have to be able to claim is, it is done for "General Welfare".

If millions of victims is too stunning for you to be believable, try to think, how is Lynching somebody not a manifestation of "the will of the people"?

"COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD" — sounds familiar? Godwin's Law my tail — you aren't the first Collectivist in history...

ultra right wing paranoid stupid

Please, don't hate.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[david_thornley]

First, taxing and spending for the general welfare is a Constitutionally granted power of Congress. Not all the founders saw it that way, but that's how the Constitution was written and ratified.

Second, nobody's forcing anybody else to consider same-sex marriages the same as opposite-sex marriages. You don't want to consider one of my cousins married, go ahead. (I will hold it against you, but that's my right.) You're proposing to deny them the rights other get. Mixing up government and religion is usually a bad thing for both, and marriage is one of the worst entanglements.

(Or are you a proponent of Biblical marriage - you know, a fairly successful man buying one or more women from their father(s)?)

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

No, that is incorrect. In some ideal world, maybe, but in this one rights only exist if they can be enforced. Your definition is not practical; it does not correspond to the world as it is observed. There is no effective constraint on collective force save for the collective itself, or perhaps that one guy with a nuke wired to a deadman switch.

Ok, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to rights of the collective force not rights enforced by collective force.

Wonderful, but that won't be rampant individualists, because it's less effective than collective force -- which is why we have governments in the first place, and the difference between mob justice, or even just two thugs joining forces, and government as we know it, is only a matter of degree and formality.

Obviously, I don't necessarily think that is the case. For example, the US has made a colossal maze of bureaucracies with its health care system, with both public and private aspects. And I consider it more likely than not that the next generation of the system will be even more byzantine and ineffective.

But I don't think that system or any of the single payer systems in the world today would be better than a hands off, near completely private system with a small, rudimentary public fund for emergency and long term care for the poorest people. The governments of the world have stepped in and created these systems, but I don't think we're better off for it. If they hadn't had done so, then I think we would have gotten along just fine. The vacuum of health care doesn't exist merely because it's in private hands.

There are a large number of decisions that I think should never be made at the government level because it removes the incentive for individuals to act on their own behalf.

Completely dispersed military power is a different story. I just don't see it working in a society where a powerful external force could simply bribe some of the military force to their side, and divide and conquer. We have many examples where internal divisions became more important than the external threats. Even if the military is mostly private, I believe there has to be some central body to unify command and strategy.

So to summarize, I think there's a number of things that are best decided at the individual level and don't necessarily create a power vacuum, such as how much health care should I pay for? Then there are decisions that I think shouldn't rest on the shoulders of the individual, such as what should we do about this invasion by a foe?

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

Credit union.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

One can be offended without resorting to legal action. Those judges may well have been offended, but the threats failed the tests laid out in the law to be considered legitimate. See this comment for details.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

Individuals acting on their own behalf don't always generate optimal outcomes.

Depends on what you're trying to optimize. But having said that, I'm quite aware that there are a variety of situations where individual action results in suboptimal outcomes. I just think that's a terrible excuse for generating an even worse outcome via government action.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

You know, I'm just happy if we can agree to that extent. I think highly of individual rights, being an individual myself; I think they are an (extremely) important conceptual counterbalance to the overwhelming might of the collective. I just can't square primacy of individual rights against the practical problems with that philosophy: that rights are what can be enforced.

I don't have a similar problem. The issue here is that you need very ample individual rights or you just don't have a counterbalance to the overwhelming might of the collective. A vast problem here is

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

You know, I'm just happy if we can agree to that extent. I think highly of individual rights, being an individual myself; I think they are an (extremely) important conceptual counterbalance to the overwhelming might of the collective. I just can't square primacy of individual rights against the practical problems with that philosophy: that rights are what can be enforced.

I don't have a similar problem. The issue here is that you need very ample individual rights or you just don't have a counterbalance to the overwhelming might of the collective. Even if we have pure rule by the collective, somehow eliminating the insidious conflicts of interest of rulers, we still have fundamental conflicts between us. They commonly manifest as discrimination against an outcast minority and short sighted decision making. For examples of the former in the US, we have Jim Crow laws, current attempts to classify Asian Americans as just Caucasians, blocking same sex marriage, and the propensity to ban stuff (hobby science and HFT come to mind).

For an example of the latter, we have "too big to fail", the current "jobs" metric (where politicians brags about spending an absurd amount of money per job created), the War on Crime/Drugs/Terrorism, and a huge emphasis on short term individual, business, and societal risk reduction even when that increases risks in the long run.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

And they charge nothing for all transactions?

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

Who is it you think is making that excuse?

Whoever I was replying to.

I'm just pointing out that there are plenty of situations where judicious government intervention is warranted.

