This libertarian ideal that you espouse might be acceptable in wide open ranches, but it is simply not practical in areas with moderate population densities. People shouldn't have to buy estates to create buffers between their neighbors because they are unable to protect even against clear, imminent threats. As you said, sometimes retribution doesn't rectify the situation.
Your "right to respond" to my stick of dynamite is not even clear since vigilante justice simply leads to escalation. Perhaps my lit stick of dynamite was supposed to make it easier to remove the debris caused by you cutting down the portion my tree which had grown into your swimming pool, but which I planted to block my view of the junkyard you started in your back yard. At which point can an outside force (the government) be called to intervene?
Zoning laws are the only practical way to arbitrate disputes between landowners. If society does not have the power to enforce zoning laws the belligerent homeowner can simply stack risky behavior upon risky behavior until the neighbor fears for his life and is forced to vacate (like setting up a rifle range facing your bedroom). They also have the happy side effect of preventing disputes by clearly articulating unacceptable and unneighborly activities. Improperly storing substantial quantities of uncommon chemicals does pose a substantial and unusual risk, and should properly be regulated.
That said, you have the recognized right preventing government from invading your home to ensure that you are following the law. (As opposed to the imagined and never recognized right to do whatever you see fit on your property.) If there is probable cause - that sweaty box of dynamite visible from the street - they do and should have the power to intervene before your unsafe activities cause damage.
Similarly, you don't have the right to booby trap your house because of the potential damage that would result if emergency responders entered your home.
So if I light a fuse on a stick of dynamite on my property next to your house you do you have any right to stop me before the dynamite explodes and rips a hole in your house?
What if I'm just storing a crate of dynamite next to your house (on my property) sure it's old, not properly contained and starting to sweat, but odds are it's not going to blow. Well not today at least.
What if I'm storing PCBs in my basement? Sure they're likely to just sit in the 55 gallon drum until I get around to disposing of them (properly?) but maybe there'll be a fire that starts in the air conditioner upstairs and when the fire department puts out my house fire the water washes them into your vegetable garden.
Let me add that Glenn links to an interview with am immunologist and editor of Biosecurity and Bioterrorism and a WSJ oped with the former head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom and former member of the Iraq Survey Group (who also provided strongly misleading Congressional testimonial about the WMD capabilities of Iraq).
They both provide some technical details about why they question the Ivins and only Ivins theory.
I'm not a biologist so I can't comment directly on the necessary skill sets.
What makes me question this story is that neither the US whose bioweapons program shut down in the 72 nor Russians who had an active bio-weapons program through the '90s with dozens, if not hundreds, of scientists working full time, with virtually unlimited funding, were able to produce a weapon of this quality.
The way I see it either a lone researcher on his own, working in a government lab, has enough time to figure out how to create a bio-weapon - without anyone asking questions (remember the best evidence they have is that it was our anthrax,) or we have an active bio-weapons program (in violation of international treaties) that people can surreptitiously remove material from, or Ivins didn't work alone.
It MAY be possible that the state of the art has evolved sufficiently since overt weapons programs were disbanded that a single scientist can now create a bioweapon. This, however doesn't bring much comfort once you consider the consequences.
All three possible scenarios are alarming, especially since the FBI seems content to close the case.
The real question is what Mr. Libertarian does after the chemist who destroys his property value in the long term - lets say chemical soil contamination - does after the chemist declares bankruptcy.
Libertarian theory rests on the assumption that everyone can be held responsible for their actions. Here in the real world we know that's not the case.
Zoning laws also keep neighbors from toxic gases, explosions, and contaminated ground water.
I've got mixed feelings about this. From the news article it would appear that everything Deeb did was on the up and up. If you are responsible and safe you don't pose a threat to your neighbors.
That said, it wasn't as if the authorities entered Deeb's house on a routine basement chemistry lab inspection. They found his lab while responding to a (unrelated) fire. Even if all the chemicals in the basement were ordinarily benign who knows what the environmental consequences would have been had a fire ravaged his basement.
There's a reason industrial sites have contact with the fire department and State EPA. Deed almost certainly didn't.
Well apparently it took a year to render that sequence. The CGI scene very well may have cost more and been more difficult than the actual fireworks.
FWIW it seems they did both, they really did light the fireworks, but weren't able to properly film them, so they did both, light the fireworks and air a CGI sequence.
Well in some sense, "Will you send me your personal information and incriminating photos?" is the dumbest possible question you could ask on the internet.
I can see how the search is permissible - you consent by walking through the checkpoint, but the seizure definitely concerns me as you should be able to revoke your consent to let them see your electronics once you're on the other side.
I'd suspect someone has challenged this, I'd be interested in learning about any rulings.
Yes, coal mining should be 100% unregulated. The coal miners chose their carrier, if they felt like the risk of cave-ins or respiratory disease was too great, they should have chosen another profession.
