18 Jul 04
Originally posted by NicolaiSFair enough, and I apologize for my crude representation of his position as anarchistic. I have taken your advice and reviewed anarchist theory, mostly as it pertains to property. I think, at least in colloquial circles, anarachy and chaos are often equated, not that this justifies my incorrect usage.
If anarchism was pure and solely about screwing the law you would probably be right. But anarchism is a bit more then that...what you are really refering too is Chaos, not anarchism...don't get anarchism and chaos mixed up.
I think what touched me about his statements are his belief that a person can question any law AND then act is if the law didn't exist. In that way, he is behaving as if there were no law, or no government. He draws this line: if it doesn't hurt someone else, it should be legal.
The problem is, it is very hard to define what hurts someone else (e.g., the seatbelt law: a person's not buckling could cost a buckler money; the non-buckler is a large reason why buckler's insurance rates are through the roof). Sure, we can all agree that I shouldn't be allowed to punch you in the face, but what about indirectly forcing you to pay for my unnecessary medical bills? It's a philosophical argument.
Thomas Jefferson said that government is best that governs least, and Thomas Paine called the government in its best state a necessary evil. And I am inclined to agree, for ideally the government should be making laws which are determined by the people. Paine would no doubt be appalled by all of the pork-barrel legistlation. But would he have said, "Screw the law, I'm doing what I want?"
No, he would write a treatise on the subject, he would argue and compel people to understand what was unjust about Law X or Regulation Y. Was he persecuted? Yes. Was it fun? No. Was the US right to try to censor him? Absolutely not. His protest was legal, they sought to make it illegal (ironically against the very principles of freedom the country had just recently been built on).
Let's take a more modern example of Rosa Parks. She broke the law when she sat up front in the bus in a time when segregation was both the norm and the law. Was the law just? No. Should the law have been there? Of course not. Should she have had the right to sit there? Absolutely. Was it legal?
No. No, no it wasn't. This is the point. Despite believing it to be right or wrong, it was still illegal. When she got the fine, it was the correct (though not fair) course of action. Was the $14 fine just? She (and many others) didn't think so, so she fought it in court.
And this is the beautiful thing: That's what this country, in principle at least, is all about. That's the Freedom Paine was talking about. What she did was still illegal. But this country allowed her to challenge whether the law was just (or as we say Constituational).
Sometimes it takes an illegal act to challenge an unjust law, other times not. Bobby Fischer will be given his opportunity to challenge, as Rosa Parks did. And, I can assure you, Parks was not loved by Montgomery, Alabama any more than Fischer is by Americans.
Another example: someone mentioned marijuana use/sale in America. At present it is illegal. Just because a person doesn't like the law, doesn't mean it's legal. Is it a just law? Maybe, maybe not, but a person is still responsible for behaving within a law even if s/he doesn't like it. If a person doesn't like the law, join up with the various grass roots (no pun intended) organizations all over the country, form a lobby, support pro-cannabis candidates, give money to the relevant non-profits. Get the law changed, in your state or nationally.
But don't expect to tell the officer that "you don't believe in that law."
And, citing all of the examples of hypocrisy that have occurred (Paul Simon and indeed, even the US), doesn't make an action any less legal, though it stands to weaken a laws credibility. It certainly gives a person like Bobby Fischer grounds to challenge perhaps unjust application of a law, like people often do with capital punishment. Or perhaps Paul Simon's situation was markedly different (I don't know about this) and is not analogous to Fischer's. We shall see.
So, I maintain that Fischer should have been arrested and should be tried. If you do something illegal, even if it is just, you are subject to the law. As I mentioned, the law in this country affords you the right to challenge something's legality in the context of being tried; it is the purpose of the appeals system. Bobby Fischer will be afforded this opportunity.
Do I think that his actions were just? I will wait to see his defense. As I understand Executive Order 12810 (and its relative 12808) and the situation in Yugoslavia at the time, I certainly lean towards conviction. However, it is not cut and dried, that's for sure.
Just for the record. Because of my comments, I may appear to be in favor of sanctions inherently; generally I do not. Ultimately, I believe that it ends up harming the country, making them more desparate. It's often political coersion. In this case, I certainly can see the arguments for the justness of this sanction, but that having been said, I don't know a great deal about it. It certainly seems more credible than looking for the magical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, at least.
18 Jul 04
Originally posted by shavixmirRe: 1) I am not disputing that in our time, as in Paine's time, the country at times has been explicitly and blatantly defiant of the very principles upon which it was founded. I never said that.
1) Can you be openly supportive of communism in your country?
2) Can you drive a car without a seatbelt in your country?