And I'm just pointing out that there are plenty of times when government intervention is not only unwarranted, it is actually counterproductive. I think a large part of the problem here is that =advocates of government intervention frequently don't have much idea what "judicious government intervention" means.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

You're starting to see why I use a credit union. Yes, they charge nothing for routine transactions. My point here is that one can do a lot to protect oneself from nefarious actions of a business - most often simply by not doing business with them.

Shop around a little. It's not that hard to avoid bad players. But you have to try first.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

The high prevalence of unintended consequences, delusional viewpoints, and "bang-bang" control.

For example, let's consider the current story. Prosecutors got to this point of casual abuses of laws and ethics because there are no consequences. People cared more about the appearance of "being tough on crime" and expediting the prosecution of crime than on results, the unintended consequence is that now there are a bunch of out of control prosecutors who can harass people and organizations just because they feel like it.

There are plenty of delusional viewpoints such as ignoring or rationalizing law enforcement abuses, rationalizing that it's ok to jail people because of drugs or unpopular things said on the internet, or assuming that the government which commits blatant abuses in one area of intervention won't commit similar abuses in an area that the person wants intervention in.

And a near universal delusion of government intervention is that it is possible for an external group to know enough about a problem to effectively intervene. Commonly, there are profound knowledge gaps that aren't acknowledged and which greatly impair actual intervention attempts.

Finally, the real world bang-bang control problem is balancing a rod, like a broom, by moving the bottom end back and forth, The official version allows movement in one dimension and the only choices are to move left or right at constant speed. For cases where the rod isn't too far out of balance or moving too fast, you can keep it suspended indefinitely even in the presence of small, continuing, random disturbances of the system. You are always moving left or right. This uses more energy than a gradual approach that uses smaller adjustments when conditions are near balance.

Government intervention is not gradual or nuanced. And it's not uncommon to see government set up systems with fundamental flaws and then propose increasingly complex and bizarre fixes as the system goes more and more out of balance.

A classic example is the military-industrial complexes of the developed world, particularly, the US. The fundamental problem is that the system is a vehicle for transferring wealth from the public to a well-connected private network. National defense and security is lower priority whether by intent or not.

This has resulted in the sorry spectacle of a system that can keep track of the quality of the screws, but not the quality of the final product. There are plenty of major US defense contractors who have produced crap, overpriced products for decades (with really nice screws), yet still get plenty of business from the US government. There's no credible means to correct the problem because there are a small number of suppliers and any punishment would either impair the US's near future defensive capabilities or be trivial enough to ignore.

In summary, there's plenty of evidence that the approach doesn't work very well, due to the ignorance of the people controlling the system, the crudity of the means of control, and often just due to having terrible goals that are wildly incompatible with the needs of society.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

And just like in the market, you can vote for the government you desire. In either case we, in theory, control both, but in the "free" market we simply don't have enough capital to affect much. We have to attract the interest of big money that flows in the canopy over our heads, like how how it took Google 'trickle down' to delay SOPA. In government, all we have to do is stop reelecting crooked politicians, you know, like maybe being a bit more involved during the primaries, and demanding open primaries that don't favor any particular faction, and learning how to tune out propaganda. We can devalue the campaign dollar to zero whenever we want. Each person, no matter how rich, still gets exactly one vote.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

Care to name a few?

Prisoners' dilemma is the classic example. That covers a broad category of human interaction right there where one person can potentially screw over another for personal gain. Then there's a number of large projects where coordination of activity results in a better outcome than uncoordinated action.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

Outcomes. We try to optimize outcomes.

There isn't one obvious standard of optimization. Optimization inherently requires a choice about what is to be optimized. For example, a common failure mode is to optimize that which is more easily measurable. Governments do this all the time economically with GDP, a measure of economic activity. This results, among other problems, with the well-known problem of the Broken Window fallacy where economic activity is considered more important than the creation of value.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

So what's the best we can hope for?

A free society where we can be the best we can be as we see it.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

And just like in the market, you can vote for the government you desire.

In a market, I get what I want when I "vote" and the decisions can be fluidly changed. If I want to drink orange juice in the morning, I don't have to assemble a coalition of like-minded orange juice drinkers. Nor do I run the risk of losing and having to drink Coke for the next four years because I couldn't persuade enough of my fellow citizens to drink orange juice instead.

In government, all we have to do is stop reelecting crooked politicians, you know, like maybe being a bit more involved during the primaries, and demanding open primaries that don't favor any particular faction, and learning how to tune out propaganda.

I already did that. Somehow the crooked politicians keep getting elected.

The huge difference here is that actual markets are quite refined. I control how much I choose to spend and how engaged I am with other members of the market. With a government, I don't have that degree of control and a lot of other people wouldn't like it if I did have the desired degree of control. That's the primary reason I favor throwing off most government functions to the private world. I get to have the control I want and you get to not care.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

Nor do I run the risk of losing and having to drink Coke for the next four years because I couldn't persuade enough of my fellow citizens to drink orange juice instead.

