Aaron Swartz Commits Suicide at 26

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be under the impression that a crime is anything the government says it is. In other words, if the government says eating cantaloupe is a crime, and I eat cantaloupe anyway, that means I've committed a crime.

You are conflating moral behavior with crime. A crime is what legislators of a particular country say it is, no matter if they are elected, appointed or take that mantle by force.

Moral behavior can be and often is a different animal than a crime. I think original intent was for the two to be the same.

LOL, "limited government". There's no such thing and there never has been.

Perhaps. But government is nothing more than a collection of individuals. It is something we humans have created. As such, we can change the definitions of its existence, if we have the will. Just like the founders of our country did.

Government represents a monopoly on force. If a group of people have control of that monopoly while another group of people doesn't, who's going to limit the former group from using their monopoly to exploit the latter group? You think they are going to limit themselves? Of course not. It's fantasy.

Agreed. You describe the fundamental danger of government. Our forefathers tried to limit its powers. And by in large did a decent job. And where they could not limit powers, they separated the powers.

They also gave us codified rights.

All that said, they recognized that people in government have a tendency to want to do nothing more than grow the size, scope and power of the government. In fact, they almost recognized it was inevitable that would happen..

"What kind of government have you given us?"

was asked to Ben Franklin. To which he replied;


"A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it."

You "limited government' people are frustrated because you've been living a delusion and can't figure out why the delusion doesn't produce the desired real-life results.

I find it funny I am being lectured on "delusion" by a guy that for all intents and purposes is a real life conspiracy theorists.

What are you saying here? That as long as stupid, tyrannical laws are enforced uniformly and consistently across society that you don't have as much of a problem with it? To focus on selective enforcement of stupid laws instead of the imposition of the stupid laws themselves is to miss the whole point, man.

So what am I wrong about, exactly?

When there are a lot of stupid laws on the books, then government officials seem to be wont to pick and choose which ones they will enforce and which ones they will not enforce.

In a very, very limited sense, that *might* work as long as EVERYONE agrees which laws are stupid and which ones are not. All citizens and especially all law enforcement. And then everyone acts accordingly.

However, if you are a guy that has a stupid law enforced against you and the next guys does not, perhaps because he is connected, then that is tyranny.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Right.

And did you happen to notice that you invented out of whole cloth and interjected: "If you don't like me expressing my views . . . ."

Only after you invented out of whole cloth and interjected:

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Don't like laws, try another country where a man can be truly free. And be sure to write when you find work.

Stupid suggestions will receive stupid responses.

Which I had said nothing about (you expressing views).

Sure you did, you suggested that I leave the country, based on the viewpoint expressed in my post.

Are you really incapable of following this exchange?

But do carry on, and do write some more about the alternate reality. People on this side would love to hear more.

LOL, "alternate reality".

The irony!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

You are conflating moral behavior with crime. A crime is what legislators of a particular country say it is, no matter if they are elected, appointed or take that mantle by force.

So you think legislators and bureaucrats dictate reality? That they can declare anything they want a crime and it automatically becomes true?

Can they also dictate that the color blue is actually green?

Moral behavior can be and often is a different animal than a crime. I think original intent was for the two to be the same.

It doesn't matter what the original intent was. If the government says that eating cantaloupe is a crime, it doesn't automatically become true. They can punish you for it, but you haven't really committed a crime, as there would be no victim and no harm done to any other party.

We don't all become criminals just because a bunch of legislators and bureaucrats say so.

Perhaps. But government is nothing more than a collection of individuals. It is something we humans have created. As such, we can change the definitions of its existence, if we have the will. Just like the founders of our country did.

Replace the word 'government' with the word 'Mafia' and read your response again.

You can't really change the "definitions of its existence". You can replace it and tweak it a bit, but it's still just a mechanism by which one group of people dominate and exploit another group of people.

Agreed. You describe the fundamental danger of government. Our forefathers tried to limit its powers. And by in large did a decent job. And where they could not limit powers, they separated the powers.

How are you able to so easily ignore reality? How can you call the behemoth we have in Washington a "decent job"? Look at it. Be honest with yourself. We're up against a nightmare, and it didn't just spring into being. The Constitution was written in such a way that this outcome was inevitable. I don't care if the Founders were hoping for a better outcome than this. This is what they created.

They also gave us codified rights.

Correction: Governments don't give rights, codified or not.

All that said, they recognized that people in government have a tendency to want to do nothing more than grow the size, scope and power of the government. In fact, they almost recognized it was inevitable that would happen..

"What kind of government have you given us?"

was asked to Ben Franklin. To which he replied;

"A Republic Ma'am, if you can keep it."

Right, they knew what would happen. They knew they were creating a monster. But what did they care? Most of the Founders were quite wealthy and owned much land. They knew they would be dead before the whole scam unraveled.

I find it funny I am being lectured on "delusion" by a guy that for all intents and purposes is a real life conspiracy theorists.

Of course, there's no such thing as government conspiracy. The government always tells us the truth. According to you, government also dictates reality.

