Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
Bell's AP includes neither a system of due process nor a method for the
accused to confront his accusor. do you think he's rejected the AP as
invalid, or simply realizing how beneficial simple rights as these are when
being accused of crimes? is it relevant to refer to these rights when he
himself rejected those rights for others?
--------------
It does seem ironic that someone who apparently would deny to others these
rights, within the concept of AP, should yet himself be provided with a
"fair trial" as a matter of course, in way the legal system has been set up
to do (or to at least have everyone go through the motions and present the
appearance of it).
It is valid to inquire whether one who is guilty of such an oversight is,
conversely, deserving of equal treatment (similar to the statement that
"those who would give up essential liberty for a little safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety".)
But if you examine the AP article closely you will note that Jim has based
his ideas on the Libertarian rejection of the *initiation* of force against
others. His conclusion is that, since the government of liberty and
freedom, which was set up to defend against the unjust imposition of force
upon the unwilling, has itself violated that expectation (in the process of
extracting taxes, i.e. taking property from us, without our explicit and
willing consent), then it is no longer deserving of the respect of the
citizens - that it has opened itself up to being treated as one would treat
any criminal who does not respect these fundamental rights.
So he can be said to be rejecting those rights for those who have already
abrogated them, or who have accepted the allowance - in the form of
government policies - for doing this.
This is where the questions come up about the "legitimacy" of government
actions - of what individuals may be allowed to do for "the people" as their
representatives - that "the people" themselves are not allowed to likewise
do. It seems to be very hard for people to agree on what will be assigned
to and allowed to a designated group, vs what will be allowed to an
individual, within a political setting where everyone appears agreeable to
being a member, and agreeable to being subject to the supposedly agreed-upon
laws. It is hard to argue against appearances and convince over what is, in
fact, the actual circumstance.
..
Blanc