Oh, yes you would. If there is an insufficient market for orange juice, you ain't gettin' any for less than a thousand dollars a quart(if the pilot doesn't smuggle it in his flight bag for you), unless you have your own tree on your own property. That is exactly how the market works. Or maybe you have forgotten the infrastructure required to put it on your grocer's shelf. And there are all sorts of things you are being denied because of an insufficient market. It takes a big ass crowd to steer it.

Somehow the crooked politicians keep getting elected.

Yeah, because people keep reelecting them. Why would that be a mystery to you? It is precisely how that market works also. Identical principles both, but with government we are all guaranteed(in theory) equal access and rights, rich or poor. If people use those rights, the effects will be swift, but if they can't be bothered, don't blame the government. Blame the customer that keeps buying crap.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

you ain't gettin' any for less than a thousand dollars a quart

Which I can do should I desire it enough.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

As an individual, you have just as much control over the government as you do the market. And the government, as our representative, has every right to compete in the market and inform us where danger lies. Otherwise, it's not really open, it's merely privateering, with everything simply going to the highest bidder, which is really what we have because presently that is who the government serves, and that is because the public can't be bothered...

Meanwhile no biggie. There's enough demand to keep the orange juice infrastructure afloat and the price almost reasonable. But the real truth is that the price is arbitrarily set by some commodity brokers in London, Hong Kong or New York, under the watchful eye of the triads, yakuza and other wealthy "families". The whole "supply/demand" thing is a total myth.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

As an individual, you have just as much control over the government as you do the market.

I think I've already explained why that isn't so. You seem to have not gotten the point of the orange juice example. There's no analogue to the light weight activity of buying orange juice in a government.

And the government, as our representative, has every right to compete in the market and inform us where danger lies.

That would be termed an obligation not a right.

Otherwise, it's not really open, it's merely privateering, with everything simply going to the highest bidder, which is really what we have because presently that is who the government serves, and that is because the public can't be bothered...

So why are you wasting my time? I'm supposedly controlling this mess? That's news to me.

Meanwhile no biggie. There's enough demand to keep the orange juice infrastructure afloat and the price almost reasonable. But the real truth is that the price is arbitrarily set by some commodity brokers in London, Hong Kong or New York, under the watchful eye of the triads, yakuza and other wealthy "families". The whole "supply/demand" thing is a total myth.

Nice to know that. Here's the problem. Supply and demand is not a myth, but rather a basic observable thing of any market. It doesn't matter who sets the price when I can choose not to buy and the supplier can choose not to supply.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

I'm supposedly controlling this mess? That's news to me.

Yes, you are, with your vote, and if it is news to you, well now you know. Take it any way you like.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

Yes, you are, with your vote

What does "control" mean here?

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

Influence. You have the same influence over the government as you do over the market. Actually, because of the *one person, one vote* thing, you have much more so, but both require a collective effort, amongst you and your neighbors. You can't win if you don't play. You do know that if all the non-voters voted as a block, they could completely wipe out the ruling parties in a single day. That's influence!

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

You have the same influence over the government as you do over the market. Actually, because of the *one person, one vote* thing, you have much more so

No. There are very substantial differences between the two. The most important is simply that markets can cater to small groups and interests and wants that change day to day. They have a responsive to wants that are simply not present in a government.

Further, this lack of immediate responsiveness in government is by design. There is no democratic government in the world that allows real time modification by its constituents/customers.

I think it's completely foolish to equate the infrequent and very coarse-grained opportunities for control changes of an election to the fluid and fine-grained changes of a modern market.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

Primarily by curbing the power and reach of government. We don't need a government that spies on us (most of the world). We don't need a government that runs the largest military in the world (the US), runs its own oil companies (Russia, China, and most of OPEC), pampers us by doing things for us that we could, if we really wanted to, do ourselves (social safety nets of most of the world), and runs the largest networks of corruption in human history (everyone either directly or by incentivizing the creation of black markets and smuggling).

And most of this crap doesn't help us create a counterweight to business, religious cults, or other possible rival power centers.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[fustakrakich]

That is not agility, the market is merely fickle and panicky. One day your favorite product is on the shelf, next day, oops, not enough buyers to keep it in stock. So sorry. Regardless, both the market and the government are in our image, a result of our choices.

Re:Statists vs. Libertarians

[khallow]

.

That is not agility, the market is merely fickle and panicky.

In other words, agility. You can be too responsive though that is less of a problem than you claim.

All gag orders should have an expiration date

[gurps_npc]

And it should be no more than 1 year, except under extreme circumstances.

If the cops think you are planning something and also think they know about it more than 1 year in advance, they should arrest you in that year. If they can't prove anything after that 1 year, then most likely they never had anything real in the first place - or are so incompetent that having you find out about the subpoena wouldn't matter anyway.