Yes, the word 'delusion' is apt here.

When there are a lot of stupid laws on the books, then government officials seem to be wont to pick and choose which ones they will enforce and which ones they will not enforce.

In a very, very limited sense, that *might* work as long as EVERYONE agrees which laws are stupid and which ones are not. All citizens and especially all law enforcement. And then everyone acts accordingly.

However, if you are a guy that has a stupid law enforced against you and the next guys does not, perhaps because he is connected, then that is tyranny.

You're still somehow missing the point.

We have two problems here:

1. The unjust imposition of ubiquitous stupid, tyrannical laws.
2. Selective enforcement of ubiquitous stupid, tyrannical laws.

Why are you focused on the second problem and not the first? After all, even if you manage to solve the second problem, you still have the first to contend with.

You're essentially chasing a shadow.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Only after you invented out of whole cloth and interjected:

Stupid suggestions will receive stupid responses.

Sure you did, you suggested that I leave the country, based on the viewpoint expressed in my post.

Are you really incapable of following this exchange?

LOL, "alternate reality".

The irony!

I had no intention to - and really did not suggest earlier - that you physically leave the country, and certainly not based on your viewpoint about anything.

That took some creative construction on your part, which was based on your predisposition to take offense with anyone who disagrees with your view . . . obviously.

Thus, what I said was really just a figure of speech commonly used in an message-board academic discussion, i.e., to "try another country;" but your fertile imagination was able to ferret out a literal meaning to something that was neither there, nor intended.

But I am now.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Damn, discussing something with chart is like trying to capture smoke.

I step back from our discussion chart. Certainly not because I think you are are right, but that your underlying premises seems to shift and change too much.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

But I am now.

Good. Maybe next time you'll think twice before tossing out the intellectually lazy equivalent of, "if you don't like it leave".

But considering the source, I won't get my hopes up.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I step back from our discussion chart. Certainly not because I think you are are right, but that your underlying premises seems to shift and change too much.

Very well, but let's not kid each other about what took place in this thread.

The old Grid wouldn't have waved the white flag as quickly as you did here.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Good. Maybe next time you'll think twice before tossing out the intellectually lazy equivalent of, "if you don't like it leave".

But considering the source, I won't get my hopes up.

Maybe next time, you can keep your paranoia in check.

But I won't count on that, either.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Maybe next time, you can keep your paranoia in check.

But I won't count on that, either.

LOL, says the guy who's paranoid over another guy's alleged paranoia.

Time to take a chill pill, or twenty, and relax. It's just the internet, man.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Back to the topic at hand, I thought this blog bit was a pretty interesting take on the apparent Aaron Swartz suicide:

PACER and JSTOR are offensive. US court decisions are public domain decisions, but PACER charges for electronic access. Academic research is paid with taxpayer money, but JSTOR charges for access. JSTOR even charges for access to old public domain research, where the copyright has expired. These are examples of a State-granted monopoly, charging for access to information that should be free. Aaron Swartz was offended, and wanted to liberate the documents. With everyone having computers and the Internet, court documents and tax-funded research should be freely available to everyone.

The US Attorney was being unreasonable during plea bargain negotiations, insisting on a guilty plea on all counts and prison time. It was a politically-motivated prosecution, so the US Attorney had to make an example of Aaron Swartz. Aaron Swartz refused to settle, insisting he had done nothing wrong.

It is a farce that the US Attorney took a hard line prosecution with Aaron Swartz, but banksters who stole trillions of dollars were not prosecuted. Why prosecute insiders who will put up a fight, when you can go after someone defenseless?

As part of his “bail” arrangement, Aaron Swartz was not allowed to tell his side of the story on the Internet. He was not allowed to ask for donations to support his legal case. That’s an amusing legal trick. If you are charged with a politically-motivated prosecution, you are barred from publicly discussing your side of the case, while the US Attorney and State media issue press releases announcing your guilt.

http://www.realfreemarket.org/blog/2...s-he-murdered/

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

LOL, says the guy who's paranoid over another guy's alleged paranoia.

Time to take a chill pill, or twenty, and relax. It's just the internet, man.

Nerve. Was. Struck.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Nerve. Was. Struck.

OK. You can have the last word. There it was. It's all yours.

Moving on now...

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

OK. You can have the last word. There it was. It's all yours.

Moving on now...

Overseas ?

Word. Finis.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

More from Althouse;

Swartz "was deeply committed to civil disobedience and to the moral imperative of breaking unjust laws."
"On the other hand, he seems to have had his soul crushed by the prospect that he would spend time in jail. This is an unusual combination. Usually the decision to engage in civil disobedience comes along with a willingness to take the punishment that the law imposes. But despite Swartz’s apparent interest in legal questions, he seems to have made his decision with a blind spot to the penalties that would actually follow. It’s a strange situation: Swartz was really interested in the law, and he knew he was violating the law. He knew a lot of lawyers who would have told him that this would likely happen if he went ahead with his plan. But there was some apparent blind spot that led him to act anyway."

Seems like the guy was immature in the ways of the world.