3) Can a woman walk around topless in your country?
2) Freedom can both mean freedom to do something and freedom from something. I believe the argument about seatbelts (and I am not saying whether or not I am for it or against it) is that since you are far more likely to be injured in an accident without one, those who choose not to wear one impose higher insurance rates for those who do. That is, when companies have to insure the handful of irresponsible people who turn simple accidents into life or death situations, the majority who do actually wear seatbelts have to endure the expense. It's not so much whether or not another person dies because they don't buckle up, but whether or not those who do have to pick up the tab. Figures bandied about seem to suggest that an increase from 62% to 85% would decrease the expense by 6.6 billion dollars and to 90% by 8.8 billion.
3) This is a matter of culture. Some places view breasts as primarily sexual, others as maternal. Certainly you wouldn't advocate walking around naked as an inherent right? Well, most people in the US (I suppose most, since it is still a law) must feel that women being topless is overtly sexual. I would not deign to judge another person's culture (in either direction, that those who walk around topless are barbarians, or some such thing).
Absolute freedom is not plausible, because some people's understanding of freedom to do something may conflict with someone else's freedom protecting them from something.
18 Jul 04
Originally posted by claretnblueI didn't know David Bowie plays chess, or that's he's here on RHP...
No it wasn't Fischer who brutally whipped Nigel Short, it was myself.
I am the mystery ghost surfer -
I died, a long long time ago
I laughed and shook his hand, and made my way back home
I searched for form and land, for years and years I roamed
I gazed a gazely stare at all the millions here
We must have died along, a long long time ago
Who knows? not me
We never lost control
You're face to face
With the Man who Sold the World
18 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by thargFirstly, if he's extradited (it's not at all clear that he will be), it will be by Japan, to the US. Also, he was arrested by the Japanese for traveling with an invalid American passport, not for playing chess in Yugoslavia.
So to summarise: Fischer broke UN sanctions and gets arrested in Japan.
He'll be extradited by the US government, who also broke (different) UN sanctions.
?
Second, what "UN sanctions" are you referring to? I'm curious.
Anyway, Fischer was not indicted for violating UN sanctions, but for violating an embargo that the US was participating in. In doing so, he broke his country's law.
And he did so quite knowingly. Here's a description of the press conference Fischer gave when he arrived in Yugoslavia:
This was made painfully evident when Fischer kicked off the pre-match festivities in Yugoslavia with a press conference on September 1. After the usual battery of chess-related questions a journalist finally asked the question that was on everybody's mind: "Are you worried by U.S. government threats over your defiance of sanctions?" Fischer calmly reached into a briefcase, pulled out the Treasury Department letter, held it up, and said, "Here is my reply to their order not to defend my title here." He then spat on the paper.
Fischer was indicted immediately after the match. Notice that this indictment (and the arrest warrant that followed) pre-dated Fischer's anti-American diatribes.. Fischer was indicted for violating (with great fanfare) an embargo put in place by his government. That's all there is to it.
The idea, offered by some, that this is some sort of election year publicity ploy seems pretty bizarre. Why would the arrest of a deranged ex-chess champion have any effect on the election?
18 Jul 04
Originally posted by no1marauderYour statement that Fischer was indicted for going to a "bad place" is inaccurate. He he was indicted for participating in a very public and lucrative competition in that place. If he'd wanted to go and hang out in Yugoslavia, play chess in the park or whatever, no one would have batted an eye. But what he did do was a violation of the embargo.
As to "screw the law" I was talking about the specific laws making it a crime to go to certain other countries, not law in general. And I still think it completely absurd to prosecute someone who has left the country for good for the crime of leaving the country and going to a "bad" place!!!!
[/b]
Now, if you don't agree with the notion of an embargo, that's fine. I'm not too big on them myself. Some people aren't big on the income tax, but they are still required to pay it. Is this tyranny also? Should I be allowed to not pay my income tax because I think the income tax is unjust? (Fischer also announced in his press conference in Yugoslavia that he hadn't paid his taxes since 1976-- I guess the government let that one slide)
18 Jul 04
I give up on you people. You want Big Daddy to tell you what to do, when to do it, where you can go and on and on, fine. Seatbelt laws, drug laws, etc. are all crap to me as well. "Well your activity might have some effect on something down the road, so we should be able to make you a criminal for doing something we don't like that does no direct harm to others." That's your idea of freedom; to me that's making the whole country into one big prison where our masters make sure we don't do anything "bad" for us!!
Is there any law the government could pass that you automations would consider unjust enough to say it should be disobeyed? If you had been in Nazi Germany would you have reported your neighbors if they were hiding Jews so they weren't sent to an extermination camp? After all, it was the sacred, infallible law!!!
