Ilana Mercer stands up for reason and justice in defense of Michael Vick. This led to an appearance on the Hannity Show and quite a debate on her blog. Some of her critics were downright scary. At least one sounded like he would have lynched Vick and his friends just because, being black and from the ghetto, they must be "brutes" and "savages." Incredible. Whatever this was, I didn't think it was about race. Now I'm having second thoughts about that.
But all in all, it confirms what I suspected months ago. While Mercer's rational argument is airtight, law is not based on reason, but on emotions like sympathy/empathy and fear. A libertarian can not justify the laws that Michael Vick plead guilty to. One can merely try to put an intellectual gloss over what amounts to "seeing animals mistreated makes me feel bad. Somebody should put a stop to it."
But liberty isn't saying "there ought to be a law," but rather, unless you harm other people or their property without their consent, their ought not be a law.
James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'm not sure that there ought to be a law against the barbarism of dog fighting and dog abuse, but I don't have to approve of it and I don't have to buy from companies that sponsor the Michael Vicks of the world. He is a douchebag with a swirl.
ReplyDeleteThe ban on dog fighting wouldn't be the first law I'd repeal as king.
I've got a cement pool with water and a set of live jumper cables for Mr. Vick.
ReplyDeleteNow, that might not make sense from the Libertarian viewpoint, but it makes a LOT of sense from a fairness standpoint.
There has to be a line drawn between "he's my dog and I'll shoot him if I want to" and "he's my dog and I'll torture him if I want to".
And the sad point is the NEED for laws against barbarism....