maybe his website got hacked?

(snark flag)

Posted July 8, 2008 1:39 AM by Greg London

Hmmm. I think Barr's statement on Jesse Helms is as interesting for what it doesn't say as for what it does. It would have been very easy to insert a few code words, something like, "Domestically, Helms had a strong commitment to a positive, traditional American society."

It seems like the minimum necessary to placate the right wing Libertarians. I'm sure you can find much more fulsome examples of praise for Jesse without trying very hard.

Just for the record, I'm not trying to minimize Helms' horrific record - IMHO the man is burning in the hottest part of hell right now - just saying that you may be misinterpreting what you read.

Posted July 8, 2008 1:53 AM by Alex

Bob Barr is about as "libertarian" as Jesse Helms was "commit[ted] to liberty."

I've voted for a couple of Libertarian candidates in the past, but Barr sure as hell won't be getting my vote! I've lived in Georgia before, so I'm familiar with Barr. I lived in Lawrenceville, in fact (think of the court responsible for what happened to Ed Kramer; Barr's efforts to help Kramer were commendable, but that's about as much praise as I've got for the man). I'm damned glad I'm now living in Maryland again.

Posted July 8, 2008 2:28 AM by G D Townshende

Sen. Helms was one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress.

I'm not seeing many ways to misinterpret that.

He was also the consummate gentleman, revered by colleagues, staff and friends for his unfailing kindness, good humor, generosity and patriotism.

Others might disagree:

Soon after the Senate vote on the Confederate flag insignia, Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) ran into Mosely-Braun in a Capitol elevator. Helms turned to his friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), and said, “Watch me make her cry. I’m going to make her cry. I’m going to sing ‘Dixie’ until she cries.” He then proceeded to sing the song about the good life during slavery to Mosely-Braun (Gannett News Service, 9/2/93; Time, 8/16/93).

Consummate gentleman my ass.

Posted July 8, 2008 2:34 AM by Brenda

Alex @ #2, Hilzoy created a compendium of said fulsome praise for the man. You might need Tums after reading.

Posted July 8, 2008 2:34 AM by Linkmeister

#5 Linkmeister - I don't plan to read it. I hate to speak ill of the dead, but Helms was a horrible American, and praise for the man would turn my stomach.

Posted July 8, 2008 2:38 AM by Alex

Dubya said, regarding Helms (as noted in the post to which Linkmeister (#5) linked), "So it is fitting that this great patriot left us on the Fourth of July"?

Egads! Doesn't this man realize that Helms, by expiring on this date, has marred the day of Thomas Jefferson's death?!

Posted July 8, 2008 2:47 AM by G D Townshende

Alex @ #6, you're probably wise to forgo it. Some of it's jaw-droppingly bizarre. Whitewash is too inadequate a word.

G D Townshende @ $7, John Adams too!

Posted July 8, 2008 2:51 AM by Linkmeister

Appalling as that is, I'm not sure how it's a demonstration even of what Bob Barr is fundamentally all about, let alone libertarianism (which is not the same thing as Bob Barr).

The hallmark of libertarianism seems to me to be the "I'm All Right, Jack" attitude, an uncaring disdain for others not as fortunate as oneself. This is annoying enough, but quite different from the positive loathing and fear of specified groups expressed by racist conservatives like Helms. Though not totally incompatible, as we see.

I suspect that Helms was charming and friendly to Barr personally. (Why shouldn't he have been? Barr sponsored DOMA.) And that's why Barr wrote this. Granted, he crossed a serious line here. But I don't think it's a window into Barr's real self so much as a demonstration that he is the idiot here. Not you.

Posted July 8, 2008 4:19 AM by DBratman

DBratman #9: at the risk of offending any Libertarians reading this (about whose personal beliefs I can not and do not comment), that's how I've always viewed that belief system based on what I've read and heard about it...and it might be argued that "uncaring disdain" is the standby mode of hate.

As I understand it, the ideal Libertarian believes that every individual should look out for his or her own interests, without interference from the government. "Me against the world." From this it would follow that, as far as the Libertarian individual's philosophy is concerned, "the world" can go hang...till it becomes a threat.

I don't think the two responses, the disdain and the hate, can be separated. They're two faces of the same entity.

Posted July 8, 2008 4:37 AM by Zander

Zander #10: I don't think the two responses, the disdain and the hate, can be separated. They're two faces of the same entity.

Hm. Uncaring disdain is "I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire" and hate is "I'd light the fire given an opportunity"?

Posted July 8, 2008 5:43 AM by inge

There are actually existing libertarians, who may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, who are very happy with collective action. Scott Taylor, regular commenter here, comes immediately to mind. So does Jim Henley, occasional commenter here, often linked to, and his crew at Unqualified Offerings. Heck, one of them is collecting donations for a deserving underfunded library. There's Radley Balko, a genuine American hero for his efforts on behalf of victims of the War on Some Drugs.

They are not well represented by pretty much any organization claiming the name "libertarian"...but y'know, liberals against the war in Iraq might want to have some sympathy there, given the Democratic Party's record of capitulation and cooperation on awful, vile matters. For instance.

Posted July 8, 2008 6:14 AM by Bruce Baugh

Basically, what Barr (and most of the people Hilzoy quotes) are saying is that the late Senator Helms was a dedicated man who cared about important, "grown-up" issues, and who was One Of Us. (Altermeyer, passim.) I suspect that the mass sepulchre-whitening and disregard of his actual record is a tribal thing, in that they consider any criticism of the newly dead as grotesquely rude and inappropriate as we do their approach.

(Personally, I find any suggestion that someone is/was a perfect and flawless human being grotesquely rude and inappropriate, since it's clear that the eulogist (oulogist?) is talking about concepts and ideals rather than a person, and using the deceased only as an excuse.)

Posted July 8, 2008 6:20 AM by Sam Kelly

I'm fascinated by the tributes to Helms that glide right over every evil he ever did and focus on what a staunch, conservative gentleman he was.

Bob Barr, on the other hand, is nothing but an opportunist who is looking for a moment in the sun. It was astonishing when he seemed to develop a set of principles in the wake of being districted out of the House, but his abandoning every last one of the principles he claims to have stood for is one of the more fascinating sights in recent political history.

Posted July 8, 2008 6:31 AM by Fragano Ledgister

@14, Yes, when discussing the newly dead, people tend to focus on the positive if at all possible. But if you'd prefer to strike off the fetters of civility, you may be interested in the commentary of Christopher Hitchens.