The Fish went to another country, played chess (FOR MONEY, how shocking!), vowed never to return to this country and now faces 10 years in jail for doing so. If you can't see the fundamental injustice of that, then you just don't understand the natural rights philosophy that is the basis of this country. Read some John Locke, maybe you'll be able to puzzle it out. But if you're uncomfortable with actually having freedom cuz you might shoot your eye out, keep being good little boys and girls and maybe the Department of Homeland Security will put a nice shiny nickel under your pillow!! Wouldn't that be swell!!
18 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHow many ridiculous arguments? I count at least four. Oh, wait a minute, I was reading your post.
How many ridiculous arguments are you going to trot out? .... what I'm saying is the government had no right to pass such a law! .... This country was formed to protect our basic rights and the right to travel from your country ...[text shortened]... hey should have declared war!..... Screw the law! Free the Fish!
Lemmesee...
1) The US government certainly did have a right to pass a law restricting economic activity of its citizens dealing with a particular foreign country. It happens all the time in this world. It is quite an effective tool of foreign policy. Not all situations call for going to war -- sometimes tough diplomacy is all that is needed. If I remember correctly, Serbian (Orthodox) aggression against the Croatian (Catholic) and Bosnian (Muslim) factions within former Yugoslavia had gotten particularly nasty. There are multiple cases of genocide documented between the parties involved. The population of some towns were completely eradicated to make room for other ethnic groups. The US wanted to go in and stop this. But. They felt the Europeans should lead the way on this, because it is a European country where this was happening. The funny thing is that the Europeans were all waiting for the Americans to lead the way. (Seems to be part of a pattern). So America went in, with the help of several European countries, and eventually managed to stop the killing. So the sanctions were all part of a much larger picture. And into it all walks Bobby, saying "I don't care, I am going over there to make money. You can't stop me." And he's been on the run ever since. He brought it on himself -- he was fully aware of his actions and the consequences. "Boo-frickity-hoo, Mister Fischer."
2) You say that "the right to travel from your country is a fundamental human right to be abridged only in dire circumstances." In a perfect world, I would agree. However, in our imperfect world, there are some destinations that should definitely be off limits. The Soviet Union during the Cold War immediately comes to mind -- the entire Warsaw Pact for that matter. And now that US foreign policy goals have been met (i.e., the Warsaw Pact is defunct) free travel to these nations is the norm. Yugoslavia was not part of the Warsaw Pact, but it suffered under Tito's communist regime. When civil war broke out there, it was only natural for US foreign policy to dictate economic sanctions. They are effective. No human rights are denied in this process.
Point number 3: you say we should have declared war if we had a problem. I assume you are joking. You claim to be so supportive of human rights, and yet you would declare war in situations that clearly dictate much softer measures. Yours is not a rational point of view -- it is a dangerous one.
Point #4: "Screw the law! Free the Fish!" My first instinct was to call you an anarchist, as someone else already has. But in fairness to the true anarchists of the world, I cannot do so. Even anarchists can form a coherent and compelling argument.
18 Jul 04
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is a common observation in this day and age, that when somebody has run out of convincing arguments, they predictably resort to comparisons with Nazis.
If you had been in Nazi Germany would you have reported your neighbors if they were hiding Jews so they weren't sent to an extermination camp? After all, it was the sacred, infallible law!!!
18 Jul 04
Originally posted by jgvaccaroThe difference here, of course, is that the Constitution was amended to allow for income tax. Essentially, it is an abridgment of individual rights, so the amendment was needed or it would not have been legal.
Some people aren't big on the income tax, but they are still required to pay it. Is this tyranny also? Should I be allowed to not pay my income tax because I think the income tax is unjust?
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
I agree, I think the whole idea of an income tax stinks. I think this amendment needs to go. I can earn income, pay taxes on the money, invest what's left, pay taxes on the profit, employ somebody, pay them, and pay taxes on what I pay them, and they get to pay taxes too. I would much prefer a pay-as-you-go consumption tax. If you earn a million dollars and want to stuff it in a mattress and live on cat food, then you should only have to pay taxes on the cat food. 😉
18 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by GoRedSoxIt is a common response when you don't have an answer to an argument, to avoid the point altogether. Since the law is so sacred and infallible, would you have turned people in for hiding people so they wouldn't be sent to extermination camps, thereby disobeying the law? Even a RedSox fan should be able to answer the question!
It is a common observation in this day and age, that when somebody has run out of convincing arguments, they predictably resort to comparisons with Nazis.