I've got to say I have some sympathy for the smoking ban in businesses. There is, in my opinion, a genuine worker safety issue that the government has the authority (if not the duty) to regulate. If OSHA can set PELs (permissible exposure limits) for silica, they should be able to set them for cigarette smoke.
This instance is doubly poignant because the plaintiffs are would-be lawyers. You never know when someone is going to search:
[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!
Many privacy laws (e.g. corporate email) are explicitly written such that you only have a right to privacy if there exists "a reasonable expectation" of privacy. Only if you can reasonably assume that no one will turn around in your driveway (if for instance you have a gate or a sign) can you have trespassers charged.
B&E, murder, and extradition laws are not based on reasonable expectations, they simply prohibit certain acts. Regardless of whether or not it's smart to be walking around Camden at 1:00 am wearing a cowboys jersey and with hundred dollar bills hanging out of your pocket if someone mugs you they can be charged. If someone takes a picture of you - well you can't complain as you wouldn't expect privacy on a public street.
If I provide a business with my private information without some guarantee that they won't give it to other people you don't have a right to sue. You willingly made your private information public - it's akin to putting you phone number on a bathroom stall and being upset when you get heavy breathing calls. If they do promise to protect your data you would have cause because you would have reasonably assumed that they wouldn't have gone back on their word.
No. First landmines aren't exactly legal for civilian use. Second, you can't booby-trap your property even with perfectly legal things like rope and knives. If the police, firefighters, or paramedics have to enter your property - which they have a right to do in an emergency - they don't want to have to worry about being killed by unmanned defensive devices.
Well abstaining on a bad bill in the Senate subject to cloture is good, because a bill needs 60 votes (not 60%) to proceed. Not voting for cloture is the same as voting not to proceed. However, and for the record, Clinton didn't abstain from this vote, she voted Nay.
Most of the people who would be inclined to defend Obama on other issues are pretty pissed about this one, so expect any apologists to come from his base.
Slashdot Mirror
This libertarian ideal that you espouse might be acceptable in wide open ranches, but it is simply not practical in areas with moderate population densities. People shouldn't have to buy estates to create buffers between their neighbors because they are unable to protect even against clear, imminent threats. As you said, sometimes retribution doesn't rectify the situation.
Your "right to respond" to my stick of dynamite is not even clear since vigilante justice simply leads to escalation. Perhaps my lit stick of dynamite was supposed to make it easier to remove the debris caused by you cutting down the portion my tree which had grown into your swimming pool, but which I planted to block my view of the junkyard you started in your back yard. At which point can an outside force (the government) be called to intervene?
Zoning laws are the only practical way to arbitrate disputes between landowners. If society does not have the power to enforce zoning laws the belligerent homeowner can simply stack risky behavior upon risky behavior until the neighbor fears for his life and is forced to vacate (like setting up a rifle range facing your bedroom). They also have the happy side effect of preventing disputes by clearly articulating unacceptable and unneighborly activities. Improperly storing substantial quantities of uncommon chemicals does pose a substantial and unusual risk, and should properly be regulated.
That said, you have the recognized right preventing government from invading your home to ensure that you are following the law. (As opposed to the imagined and never recognized right to do whatever you see fit on your property.) If there is probable cause - that sweaty box of dynamite visible from the street - they do and should have the power to intervene before your unsafe activities cause damage.
Similarly, you don't have the right to booby trap your house because of the potential damage that would result if emergency responders entered your home.
So if I light a fuse on a stick of dynamite on my property next to your house you do you have any right to stop me before the dynamite explodes and rips a hole in your house?
What if I'm just storing a crate of dynamite next to your house (on my property) sure it's old, not properly contained and starting to sweat, but odds are it's not going to blow. Well not today at least.
What if I'm storing PCBs in my basement? Sure they're likely to just sit in the 55 gallon drum until I get around to disposing of them (properly?) but maybe there'll be a fire that starts in the air conditioner upstairs and when the fire department puts out my house fire the water washes them into your vegetable garden.
Let me add that Glenn links to an interview with am immunologist and editor of Biosecurity and Bioterrorism and a WSJ oped with the former head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom and former member of the Iraq Survey Group (who also provided strongly misleading Congressional testimonial about the WMD capabilities of Iraq).
They both provide some technical details about why they question the Ivins and only Ivins theory.
I'm not a biologist so I can't comment directly on the necessary skill sets.
What makes me question this story is that neither the US whose bioweapons program shut down in the 72 nor Russians who had an active bio-weapons program through the '90s with dozens, if not hundreds, of scientists working full time, with virtually unlimited funding, were able to produce a weapon of this quality.
The way I see it either a lone researcher on his own, working in a government lab, has enough time to figure out how to create a bio-weapon - without anyone asking questions (remember the best evidence they have is that it was our anthrax,) or we have an active bio-weapons program (in violation of international treaties) that people can surreptitiously remove material from, or Ivins didn't work alone.