I don't think I'll join you. There's a time for Hitchens's forthright condemmnation and our host's cheap snark; but this isn't it.

Posted July 8, 2008 6:46 AM by Johan Larson

I hope it pries more of the Stupid White People vote away from McCain.

Posted July 8, 2008 7:07 AM by Arthur D. Hlavaty

Johan Larson #15: Helms objected to the very existence of people like myself, so why the hell should I mourn his death? Be so kind as to tell me that.

Posted July 8, 2008 7:22 AM by Fragano Ledgister

Even the Raleigh media outlets are being less than enthusiastic about praising Helms' life.

Posted July 8, 2008 7:26 AM by John L

Foul. Just foul, foul, foul. I'm all for not speaking ill of the dead--in this case, it'll help him be forgotten all the quicker. But ignoring such awful, awful things about the man. Ugh.

Though I'm not really sure I would paint the entire libertarian community with such a nasty brush...I mean, John Scalzi'S fairly libertarian, isn't he? Oh, and he just gave the man $6.10.
D'oh...

Posted July 8, 2008 7:31 AM by JimR

inge #11: And the difference between them is the difference between "(I hate you but) I don't think you're a threat to me" and "I think you are, or may be, or may become, a threat to me."

Posted July 8, 2008 7:32 AM by Zander

Johan Larson #14: Why not now? If Helms does not deserve odium, then why should later be any more appropriate? And if he does, then his very public stature means that we can come to bury rather than praise him.

Posted July 8, 2008 7:35 AM by Jakob

Looks like the Barr piece slipped in from some alternate history.

Posted July 8, 2008 7:42 AM by Michael Walsh

Fragano@17: I'm not asking you to mourn Helms's death, but rather to refrain from heckling while others do so. Once he's good and buried you're welcome to dance on his grave for all I care. I'd be hard pressed to find a kind word for him myself.

Posted July 8, 2008 7:46 AM by Johan Larson

Johan, #15: May I ask, when do you think is the appropriate time to focus on the entire legacy left by a person in power?

We had another round of this not too long ago, and someone (I don't recall who) made a comment I found very apropos:

"Those who advocate not speaking ill of the dead had better hope that the dead did something which can be spoken of positively."

I don't think Helms qualifies. If nothing else, that episode with Moseley-Brown should have been in every obituary.

Posted July 8, 2008 7:58 AM by Lee

Johan Larson #23: Helms deserved not one good word from me, and I fail to see that the old bastard's death wipes out the evil that he did and said.

When Martin Luther King was shot, Jesse Helms asked students mourning his death at the University of North Carolina to ask their parents if they thought it was acceptable for their sons or daughters to 'marry a negro' and only those whose parents agreed should demonstrate against the killing of Dr King. I'm not even going to go into his objection to a national holiday commemorating MLK and the Civil Rights Movement.

In April 1968, when King was killed, I was not yet twelve years old, and the child of the kind of marriage that Helms was so pointedly objecting to. I have no reason to say one kind word for him. And no objection to heckling in the least.

Posted July 8, 2008 8:24 AM by Fragano Ledgister

Johan@23: So that would be around 3pm today? (The funeral starts at 2pm.) Let's all synchronize our watches.

Honestly though, there are people who truly loved the man and they will be mourning for a good long time. Given what seems like an overly expansive definition of heckling, it might be a while before we could examine his legacy without being accused of heckling while others mourn.

I wouldn't characterize what anyone has done here as heckling. A straightforward retelling of the events of Jesse Helms's life is not heckling. It's unfortunate for Mr. Helms that the events of his life that immediate come to mind are the odious, hateful ones.

Yes, Christopher Hitchens did a little gratuitous namecalling. I think that counts as heckling. The story of what he did to Carol Moseley Braun, though, is a straightforward recounting of his life.

Posted July 8, 2008 8:33 AM by John Chu

I have a friend in NC, and the report I got was that a fair number of people there are glad 'Senator No' is gone.

Posted July 8, 2008 8:38 AM by P J Evans

JimR: From my point of view, John Scalzi is prone to fits of amoral "it's all just a game anyway" thinking. I regard this as a luxury. But then I get disability benefits that I depend on, too.

Posted July 8, 2008 9:09 AM by Bruce Baugh

My friend called me with the news. "Did you hear? Jesse Helms died." But it was noisy where I was and I thought I heard him say "Justice Holmes died."

Aghast, thinking that one of the last remaining liberals on the Supreme Court had died, I said "Oh my god." My mind raced: was there enough time remaining in the Senate term for Bush to get one last appointment in? Would the Democrats, looking forward to a President Obama and an increased majority in the Senate, block him?

Only later did I see the news and realize that, in fact, Justice Holmes had died in 1935. I wonder what my friend made of my reaction. (Certainly he knows I am no fan of Helms: we worked together on the Harvey Gantt for Senate campaign against him.)

Posted July 8, 2008 9:16 AM by Alex Cohen

JimR #19 (and partially also Bruce Baugh #28): Please tell me this was some kind of especially fine irony, or at least that you haven't read the paragraph just below Barr's picture.

Posted July 8, 2008 9:25 AM by Jan Vaněk jr.

I'm a new reader here, so my apologies if this has come up before.

Though Bob Barr is a good example of what is wrong with the US Libertarian Party, an examination of the candidacy of someone like George Phillies shows that there are some sensible types in the party. Still, it seems to be the "I've got mine, go get yours" types who run the party at the end of the day. I'm not saying the prospects are good... but it isn't -quite- hopeless.

http://phillies2008.org/

disclosure: Dr. Phillies was my former physics professor

Posted July 8, 2008 9:57 AM by B. Dewhirst

Jan @30:

I don't think they were being ironic at all, just drawing a distinction between libertarianism as a political philosophy and the Libertarian Party as it currently exists in general and the rather odious Barr in particular. Also read Bruce @12. They're right - I know and know of plenty of libertarians (small l, not necessarily members of the party) that have never given me reason to think of them as racist or bigoted in any way - Jim Henley and game designer Bill Stoddard come to mind.

None of which makes Barr's eulogy for Helms any less repugnant, of course. On the other hand, to the extent that he actually functions as a *civil* libertarian, supports the ACLU, and does things like filibuster telecom immunity, Barr may still serve a useful function nevertheless.