Seriously can anyone think of ANY criminal action that the government finds out about, gets a subpoena, takes more than one year before they publicly move - and the criminal knowing about the subpoena would hurt in any way?

FIFA is a great example the corrupt people knew about the investigation and did nothing.

Re:All gag orders should have an expiration date

[sims 2]

Why don't they already? We already have statutes of limitations on most crimes why should gag orders be any different?

Re:All gag orders should have an expiration date

[gurps_npc]

Because the people that really want to know by definition are not being told. The subjects of the gag order don't care enough to get a really good lawyer to make the argument.

Or maybe I'm simply the first one to ever think of it. Man I'm smart!

Looks like all commenting sites need a canary...

[neilo_1701D]

Kinda sucks, though, that it's come to this.

Welcome to the USSA Comrade

[random coward]

When did the United States become the society we were told the USSR was during the cold war?

Re:Welcome to the USSA Comrade

[wbr1]

One could argue that the fall started during the cold war, with the Red Scare and many other things. However that hearkens back to the "Good Old Days" which never really that good.

Yes the US has fallen, as do all societies. Someday we will rebel, and the Upper and Middle classes will trade places on the backs of the lower classes. Some small forward steps will be made, and the decline will begin again.

Or we will all die of of our own hubris and shortsightedness.

Re:Welcome to the USSA Comrade

[NatasRevol]

Your IP traffic has been recorded, comrade.

I'm not kidding.

Re:Welcome to the USSA Comrade

[random coward]

The Red Scare goes back to much earlier than the Cold war(1919-1920), but yes you're right about the good old days, they were never really that good, but this is getting to the point were the US is becoming a parody of the old Soviet Union. Didn't a former White House Chef just die in an accident?

Re:Welcome to the USSA Comrade

[Captain Splendid]

Your IP traffic has been recorded, comrade.

LOL, like that is somehow remotely new.

Re:Welcome to the USSA Comrade

[uCallHimDrJ0NES]

Don't call people comrade, citizen. Your use of satire has been recorded.

I'm not kidding.

Re:Welcome to the USSA Comrade

[vilanye]

Things started to really devolve after McCarthy's witch, I mean red hunts.

Re:Welcome to the USSA Comrade

[david_thornley]

Actually, red scares go back to the Nineteenth Century, although the rise of the Soviet Union certainly encouraged and focused them. Of course, back then it was difficult to tell the Socialists from the Anarchists, particularly when it was to the benefit of powerful people that they be indistinguishable, and some anarchists did throw bombs.

Re:Welcome to the USSA Comrade

[random coward]

In reality; anarchist was the name given to communists in the 19th century. The difficult to tell difference is because they were both espousing the same thing; Carl Marx's utopia. The early communists, and indeed Marx wrote that when the proletariat took over there would be no more need for government because government was the Oligarchy and Bourgeoisie keeping the Proletariat down.
It also goes even further back than Marx. The French Revolution espoused a communist ideology as well, although the term hadn't been invented yet, same ideals.

Re:Welcome to the USSA Comrade

[vilanye]

Yeah, that is funny.

The fact that a pesky little thing called freedom of association escaped him. It was made all the more sad that he failed to understand that being a dirty commie, is not in itself illegal.

A legal answer

[WorldWarPi]

One reason for issuing a subpoena is to establish a provable and authenticated origin and chain of custody.

Re:A legal answer

[fustakrakich]

They don't need that anymore. Civil forfeiture will suffice, if they really want the names.

Re:A legal answer

[Reason58]

Doesn't the fact of parallel construction kind of destroy that argument?

Technologically Inept Law Enforcement

[Egg Sniper]

We can all have a good laugh at our lessers who don't know how to use computers, but some of them are in very powerful positions to do great harm to those they perceive as engaging in "criminal" activity.

*CSB*

A few years back a man with a badge came to my door and said that a threatening e-mail to the governor had been traced to my IP address. It took me a moment, but I recalled a sarcastic e-mail I had sent some months prior to the governor's office congratulating their efforts to take the state's education ranking from 49th to 50th with budget cuts. I used my university issued e-mail address, with my name and position clearly spelled out in the e-mail signature. I don't know if it was just the guy at my door who was ignorant of the facts of my particular case, or if that's what was really written down in their file. Basically some secretary dragged my unconstructive criticism to the "bad" folder and later I'm being questioned and accused of a crime (though not charged).

*/CSB*

People in law enforcement may not realize how dangerous their ignorance can be to the general public. One can only hope by the time you're facing a judge you'll have at last found someone in the system with the freedom to act reasonably in the face of such ignorance.

Re:Technologically Inept Law Enforcement

[Ormy]

Isn't there an XKCD that covers this?

Re:NSA

[random coward]

It wasn't about finding who or an investigation. it was about stifling speech they don't like.