It MAY be possible that the state of the art has evolved sufficiently since overt weapons programs were disbanded that a single scientist can now create a bioweapon. This, however doesn't bring much comfort once you consider the consequences.
All three possible scenarios are alarming, especially since the FBI seems content to close the case.
The real question is what Mr. Libertarian does after the chemist who destroys his property value in the long term - lets say chemical soil contamination - does after the chemist declares bankruptcy.
Libertarian theory rests on the assumption that everyone can be held responsible for their actions. Here in the real world we know that's not the case.
Uh, what punishment do you think should be meted out to a kid who makes an explosive that kills another kid?
Clearly screwed for life might be a little inappropriate, but I'd have a hard time arguing against some time in juvie.
Zoning laws also keep neighbors from toxic gases, explosions, and contaminated ground water.
I've got mixed feelings about this. From the news article it would appear that everything Deeb did was on the up and up. If you are responsible and safe you don't pose a threat to your neighbors.
That said, it wasn't as if the authorities entered Deeb's house on a routine basement chemistry lab inspection. They found his lab while responding to a (unrelated) fire. Even if all the chemicals in the basement were ordinarily benign who knows what the environmental consequences would have been had a fire ravaged his basement.
There's a reason industrial sites have contact with the fire department and State EPA. Deed almost certainly didn't.
I think I've heard that before... Something about bread and circuses.
Or maybe eating cake...
You should write your presidential candidate of choice, perhaps they can make it a campaign slogan.
Well apparently it took a year to render that sequence. The CGI scene very well may have cost more and been more difficult than the actual fireworks.
FWIW it seems they did both, they really did light the fireworks, but weren't able to properly film them, so they did both, light the fireworks and air a CGI sequence.
Any idea where the "all wars are resource wars" quote comes from?
Well in some sense, "Will you send me your personal information and incriminating photos?" is the dumbest possible question you could ask on the internet.
Diablo 3 now with novelty sunglasses!
There's a marketing opportunity here.
stay away from the ventilation ducts.
I can see how the search is permissible - you consent by walking through the checkpoint, but the seizure definitely concerns me as you should be able to revoke your consent to let them see your electronics once you're on the other side.
I'd suspect someone has challenged this, I'd be interested in learning about any rulings.
Yes, coal mining should be 100% unregulated. The coal miners chose their carrier, if they felt like the risk of cave-ins or respiratory disease was too great, they should have chosen another profession.
Seriously, with only water and a little bit of cognitive dissonance beer pong is 100% hygienic.
Besides, you'll be sick the next day regardless, so what does it matter?
I've got to say I have some sympathy for the smoking ban in businesses. There is, in my opinion, a genuine worker safety issue that the government has the authority (if not the duty) to regulate. If OSHA can set PELs (permissible exposure limits) for silica, they should be able to set them for cigarette smoke.
On everything else I agree with you.
You heard about this right?
This instance is doubly poignant because the plaintiffs are would-be lawyers. You never know when someone is going to search:
or herpes or sodom!
seriously?
Maybe because she doesn't want her name further associated with scurrilous rumors...
That's not the problem at all. (False analogy)
Many privacy laws (e.g. corporate email) are explicitly written such that you only have a right to privacy if there exists "a reasonable expectation" of privacy. Only if you can reasonably assume that no one will turn around in your driveway (if for instance you have a gate or a sign) can you have trespassers charged.
B&E, murder, and extradition laws are not based on reasonable expectations, they simply prohibit certain acts. Regardless of whether or not it's smart to be walking around Camden at 1:00 am wearing a cowboys jersey and with hundred dollar bills hanging out of your pocket if someone mugs you they can be charged. If someone takes a picture of you - well you can't complain as you wouldn't expect privacy on a public street.
If I provide a business with my private information without some guarantee that they won't give it to other people you don't have a right to sue. You willingly made your private information public - it's akin to putting you phone number on a bathroom stall and being upset when you get heavy breathing calls. If they do promise to protect your data you would have cause because you would have reasonably assumed that they wouldn't have gone back on their word.
No. First landmines aren't exactly legal for civilian use. Second, you can't booby-trap your property even with perfectly legal things like rope and knives. If the police, firefighters, or paramedics have to enter your property - which they have a right to do in an emergency - they don't want to have to worry about being killed by unmanned defensive devices.
and if you need any further proof 80% of the people read the parent in the voice of the "This is Sparta" guy.
[original research]
Well abstaining on a bad bill in the Senate subject to cloture is good, because a bill needs 60 votes (not 60%) to proceed. Not voting for cloture is the same as voting not to proceed. However, and for the record, Clinton didn't abstain from this vote, she voted Nay.
Most of the people who would be inclined to defend Obama on other issues are pretty pissed about this one, so expect any apologists to come from his base.