Posted July 8, 2008 10:02 AM by Scott Harris

George Phillies?!? Well, sonofagun. I remember him from reading his zines in The Wild Hunt and Alarums & Excursions.

Jan, I'm afraid whatever point you have in mind in #30 is passing me by.

Posted July 8, 2008 10:02 AM by Bruce Baugh

#30, Jan...
Hrm? No, no Irony that I am aware of.
Are you referring to the presidential campaign thing? Yeah, I knew that. According to his blog (check the link in my original post) John Scalzi donated the entirety of his $6.10 "economic stimulus refund check" from Dubya to the Bob Barr campaign, apparently because he believes that Barr might peel a few votes off of McCain. Like they say Nader did with Gore (and to a lesser extent Kerry).

Also because 6.10 is really not that much money (to a person with a good paying job, of course. To others it is quite a lot. But let's not get into that.)

He's probably around here somewhere, maybe he'll show up and explain it better than I can.

Posted July 8, 2008 10:05 AM by JimR

Myself @32: Duh, Barr no longer being a Congress critter, I guess the main useful function he might serve at this point is to peel off some votes from McCain's right flank.

Posted July 8, 2008 10:06 AM by Scott Harris

I'm with Clarence Darrow on this.

Posted July 8, 2008 10:11 AM by Theophylact

He began splitting the party as soon as he got nominated...many libertarians are not voting for him.

As a pagan, I cannot.

Posted July 8, 2008 10:38 AM by Michelle

I wonder if US foreign policy will improve with Helms's passing. We may hope.

Posted July 8, 2008 11:05 AM by Randolph Fritz

22: "Looks like the Barr piece slipped in from some alternate history."

Nope, no zeppelins.

Posted July 8, 2008 11:07 AM by Doug

OK, I have it on good authority that de mortuis nil nisi bonum has been suspended in Helms' case. The Powers That Govern Such Things have spoken.

Seriously, the usual reason for that is that there are those who loved the person, and are in mourning, and making their suffering worse by reviling him or her is cruel. In Helms' case I actually think he was so evil that loving* him makes the lover complicit in his evil. There are some vilenesses so vile that to fail to recognize them as such is to become vile oneself.

I respectfully submit that Helms was one such vileness, and that anyone who helped and supported him and now misses him has lost the privilege of not hearing us speak the truth about this fucking TURD in human form.

And Bob Barr, DOMA sponsor, even without this, can take the advice in the title of this post.

Disclosure: I am a gay man and a Wiccan, and lost many friends to AIDS.

*I mean to the extent that you'd actually be saddened by his death, not just "love thy neighbor" kind of love.

Posted July 8, 2008 11:59 AM by Xopher

P J Evans @27, I was born and raised in NC and in my house, there was always much dislike for Helms. My house was far from the only one.

Posted July 8, 2008 12:07 PM by Caroline

I prefer to hold a more charitable view of American libertarianisms: namely that the label has been coöpted by a sizable fraction of illiberal twats, enough to give the whole movement a bad name, in much the same way that the Green label has attracted the self-identification of a lot of authoritarians in denial about the collapse of Marxism. It's probably a bad idea to tar the whole rank and file of any of America's minority political movements with the handy brush at hand when evaluating the candidate at the top of their nominal party's ticket.

That said, yeah— Bob Barr. Add his name to the list if it wasn't there already. (It was already on mine, and his "interesting changes" weren't enough to make me forgive.)

Posted July 8, 2008 12:54 PM by j h woodyatt

My take on libertarianism is that even in the best case, the emphasis on the individual is in substantial factual error. We're all of us smart or capable or skilled because an environment of other people made us that way.

There are a few people who manage to get that far, continue to be greatly concerned by maximizing individual access to choice and individual freedom from arbitrary authority, and wind up tackling an extremely difficult problem in social organization.

Most, though, seem to be arguing that most forms of ganging up on problems are illegitimate. It isn't much different from arguing that technical innovation threatening the social position of the current ruling class is illegitimate, and I suspect that this has a lot to do with the observed common failure mode.

Posted July 8, 2008 1:13 PM by Graydon

Linkmeister @ 8

Whitewash is too inadequate a word.

How about "honky-wash"?

Posted July 8, 2008 1:16 PM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

Could we please not get into yet another flamewar about the nature of Libertarianism (or "libertarianism" either)? Everytime we do that, the dogs get very upset, and it takes hours to coax the cats to climb down out of the curtains. And the parrots learn some choice new words.

Posted July 8, 2008 1:53 PM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

There's no use for racists and the non-tolerant, dead or alive. It doesn't matter how much their children and dog loved them.

Posted July 8, 2008 2:02 PM by Constance Ash

As usual, the Bard seems to have the last word:

"The evil men do lives on after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."

Sadly, this is likely to be the legacy of Jesse Helms.

This would also be an apt place to recommend to those who have not read it the excellent short story "Senator Bilbo" -- published by our esteemed host IIRC. Hearing back-country Southern racism translated into the landscape and voices of Middle-Earth is an experience not soon to be forgotten.

Posted July 8, 2008 2:45 PM by Lee

Alex Cohen @29: Only later did I see the news and realize that, in fact, Justice Holmes had died in 1935.

You must have realized that he had abstained on most of the recent Supreme Court rulings :)

Posted July 8, 2008 2:58 PM by Rob Rusick

Graydon @43: We're all of us smart or capable or skilled because an environment of other people made us that way.

Literally, I would be the same person if I had never learned to speak or read; but not in any sense I (the person who learned to speak and read) would appreciate.

Even being raised in a different culture (I'm thinking Inuit) would make a substantial difference.

Someone*, in a bit of doggerel, described the self-made man who had all of the statistics at his command; save for the number of people it took to make one self-made man.

* Alexander King, in a book titled May This House Be Safe From Tigers. A frequent guest on the Jack Parr Show, publishers took notice that when an author described his book on TV, sales went up.

Posted July 8, 2008 3:24 PM by Rob Rusick

Bruce Cohen (STM) @ #44, Grins. Your choice, young man (or, as my late father used to say regularly, driving me crazy each time, "You do what you think best; I'm sure you'll do the right thing).

Posted July 8, 2008 3:37 PM by Linkmeister

Graydon #43: Most, though, seem to be arguing that most forms of ganging up on problems are illegitimate.

"Most"? Since when is mandatory government-enforced cooperation "most" forms of cooperation?