Has for your other arguments:
1) Governments don't have rights; people have rights. Governments have powers delegated to them by the people to protect people's rights. Your long recital of a history I'm perfectly aware of doesn't change that basic fact. The civil war in Yugoslavia was none of the US government's concern; you would think some happy day Big Daddy would get sick of meddling in everybody, everywhere's business and just be happy telling people like you which one of their fundamental rights they have to give up for the "greater good" today.
It is of course somewhat ironic that the side we decided to back in that civil war was assisted by the same people who later flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, but hey Big Daddy couldn't have been wrong!
2) The right to travel is a fundamental right that was specifically included in the Articles of Confederation (maybe you never heard of them). The fact that the US government has a long and sorry history of abridging that right does not prove that the right doesn't exist; it merely proves that Big Daddy will take away your rights if good little boys and girls like you let them!
3) My "declaring war" comment was half in jest. I personally don't think we had any business interfering in the internal affairs of Yugoslavia so, of course, I wouldn't have supported war with Yugoslavia in 1992 as I didn't support it in 1998. My point was that travel bans are a direct infringment of our basic rights in order for Big Daddy to meddle with things they have no legitimate interest in; and travel bans and war are just different points on the same illegitmate continum.
4) If everybody who believes that their basic freedoms should be interfered with only when there is a dire circumstance is an anarchist, count me in! I'm in good company: Madison, Jefferson, Locke, Paine and all those guys who scribbled their names on the Declaration of Independence!!
Screw the Law! Free the Fish!
18 Jul 04
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are correct, governments do not have rights; rather, they have powers. I used the wrong word. That notwithstanding, governments are perfectly justified in their use of the power of imposing economic sanctions. Governments would be truly powerless (and ineffective) if they were incapable of dealing with the rest of the world.
It is a common response when you don't have an answer to an argument, to avoid the point altogether. Since the law is so sacred and infallible, would you have turned people in for hiding people so they wouldn't be sent to extermination camps, thereby disobeying the law? Even a RedSox fan should be able to answer the question!
Has f ...[text shortened]... later flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, but hey Big Daddy couldn't have been wrong!
Individuals have the right to form collective entities to act in their general interest. That is the nature of government. It is obviously impossible for every decision made by the group to be pleasing to every individual.
The US is founded upon the rule of law. Consistent and continuous application of the rule of law has allowed for over two centuries of existence under one constitution. Not a bad feat.
I will not get drawn into your "red herring" regarding Nazi Germany. Suffice it to say that when my government asks me to commit a crime against humanity, I will then let you know which way I choose. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. They haven't asked me yet, and I doubt they ever will. I am extremely fortunate to have been born a citizen of the greatest country on the planet. I am even more fortunate to be aware of that.
18 Jul 04
Originally posted by nemesioHere's a little history lesson for you, nemesio, free of charge. According to the introduction of TP's Rights of Man (good book, you should have someone read it to you) Paine was living in England when he wrote Rights of Man, which was a defense of the French Revolution and exposition against monarchy and even explained the Framer's Natural Rights philosophy. Here's what the intro says:
Unlike you, Thomas Paine did not advocate "screw the law."
" Not suprisingly, the response of the English government to the flames of revolution abroard and the threat of political upheaval at home was political repression. Paine himself was quickly indicted for seditious libel and fled to France one step ahead of the law."
So let me see if I got this right: Tom Paine left a country under indictment and he was never extradited back! What a terrible affront to the law! Maybe he didn't say it, but I think he did practice the concept of "screw the law" of seditious libel in England!!!
Now explain to me how what the Fish did was any different than what TP did; fleeing a country that wanted to imprison him under an unjust law abridging our basic rights.Maybe you should be a little more careful on who you quote when you are trying to justify someone going to prison for exercising their basic human rights!!
As Tom Paine would say if he were alive today, "Screw the Law! Free the Fish!"
18 Jul 04
1 edit
No1marauder-
As far as your argument about civil disobedience goes, of course the law is not and should not be the only thing that guides our actions. You could find many examples from American history to demonstrate this-- the Fugitive Slave Law, for example. Civil disobedience is a long and honorable tradition.
But come on. Do you really think that Fischer broke the embargo because he thought it was unjust? Or did he break it because he thought he was bigger and more important than the law and the law didn't apply to him? Did he break it because it was interfering with his publicity and his paycheck? Was this really an act of noble civil disobedience? I don't think so.
To ask again, if I think the income tax is wrong, am I allowed, by your lights, to not pay it? If I hold a press conference and announce that I'm not paying my taxes, and I spit on my w-2 forms, is the IRS wrong to come after me?