October 29, 2004

X(rlq) Marks The Spot

It's easier to respond to Xrlq's comments as a post. Plus it gives the illusion I'm being productive. Here's what he left in regards to this post.

"I still don't get your Fifth Amendment argument. There is no general "privilege against self testimony," if called to testify in court and asked what I had done on date X, time Y, I can't invoke my fifth Amendmend privilege just because the testimony is about me. I can only do so if such testimony would be self-incriminating."

Actually you could use the 5th amendment to prevent punishment for not talking about your activities. You couldn't use it to prevent talking about someone else, but anything that involves you directly (as in what you did, when you did it, etc...) is protected.

Look at it like this: You tell the judge you were at Starbucks at 10 a.m. Well turns out a man fitting your description robbed that Starbucks around 10 a.m. Even though you were unaware of it your statement could be used to incriminate you.

Plus if it could only be invoked when you knew you would be incriminated that'd be a de facto admission of guilt. Think the framers were that stupid? Or that devious? The 5th amendment would mean nothing if it only covered instances where you knew you were guilty.

"You misunderstand me on throwing one's vote away. I never said voting for the guy who doesn't win is throwing your vote away. I said voting for a guy who has no chance of winning is. If one candidate is clearly going to win, then you have no real "vote" anyway, and might as well "throw it away" by voting your conscience. But if exactly two individuals have a decent chance of winning, casting a vote for a third individual who doesn't is indeed throwing it away."

I didn't misunderstand: I followed his logic to its rational end. If the only votes that matters are for the likely winners, then it's not that far a stretch to conclude that the only votes that matter are for the winner alone. Everyone else might as well have just stayed home since their guy lost.

But voting isn't just about picking the winner - it can be used to sway the direction of the winning & losing parties. Not always, but sometimes. In this instance the repubs will look at how many votes went to the Libertarian & Constitution parties. If it's sizable they will try to swing those voters. Dtto with the dems the greens. Just because you don't vote for the winner or one of the two favorites doesn't mean your vote is wasted as it still can have some influence, albeit in the long run rather than the short.

See Xrlq thinks throwing it away is really throwing it away. He doesn't see the forest (long term effects on the party or parties) for the trees (who wins the election).

"As to the value of acting on principle, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think some principles are good, others not so good, while others still are downright awful. If someone does something productive, great. If they do something bad, the fact that they did so on principle doesn't do a f'n thing for me. Carrying without a permit 'on principle' is stupid. I wouldn't fault you for it if you lived in Illionois, New York or urban California, where permits are difficult or impossible to obtain. But not getting one in Colorado? Not cool. May issue and won't-issue violate the RKBA. Shall-issue doesn't. You are fortunate to live in a state with gun-friendly laws. It's not asking too much to comply with them."

Huh? How is shall issue not violative of a Right when no issue or may issue is?

& the statement "Carrying without a permit 'on principle' is stupid" speaks volumes about Xrlq.

Asking for permission & paying a fee in order to exercise a Right demeans that Right as if it were a mere privilege. To say it's lacking intelligence is a pretty freakin' unintelligent thing to say.

It is asking too much to comply with the law in this case. For starters I don't need your permission or the states permission to exercise a Right. Carrying concealed is no different than carrying openly. Second paying a fee for the exercise of a Right is generally frowned upon in case law. With guns it seems to be an exception but that's mainly because the government (of which the courts are a branch lest ye forget) tends to view itself as having dominion over us even where Rights are concerned. Finally I & a lot of other people don't have $100 for the class & $150 for the permit. Even if I did the first two would keep me from spending it that way, but being the pragamatic guy he is I think Xrlq can see that $250 every four years could be draining on the poorer people in this state.

"If Badnarik did in fact finally obtain his driver license and pay off his taxes, this is the first I've heard of it. Obviously, that would put things into a very different light. I'd still criticize him and anyone who votes for him, but I would no longer criticize him on the specific grounds of being a lawbreaker. [Though I reserve the right to refer to his past crimes to show something else, e.g., that he is an idiot.] On the other, it would also destroy your 'principle' argument, as it would show that in the end, Badnarik didn't stand for his 'principles' after all; he caved in to the Man."

I do wish I could find the link. It's interesting as it discussed some problems with the LP as an organization. I'll agree that their strategy has been less than encouraging. & yes it would kill that "principle" argument to a degree. Course if Xrlq criticizes him as being an idiot for his past crimes, then his ground to stand on whilst defending Bush would be less stable. I know a lot of people who view drunk driving & (alleged) cocain use as less than intellectual activities.

I doubt I'll sway Xrlq's mind, but hopefully he has a better understanding of our disagreements.

Posted by Publicola at October 29, 2004 06:08 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?