Posted July 8, 2008 4:41 PM by Avram

The Libertarian party, as it exists here at the present is the party whose credo is "Mine!!!" without the baggage of having G.W.Bush hanging around its neck. That is to say, the party of deepest hypocrisy. Saying that makes it clear what I think of Barr.

What I think of Helms would require keys not on this keyboard.

Posted July 8, 2008 4:56 PM by Carl

I'm not sure the best basis on which to judge someone is their willingness to find some kind words to say about a bad person just after he's died. This is pretty common polite behavior; perhaps it's not a sensible form of politeness, but it's not much basis for condemnation, IMO.

Posted July 8, 2008 5:48 PM by albatross

DBratman #9 and others:

I suppose that "Mine! All mine!" belief explains why libertarians (including ones who would never be eligible for the draft) opposed the draft, and currently, libertarians who will never want to use illegal drugs oppose the war on drugs. It explains why libertarians who are just as white and non-Muslim (and so less likely targets) as any neocon oppose torture and massive wiretapping. It explains why libertarians who aren't wealthy still oppose inheritance taxes (though admittedly not as well as armchair psychoanalysis by folks on the left, who know that this must be some kind of delusion about getting rich in the future).

Posted July 8, 2008 6:05 PM by albatross

I was going to post this in the Obama / Supreme Court thread, but now it's on topic here too.

I've come to be suspicious of Obama for many reasons that others have detailed in that thread. Plus I have to wonder what he has promised to which special interests in order to raise all that money. And I don't care for the way he has been spun and positioned and productized, which leads me to make up lines like New and Improved Obama -- now with 50% less evil than McCain!

Well, I happen to think that 50% less evil is a pretty low standard. Usually in a case like this I vote for the party whose platform says "End corporate welfare." But this year, by putting Bob Barr at the head of the ticket, they have made that option much less attractive.

Posted July 8, 2008 7:10 PM by Allan Beatty

Carl@52: That's generally my impression of libertarians (with either-sized "L"). They're essentially the seagulls in Finding Nemo, but with delusions of dominance.

Posted July 8, 2008 7:50 PM by Jason B

Johan Larson@15

"As for homosexuality, the Bible judges it, I do not...I understand the militant homosexuals and they understand me...As for Mark, I wish he had not played Russian roulette with his sexual activity."

-- Jesse Helms, responding to a constituent on the death of her son from AIDS in 1995

Someone who would tell a grieving mother that her son's death was his own fault deserves the same consideration at his death.

Posted July 8, 2008 8:02 PM by Darkrose

Long rant about the nature of libertarianism replaced by:

Why would you believe that Barr was representative of the Libertarian Party, let alone libertarianism in general? (Or maybe that latter inference is being drawn from somewhere besides the OP.)

Given the well-established tradition of polite dishonesty towards the recently dead, why do you seem to assume Barr's post was sincere and not merely polite-sounding platitudes in the first place? Helms was a human being, not the incarnation of a philosophical principle. Cherry-picking the few good things about him is exactly what people commonly do about the dead. And ignoring the humanity of your opponents to reduce them to simplistic caricatures of evil is perhaps the worst of human instincts.

There's lots of reasons I disagree with Barr's statement that "we should stop and give thanks to God for the life and work of Jesse Helms." (And I can think of many people who are freer in spite of Helms' efforts, but not one who is freer because of them.) But I don't think it necessarily makes him an asshole for saying it - let alone an entire party or political philosophy. The worst that can be confidently said from the available evidence (IMO) is that Barr was excessively deferential to the idea of not speaking ill of the dead (even when the dead was an exceedingly nasty son of a bitch).

Posted July 8, 2008 8:12 PM by Chris

Avram at 51 --

Mandatory government enforced co-operation is not a tithe of all the sorts of co-operation there are; it is just necessary to the stable existence of the majority of the others.

I really wish everyone who has an interest in political philosophy had to thoroughly understand population genetics; this is the quantification of 'many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive' to show just how tiny an advantage becomes inexorably dominant in a population over generational time.

Similar things apply to social organization, and it is inherently easier to raid than to trade. By no means better, but easier, and so better is inherently complicated.

The standard human condition is not peace, order, and good government; it is the rule of man and submission to the violent in the hopes of no worse thing then occurring.

Avoiding submission to the violent cannot be had by strictly voluntary co-operation, because it is most manifestly not in the best interest of the violent to accept that they must surrender great social advantage and seek to have their desires by what means else they may possess.

Throw in that the complexity of the mechanism must match by some means -- though there are means better and means worse -- the complexity of the thing the mechanism governs, and one gets, for three hundred millions of people, something large and complex, and sometimes quite involuntary.

The presence of involuntary requirements is not what makes it evil, when it is.

Posted July 8, 2008 8:17 PM by Graydon

Johan @ 23: Once he's good and buried you're welcome to dance on his grave for all I care.

Wear rubber boots when you do, because some of us will be pissing on it.

Posted July 8, 2008 8:19 PM by Allan Beatty

Why would you believe that Barr was representative of the Libertarian Party

He is the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States. He is, by definition, representative of the Libertarian Party.

Posted July 8, 2008 8:30 PM by Brenda

And for those looking for someone else to vote for....

Bush's Third Term. Really.

Posted July 8, 2008 8:46 PM by Lizzy L

Lizzy,

I really, REALLY hope that comes from the same sort of folks who brought us Landover Baptist.

Posted July 8, 2008 10:00 PM by Summer Storms

Allen Beatty @55: Plus I have to wonder what he has promised to which special interests in order to raise all that money.

The "special interests" of which you speak are schlubs like me. Please do pay attention.

Chris@58: I'm with you. Barr's statement sounds like standard, polite, speak-no-ill-of-the-dead stuff. It's not something I would use to figure out Barr's real beliefs, so I think PNH is off the mark here.

I think libertarianism overall is a crock of shit, but I'm happy to have them on my team when our interests overlap on issues like the ones mentioned above.

Coalitions are go!

Summer Storms@63: It's gotta be. The phrase, "Man's law, not God's," is plucked straight from A Man For All Seasons, where the great martyr St. Thomas More argues in favor of the rule of law.

Or maybe I just watched that flick too much last weekend.

Posted July 8, 2008 11:08 PM by hamletta

I'm going to call "writeinbush.com" a prank, based on one of the bumper stickers ("Third term's the charm" sounds way too hip) and the fact that their blog proudly posts a Nigerian scam as a serious communication from a reader. If anything, it's an attempt to make Bush be an anti-McCain spoiler, which is sort of brilliant.

