Damn You, Loyal Readers!
Steve asks in comments downblog:
Did you ever think you’d see the day when you’d have to ask a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarians if any state action was morally indefensible even if it was done in the name of national security?
Um, no? I didn’t?
Richard frigging Posner has flunked the test on this one
Sigh.
Comment by CMN —
December 23, 2005 @ 5:18 pm
I don’t know where you got the idea that Posner is a libertarian. He’s just a philosophical pragmatist whose penchant for economic analysis leads him to think economic liberty is more efficient most of the time. But he has no basic issue with state power being used aginst the individual. E.g., he thinks rent-seeking legislation is perfectly legitimate–indeed, the way pluralist democracy is supposed to work. If you want a real libertarian jurist, see Richard Epstein, who is highly critical of Posner. I actually think a more interesting case for your analysis would be Randy Barnett, who is undeniably (I would argue) a hardcore libertarian theorist, yet who supports the war in Iraq. I haven’t read anything by him on the surveillance topic, but would be very surprised if he were not seriously concerned about it.
Comment by Dr. Awkward —
December 26, 2005 @ 12:16 am
I knew something was wrong with Posner when he decided that the Second Amendment was ”dangerously anachronistic” and therefore should be (not) read in a ”modern” way.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:zfRXT2wKCvEJ:www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html+Posner+second+amendment+dangerously+anachronistic&hl=en&client=firefox-a
(scroll to middle of page)
Comment by Eric the .5b —
December 26, 2005 @ 10:02 pm
OK, I haven’t been following online political debates as much as normal the last week or so (including whatever twists and turns revealed Posner as a libertarian), but where are all these self-proclaimed libertarians who are happy with Bush’s spying, etc?