Jared Loughner’s Victims Were Victims of Political Privilege

Jared Loughner’s victims were victims of privilege extended by monopoly government. In a free society, competition in the provision of law and security would have resulted in action against his known issuance of death threats, details of which are now emerging.

“When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Jared Loughner’s Victims Were Victims of Political Privilege

  1. “In a free society, competition in the provision of law and security would have resulted in action against [Loughner’s] known issuance of death threats, details of which are now emerging.” Glenn Greenwald wrote a trenchant analysis of what Mr. Spangler appears to be implying behind the guise of a free market corrective: “The Reflexive Call for Fewer Liberties” at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index….

    Like

  2. We should be concerned that in the wake of the massacre the usual voices are calling for a beefed-up mental-health system, which means it would be easier for government to lock people up in "facilities" and drug them against their will for being "weird" though they've committed no crimes. Thomas Szasz has made the libertarian case against such detention for 50 years. It's time we paid heed.
    My recent post The Austrians and the Classicals

    Like

  3. Do you have any proof that this what his deputies said to the victims? I find this article to be somewhat unreliable. If in fact that is what was said (again now to be taken as hear say) how insensitive and not comforting to the victims and their families. I do not agree with others comments as the public does not know anything about his mental state. Victims and their family as well as Loughner's family are griefing also.

    Like

  4. I think this approach is exactly backward. You make stateless advocates look crazy when you say all but "she had it coming." If we want a "talking point" then we have to say exactly what Loughner got wrong, and what we can learn from it. I write about his improper epistemology here. If you really want to offer a proper diagnoses, then start at his criterion for knowledge (one that he shares with both Rand and Marx, conventional righties and conventional lefties). If you really want to offer a prescription for change, then suggest that we view externalists and internalists as nuts — no matter what they think about government. Not only is this true, but you'll advance critical thinking and that will more likely bring about statelessness than direct appeals for statelessness. The latter ends up with arguments like "she had it coming." Less Charles Johnson please.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s