(Also from the front page: "By the way, we'll be taking off the links to the bumper stickers, since not a single one has been sold. We can't imagine why.")

Posted July 8, 2008 11:21 PM by DonBoy

#62, 63, and 64
Yes, it's a joke. Check out their blog. They're using a 409 email for funding.

#64, hamletta,
Barr's statement sounds like standard, polite, speak-no-ill-of-the-dead stuff.
A public statement on his campaign page referring to Jesse Helms as "one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress" sounds very much like a public endorsement of the man's principles--which included violent and unapologetic hatred towards homosexuals, blacks, and anyone else who was not a Straight Southern White Male. It is possible to avoid condemning a man without unduly praising him.
And "As a nation we are stronger and the world is freer for his commitment to liberty. " is a damned lie.

Posted July 8, 2008 11:32 PM by JimR

Lizzy, #62: Veerry interesting. I almost find myself hoping it catches on -- because any write-in vote for Bush is a vote not cast for McCain. And on that level, it doesn't matter whether it's a spoof or not; anyone dumb enough to fall for it, spoof or real, is shooting themselves in the foot. Let 'em, says I.

Funny how all those people talking about Helms being "the consummate gentleman" forget that no gentleman of the style he pretended to be would have treated ANY woman, no matter what color she was, the way he treated Carole Mosely-Braun.

Posted July 9, 2008 1:07 AM by Lee

Funny how all those people talking about Helms being "the consummate gentleman" forget that no gentleman of the style he pretended to be would have treated ANY woman, no matter what color she was, the way he treated Carole Mosely-Braun.

Quite. Gentlemanly behaviour is defined by how you behave to everybody, not just people equally or more privileged than oneself. In questions of this nature one should always ask oneself "What Would Bertie Wooster Do?" (Though mentally quite negligible, he was still very definitely a gentleman). Sen Helms was rather closer to Roderick Spode.

Posted July 9, 2008 4:48 AM by ajay

Barr seems like a massive tool to me, but that doesn't surprise me in the least.

From my Finnish vantage point, US-style Libertarianism does indeed seem to be built on the core value of "I've got mine, so screw the rest of you."

Posted July 9, 2008 8:48 AM by Wakboth

I'm a Libertarian. I'll be voting Democrat this year. Just like I did 4 years ago...

Posted July 9, 2008 9:16 AM by Christopher B. Wright

re: ajay @#68

My favorite definition of gentlemanliness has always been Wilde's, "A gentleman is someone who is never unintentionally rude."

It leaves one a certain...scope.

Posted July 9, 2008 9:20 AM by Sarah S

Christopher B. Wright: Sympathy on the lack of better choices. (And no sarcasm in that. Settling gets old sometimes.)

Posted July 9, 2008 11:30 AM by Bruce Baugh

Descriptions of Helms as a "consummate gentleman" put me in mind of Dave Barry's observation that "a person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person."

Posted July 9, 2008 11:38 AM by mdlake

73: quite. The point is to be nice even when you don't have to be. Helms reminds me of no one so much as Eric Cartman (R-CO).

Posted July 9, 2008 12:10 PM by ajay

Allan 60: Wear rubber boots when you do, because some of us will be pissing on it.

No, no, first the Eating of Asparagus, then the jig contest, and the evening closes with the Pissing on the Grave. Gotta get this in the right order, especially if we want to make it an annual Independence Day tradition.

Sarah 71: Yes, and that would allow Helms to be a gentleman, since his rudeness to Mosely-Braun was conscious and deliberate. Either we need an additional condition (like "or intentionally rude without just cause," which I suspect was the principle at play when a friend of mine called something I'd said "rude, but not uncalled for"), or to acknowledge that one may be both a gentleman and a total creeping slimemold.

Posted July 9, 2008 12:17 PM by Xopher

#61: Small parties are easy to hijack, even by people whose values don't correspond to the party's at all. Didn't Buchanan grab the nomination of some party that wasn't nearly as crazy as he is?

Google informs me that he grabbed the nomination of the Reform Party. Whether this satisfies the second half of the above sentence is a matter of opinion, I guess, but the Reform Party's previously expressed positions weren't exactly in line with Buchanan's, then or now.

Even major party nominees don't necessarily represent all the opinions of their party's voters, just enough to win the primary - McCain isn't nearly nativist enough to suit most Republicans on the issue of immigration, and Obama's support of the current FISA bill is drawing a *lot* of criticism from Democrats, for example.

Indeed, the original post in this thread is not that different than saying "The Democratic Party: coverups of illegal spying for smart people". I suggest a narrower brush.

Posted July 9, 2008 12:24 PM by Chris

Roderick Spode wasn't ungentlemanly, certainly not in Helms' league. I don't think Wodehouse could ever have written a Helmsian character. He liked all of them. A 'Helms' would have made his typewriter jam.

I must second Brenda @ 61: if one cannot take Barr as the representative of the Libertarian Party, why on earth is the LP putting him up as their candidate for the top spot? Am I to suppose they just pick people at random, or according to their bank balance? First Nader, now Barr - if these persons and their convictions, methods and means do not square with LP principles, and the LP runs them anyway, then it does not appear the LP has any meaningful or lasting stance to take on the national level, beyond "we want federal matching funds".

Posted July 9, 2008 12:30 PM by pericat

#71, 75: Given the literal definition of gentleman, the characterization of certain actions as gentlemanly or not has always seemed to me to be right up there with "It's the Christian thing to do" and "Mighty white of you".

The gently born do not have a monopoly on kindness, goodness, or true politeness, any more than Christians or whites do. (If anything, history suggests the reverse: those who have been down on their luck are more understanding of those who presently are down on their luck, and it's the people who have led lives of privilege from the cradle that turn out most of the callous jerks like Helms.) So why reinforce that frame?

No mere thug can match the moral depravity of politely sipping tea on your veranda while your slaves toil in your fields - the gentlemanly tradition Helms was proud to uphold.

Posted July 9, 2008 12:32 PM by Chris

(My apologies; Nader was certainly not a candidate for the Libertarian Party. I do not know what I was thinking of when I included him.)

Posted July 9, 2008 12:41 PM by pericat

Now here's a man who stands up for his principles:

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/helms/story/1135443.html

For those not wanting to read the article, an NC state employee refused to lower the US or NC flag to half-staff at his workplace to honor Helms, and then retired when ordered to do so by his supervisor.

Posted July 9, 2008 12:47 PM by John L

mdlake,

The only problem with the Dave Barry comment is that by all accounts, Helms was nice to his inferiors. (He had a good reputation for constituent service, and on the Hill among staff.) It was peers to whom he was cruel, not inferiors--and his cruelty was generally intentional.

Posted July 9, 2008 1:53 PM by SamChevre

#4: "most courageous and deeply principled".

That doesn't necessarily mean Good. Suicide bombers are courageous. Jefferson Davis was principled. I'm sure that Helms was both.

"revered by colleagues, staff and friends for his unfailing kindness, good humor, generosity and patriotism."

I'm sure. As long as the colleagues or staff weren't women or black (we all know that none of the friends were). But that's okay, they don't count.

And that story about Mosely-Braun is uproariously funny. Great humour. At least to the kind of people who made my school years (and Robert Graves', if we're referencing English writers) a living hell.

Plus, it's easy to be "patriotic" when what that means is "I like it the way it [i|wa]s, and I'm going to fight to keep it that way". We all know those kinds of patriots - not the ones that want (in this case) the U.S. to become/remain the greatest country it can be, but those who basically decry, "you shouldn't criticize what your country is doing. That isn't patriotic."

See? Barr didn't say anything untrue. But I still want to wash my eyes from having read it, and that doesn't make Mr. Helms (or Mr. Barr) the sort of person I want anything to do with or the sort of person I want in power.

Posted July 9, 2008 2:25 PM by Mycroft W

Brenda @ 61:: He is the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States. He is, by definition, representative of the Libertarian Party.
Hmm, while that statement might be true for any other political party one might make the case that it's simply not possible to "represent the Libertarian Party" since - by definition - it's composed of libertarians :)

Moving on to my next snark:
If the Libertarian Party is racism for smart people, is the Republican Party racism for stupid people and the Democratic Party racism for condescending people?

Posted July 9, 2008 2:49 PM by Lance Weber

Lance Weber writes: "...one might make the case that it's simply not possible to "represent the Libertarian Party" since - by definition - it's composed of libertarians."

That has always been one of the more curious bugs in their model.

Posted July 9, 2008 3:23 PM by j h woodyatt

Sam, habitual intentional cruelty automatically rules out being a good person. I'm not sure it rules out being a gentleman, but if it doesn't, who the hell wants to be a gentleman?

Posted July 9, 2008 4:01 PM by Xopher

Xopher,

I'm inclined to agree that "habitual intentional cruelty automatically rules out being a good person." In my opinion, though, cruelty to peers is less bad than cruelty to inferiors; Helms was noted for the former, and also noted for his lack of the latter. (Righteous Warrior refers to, and I remember seeing while an intern, a survey of Hill staff done in 1998; Helms was the Senator they rated as treating them best.)

Posted July 9, 2008 4:46 PM by SamChevre

Hmm. Are you asserting that HE regarded Mosely-Braun as a peer? I would need some supporting evidence to back up the idea that he regarded anyone dark-skinned as such.

Didn't we go through this when another scumbag died? Even if Helms was nice to everyone he met in person (far from the case), he would still be an evil, detestable person for the things he did that affected the lives of millions of people he never met.

Posted July 9, 2008 5:33 PM by Xopher

Hamletta @ 64: Since I don't know you, that doesn't really tell me much. I looked at your "view all by" and found a lot of short, pointed comments on various subjects that I could agree with. So I see no reason to be concerned about you, but I do still wonder about all the lawyers and financiers and RIAA and MPAA executives who are contributing to Obama. (Are you involved with the recording industry?)

Posted July 9, 2008 7:03 PM by Allan Beatty

Meanwhile, in North Carolina, L.F. Eason III quit his job rather than lower the flag to honor Helms.

Posted July 9, 2008 7:04 PM by James D. Macdonald

Pericat @ 77 and 79: You might be thinking of an LP vice presidential candidate from a number of years back who more or less bought the nomination by pledging to contribute out of his own fortune (which would not be subject to the same campaign finance limits as contributing to someone else, at least under the law at that time).

Then there's 1988, when the LP gave their presidential nomination to R. Paul for more or less the same reason that Barr got it this time as far as I can guess -- name recognition and star power. Party leaders could pat themslves on the back for recruiting a nationally known politician.

Posted July 9, 2008 7:08 PM by Allan Beatty

As a matter of practical record, a lot more people vote Libertarian than belong to the party, and a lot of libertarians vote for other parties, not just out of tactical thinking (lesser of two evils etc etc) but because a lot of them think the party's run by nutjobs. And in fact it is. It helps if you think of the Libertarian Party as the sort of concom gone bad that Teresa's discussed in the past.

Posted July 9, 2008 7:14 PM by Bruce Baugh

I'd like to call everyone's attention to the careful way that Patrick qualified his original post:

“libertarianism,” as espoused in America today

Since the Barr nomination, you wouldn't even need scare quotes if you uppercase the L.

I appreciate the other commenters who have also been precise with their terms.

Posted July 9, 2008 7:15 PM by Allan Beatty

In some online libertarian lists I'm in, there has been a lot of bemoaning how the LP has gone downhill with the influx of all the "Republicans who want to get high". Bruce @ 91 leads me to realize that it all sounds a lot like old time SF fans complaining that fandom was never the same after all the Trekkies showed up.

Posted July 9, 2008 7:23 PM by Allan Beatty

Allan Beatty @ #93

It may amuse you to know that around that time, true old-time Trekkies were complaining that non-sf fans were "invading" Trek. Certainly when (mostly) women started writing stories about the characters that didn't necessarily have much of a science fiction flavor (other than being set in the ST universe) rather than the more sf-nal/less characterization-heavy stories common before, there was much whining. To people in both communities, seeing it on both sides, this was amusing. Sorta.

Posted July 9, 2008 7:55 PM by sherrold

Chris @ 76
Taking over crazy parties:

In the mid '60s I was a member of a chapter of SDS* that sent its entire membership to the first meeting of the campus Students for Barry Goldwater organization, and stuffed the elective offices with our own members. This aggravated the real Republicans so much they voted to leave the organization, and it never had another meeting. It was political theater at its funniest.

* Students for a Democratic Society, a progressive, not to say downright revolutionary, left-wing party.

Posted July 9, 2008 8:00 PM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

Alan Beatty@88: No, I'm not in the recording industry, but I have been in the past. And many of my friends are still in it. I live in Nashville, the songwriting capital of the world. None of my representatives will ever, ever do anything to loosen up copyright restrictions; that's just a given. And not a particular concern of mine.

But entertainment execs and lawyers have always trended liberal and have always been big contributors to Democratic candidates. Why would Obama be any different?

As to financiers, why wouldn't they want a return to sane(r) economic policy?

And who the hell do you think is contributing to McCain's campaign? Ten thousand nuns & orphans?

What about the fact that he's skirting FEC regulations based on the very law with his own personal name on it?

Look, nobody gets elected president without some major scratch. My point was that a huge chunk of Obama's money is coming from ordinary working stiffs—and lots of 'em, by God!—which is why the whining about his not accepting public financing is horseshit.

Posted July 9, 2008 10:24 PM by hamletta

Hamletta @ 96:

My point was that a huge chunk of Obama's money is coming from ordinary working stiffs—and lots of 'em, by God!—which is why the whining about his not accepting public financing is horseshit.

I see that as all good. I just hope he doesn't forget the ordinary working stiffs. I've been disappointed many times before.

Posted July 9, 2008 11:54 PM by Allan Beatty

Bruce, #91: It helps if you think of the Libertarian Party as the sort of concom gone bad that Teresa's discussed in the past.

You owe me a new keyboard and a coughdrop (I laughed until I coughed so hard I nearly choked). Given that one of my favorite frames for describing tiny-points-of-dogma arguments is "fan feud", this is absolutely dead-on.

Allan, #93: It is also sadly true that the LP is the party of choice for a lot of Helms-style bigots, precisely because the repeal of any type of anti-discrimination legislation is high on their list of priorities. (Veering back toward the original topic.)

Posted July 10, 2008 1:25 AM by Lee

Lee: Glad to have helped you irrigate your keyboard. :)

Seriously, though, the structure of the phenomenon Teresa described is a recurring one. Did I ever tell you folks how childhood friends from Lebanon helped me understand Wicca?

Posted July 10, 2008 1:30 AM by Bruce Baugh

albatross 54: I don't believe I claimed that libertarians take a "Mine! All mine!" attitude. What I wrote was that they take an "I'm all right, Jack," attitude, an uncaring disdain for those less fortunate than themselves. A poor libertarian who opposes the inheritance tax is expressing sympathy for those more fortunate than himself.

And yes, that's a well-known psychological concept, however you try to belittle it. "Most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor" - John Dickinson, 1776

As for libertarians opposing torture and wiretapping, the self-defined libertarian I know best supports torture and wiretapping. I tried to tell him he's not a libertarian but an authoritative conservative, but that got him really angry. Just like there was a certain breed of "liberal" that defaulted to authoritarian conservative in the face of Vietnam War protests, there are both so-called liberals and libertarians who crumple up the same way in the face of 9/11 and Iraq.

Posted July 10, 2008 6:30 AM by DBratman

#96:

As to financiers, why wouldn't they want a return to sane(r) economic policy?

Nice work if you can get it. How many Bear Stearns execs have you seen living out of cardboard boxes?

Admittedly, with a semi-honest Justice Department, there'd also be a possibility of being prosecuted for fraud and spending several years in a resort "prison" with a more comfortable lifestyle than your guards or any other working-class people. But that's exactly the kind of "government interference in the market" that financiers do NOT want to see.

Posted July 10, 2008 11:39 AM by Chris

DBratman #100:

So, if I back repealing the inheritance tax and I'm rich, I'm simply reflecting an "I got mine, Jack" mentality. And if I'm poor, I'm deluding myself that I'll one day get rich and reflecting an "I got mine, Jack" mentality. Is that basically what you're saying?

This model excludes the possibility that I might back a policy because I think it's right, even if it does me no good, or even harms me. There's no polite way to say this, this idea is crap. It's the same flavor of crap, whether it's an explanation of why Ted Kennedy and George Soros have some deep dark evil motivations for backing progressive tax rates and inheritance taxes, or one of why some factory worker or farmer wants flat taxes and no inheritance tax.

I'll note that the right is just as into this dishonest nonsense as the left--read some discussion on a right-wing blog sometime of the reasons white liberals are alleged to back affirmative action or gun control, and you'll see the same quality of thought applied in a different direction. Same crap, different origin.

Posted July 10, 2008 11:48 AM by albatross

Bruce 99: Did I ever tell you folks how childhood friends from Lebanon helped me understand Wicca?

Not that I recall. Please do; it sounds fascinating.

Posted July 10, 2008 1:00 PM by Xopher

DBratman: I know that Libertarian (it's probably not the same one, but rather of a type). The one I know also thinks manadatory prayers to a Christian God at public functions/schools is fine.

Said Libertarian is also wiccan.

And confused.

Posted July 10, 2008 2:10 PM by Terry Karney

With regard to Helms, it might be slightly more polite to speak ill of the dead if the description involved might have been pleasing to the deceased.

I'm too tired now to do it, but I think it would be very easy to come up with (what would be for me) a damnation of the late Senator that would have brought at least an inward smile to the old reprobate.

Bumper-sticker:
        Don't blame me; I voted for Incitatus.

Posted July 11, 2008 2:55 PM by Michael Turyn

Michael Turyn #105: I see you support candidates who possess basic horse sense.

Posted July 11, 2008 3:14 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Incitatus' insurgent candidacy made a good start off the post, but was cut due to Sen. Helms' people spreading the malicious rumour that he had had carnal relations with a mare:

Tell Martin, John, and Bobby
That Brother I's a stallion
Oh alack for the couth
We had hoped for the South
When a Senator turns Italian!

(The story of Consul Incitatus, to head off any admirable sticklers, is so good that I don't care if it's true. In some ways, I've always seen it as Caligula in one of his better moments, "political satire of the act".)

Posted July 11, 2008 3:33 PM by Michael Turyn

Michael Turyn @ 107

Yeah, even today there are lot of horse's asses in politics.

Posted July 11, 2008 8:11 PM by Bruce Cohen (SpeakerToManagers)

Xopher: When I was growing up, one of my friends was part of a Lebanese family. A Lebanese, Palestinian, Christian family. They were minorities so many ways it wasn't funny. :) But there was this. Their religious community was one that had existed for a long time under a wide variety of persecutions, and it was very insular, very academic, very much about studying all the books and debating them and living the devout life privately because doing so openly could be dangerous.

Years later, when I started encountered Wiccans in the mid-'80s, there was something familiar about it all. And I realized: hey, this is structurally a lot like the Riskallahs' worship. Ever since then I've thought about how much circumstances shape our lives regardless of the content of our beliefs.

Posted July 11, 2008 10:37 PM by Bruce Baugh

albatross: Well, if it's crap, it's crap I hear from libertarians themselves. Libertarian theory is full of declarations of encouraging individual initiative, refusing to let the common weal coddle the losers in the game of life, refusing to let the government take anybody's property or money away because it's theirs, and so on. Haven't you noticed any of this?

Inheritance tax was not proof, it was an example, an example you and not I brought up.

Posted July 12, 2008 12:22 AM by DBratman

Terry Karney 104: The one I'm thinking of claims to be a Catholic. Suggesting that his attitudes show a certain lack of Christian charity also makes him really mad.

Posted July 12, 2008 12:24 AM by DBratman

Terry, a nitpick:

When I see the words "Christian" and "wiccan" used close to each other in a single short post, I wonder why the poster thinks that one religious adjective merits the capital letter and the other doesn't. Often it's an indication that the poster simply doesn't consider one of them a real religion--or that the poster is mindlessly adhering to journalistic standards set by those who hold said opinion. I doubt that either is the case with you, but it's an impression the typo can give.

Posted July 13, 2008 1:23 AM by Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

Nicole: taken as read, but I have huge problems with capitalising religions; for the very reasons you mention. I try to make it lower case as an adjective; but upper as a noun. Even that gets screwed up.

Generally (and I screwed up this one) I try to keep it consistent from writing to writing.

Posted July 13, 2008 3:52 PM by Terry Karney

"I" is the smallest minority of all. Therefore, I make my:

Declaration of Ratification

I, Esek, compelled of conscience and acting of my own volition, do hereby declare that there exists but one self-evident UNIVERSAL COMMON LAW and CONSTITUTION by which all are free, and to which all are accountable, without exception; the ignorance of which can be no excuse or defense, and therefore, mindful of that Judgment, do further employ and direct my every thought, my every discipline, my every effort to create FREEDOM, defend LIBERTY, and establish JUSTICE, subject to none but:

THE UNIVERSAL COMMON LAW and CONSTITUTION

Preamble

Every individual human on Earth is by right the absolute sovereign owner of their self, purposed by the very nature of their consciousness to prosper and live happily. The sole lawful function of any government or society is to guarantee those conditions that allow all individuals to fulfill their purpose. This CONSTITUTION, which forbids the use of initiatory force or coercion by any person, group, or government against any individual, alone guarantees those conditions:

THE CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual’s self or property.

ARTICLE 2: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate ARTICLE 1.

ARTICLE 3: No exceptions shall ever exist to ARTICLES 1 and 2.

THEREFORE, by virtue of my existence and in ratification of the above, DONT TREAD ON ME.

Dated: November 3, 2008 Signature in Ratification:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97SUkKY3v6c

Posted November 24, 2008 3:26 AM by Esek Esek

Esek Esek nicely demonstrates my point that many libertarians are, in fact, would-be world dictators- they pull arbitrary rules out of their backsides and demand that the rest of us have to follow them, wether we want to or not, everywhere, forever, with no option to challenge these arbitrary rules, ever.

Posted November 24, 2008 4:38 AM by Raphael sees topically relevant arguably spammy stuff

Did you notice that Esek Esek is Kese Kese spelled backwards?

Posted November 24, 2008 9:30 AM by James D. Macdonald

The Knowledge Engineering and Software Engineering workshop or the song title from the DJ Cheb I Sabbah album "Shri Durga"? Or the non-reversed version could have something to do with Indonesian donkeys.

Posted November 24, 2008 11:06 AM by Earl Cooley III

I wouldn't know if Esek is Indonesian, of course.

His* donkeyhood, on the other hand, is self-evident.

*most likely

Posted November 24, 2008 11:19 AM by Xopher

So, what's Kese Kese going to do about it if I stab him in the face with a spork?

The government can't do anything, since under his constitution they can only act if the government needs to defend itself. His friends can only act if they've been attacked, which they haven't been. So, who, then? Kese Kese is going to do something? The attack is already over, so he can't morally respond.

Poor Kese Kese! Sporked in the face and all he can do is sputter about the injustice.

Posted November 24, 2008 11:42 AM by James D. Macdonald

Jim @119:
So, what's Kese Kese going to do about it if I stab him in the face with a spork?

Ummm...call 911?

Sorry, this isn't one of your emergency preparedness quizzes is it?

Posted November 24, 2008 12:00 PM by abi

I magically divine that Esek Esek lives in the suburbs, or in a city that's built entirely around cars.

Posted November 24, 2008 12:18 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

So, what's Kese Kese going to do about it if I stab him in the face with a spork?

Time to rewrite the constitution to include the concept of collective defence. You know, you could organise a whole neigbourhood that way, and it would probably be a lot safer from spork attacks.

Posted November 24, 2008 12:22 PM by Neil Willcox

Jim Macdonald #119: Even more interesting, what happens if I kill the idiot? How would I be punished, and by whom? And for what?

Posted November 24, 2008 12:25 PM by Fragano Ledgister

Well, duh. God will strike you down, if the killing was wrong.

Or the invisible hand of the market will do you in because everyone knows that a murderer can't be trusted, so you will be shunned and unable to earn your living.

(if it's anarchists instead of libertarians, there will be a community-wide meeting to discuss what should be done and it will go on until justice is done or you go off to plague some other community.)

Posted November 24, 2008 1:47 PM by Rosa

Or the invisible hand of the market will do you in because everyone knows that a murderer can't be trusted, so you will be shunned and unable to earn your living.

But in studying, they would have learned that man is mortal, so clearly there would be no reason to do business with anyone else.

Drink, anyone?

Posted November 24, 2008 3:25 PM by Joel Polowin

Dinosaur sodomy. Spork murders. What's wrong with you people?

Posted November 24, 2008 3:37 PM by Stefan Jones

jim,

Did you notice that Esek Esek is Kese Kese spelled backwards?

it's also hebrew for "business business."

Posted November 24, 2008 4:03 PM by mir