Barr/Saddleback lawsuit fails

According to the LA TimesTop of the Ticket blog, the judge deciding on the Barr campaign’s last-minute lawsuit against Saddleback Church’s two-party forum was deliberating until at least 8 PM Friday night. According to an update recently posted, the judge has declined the campaign’s request for an injunction, and the event will proceed as planned.

47 thoughts on “Barr/Saddleback lawsuit fails

  1. sunshinebatman

    They would have been better off suing defense contractor GE which distributed the event.

    Rick Warren is a scary Illuminati mind control agent.

  2. darren

    The lawsuit actually got press, though.

    Let’s hope the Oklahoma, WV, and Mass. lawsuits resolve more favorably.

  3. sunshinebatman

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53688

    This article is about how Rick Warren is CFR.

    Council on Foreign Relations is a spinoff of the ROYAL INstitute of International Affairs. “Royal” as in the foreign sovereign British monarchy. Every member of the CFR, including Rick Warren and the Obamas, needs to be thrown in prison as an unregistered foreign agent.

    Hope this helps.

  4. G.E.

    Rick Warren is a POS but he’s not as bad as Bob Barr.

    Even CFR members have property rights that CIA members cannot rightfully violate.

    Good for Rick Warren for striking down Barr’s attempt at gross statist thuggery!

  5. G.E.

    The lawsuit actually got press, though.

    Yeah. He’s been mocked and ridiculed and even schooled by statist media organs on how unlibertarian this action was.

  6. G.E.

    I’d like to hear Ron Paul come out and say that Rick Warren and the Obamas should be thrown in jail.

    Libertarians don’t believe in the concept of imprisonment, of course. If anything, Rick Warren should be made to compensate his victims — but of course, there are none.

    What sunshinebatman says here is that if someone is a member of an unpopular organization, not only are their property rights null and void, but they should be confined by the government.

    No wonder he supports a CIA man.

    Oh, and you cite PrisonPlanet… What does Alex Jones think of your CIA agent candidate?

    Rick Warren may be despicable, but he still has property rights.

    I love how you say someone is “anti-American” if they support General Electric — as if America is GOOD and the evil G.E., a diversified corporation about as big as many large states, is bad. Well, America is neither fully good nor fully bad, and neither is GE. But the latter’s evil is only made possible by the evil of the former.

    I’d rather be anti-American and pro-GE than the other way around… Or pro-CIA and anti-property rights like you.

  7. langa

    “Libertarians don’t believe in the concept of imprisonment, of course.”

    There’s nothing inherently unlibertarian about imprisonment. I agree that compensation is preferable, but if the criminal is unable or unwilling to compensate his victim(s), then imprisonment may be the only reasonable alternative.

    Some libertarians, like Stephan Kinsella, apparently believe in the death penalty as well, although I disagree (since the death penalty makes it impossible to provide compensation in the event that later evidence proves a case of wrongful conviction).

    Of course, I’m talking about private punishment. State punishment can never truly be justified, since the accused never consented to be judged by the laws of the state. Thus, the very act of apprehending and trying the suspect is morally dubious, at best, from a pure libertarian standpoint.

  8. mscrib

    “Of course, I’m talking about private punishment. State punishment can never truly be justified, since the accused never consented to be judged by the laws of the state. Thus, the very act of apprehending and trying the suspect is morally dubious, at best, from a pure libertarian standpoint.”

    I don’t think there is anything “morally dubious” about it, unless you’re an anarchist. Even if it couldn’t “truly be justified,” how do you expect such a private punishment system to operate? I don’t think David Friedman or anyone else really ever adequately addressed the problems that would naturally be associated with major, say, U.S.-sized, markets for policing and courts.

  9. langa

    “…unless you’re an anarchist.”

    Guilty as charged.

    “how do you expect such a private punishment system to operate?”

    Trying to guess the exact nature of the innovations produced by the market is an exercise in futility, but here goes:

    I would expect free market legal systems to look much like the statist legal systems we have today, with the major difference being that there would be more than one operating in the same geographical area, with each one offering a different legal code. I don’t know exactly how many there would be, or how significant that the differences between them would be. That would, of course, be determined by the forces of supply and demand.

    “I don’t think David Friedman or anyone else really ever adequately addressed the problems that would naturally be associated with major, say, U.S.-sized, markets for policing and courts.”

    Since you don’t specify what problems you’re talking about, it’s hard to respond. But as far as the size of the market, it’s possible that different legal systems would operate on different scales, much like federal, state, and local governments do now. Again, the big difference would be that there would be competition at each of these levels.

    Of course, this is all guessing on my part. As I said, it’s virtually impossible to guess far in advance what the market will produce. On the other hand, with the state, you know exactly what you’re gonna get — more of the same old same old, like it or not.

  10. Trent Hill

    “Libertarians don’t believe in the concept of imprisonment, of course. If anything, Rick Warren should be made to compensate his victims — but of course, there are none.”

    Ummm…..what?

    Don’t believe in the concept of imprisonment? I see how compensation is a better punishment for some crimes–hell, a lot of crimes. But what about Murder, GE? Say Richard Moneybags goes out and kills 15 people. The Judge (assuming we still have public-domanin judges, because in a private system he would simply pay the judge off) determines he owes 4 milion per death. So he pays the 60 millions and then goes on another killing spree…hell,why not?

    How does this stop the initiative of force GE?

  11. Trent Hill

    As for private court systems and private defense,that is all well and good–as long as it isnt exclusively private. In an exclusively-private system, money will almost always win. A millionaire can kill and rape and pillage all he wants because the consequences are just money…

  12. G.E.

    Trent – The notion that private judges would be more susceptible to corruption than public ones is laughable in its naive reverence for the state and its institutions. Did FDR save capitalism, too, Trent? How the hell can you think that private judges would be more corrupt, when every type of PUBLIC official is more corrupt than their private counterpart?

    Moving forward, your scenario assumes someone with $60 million would choose to spend his money that way. That, of course, is an absurd assumption. But let’s just imagine your ridiculous scenario — meant to justify statism, elitism and aggression — played out and the insane millionaire (because we know all rich people are evil!) decided to kill again. Let him try. What is he, super human in addition to being insane? A free society would be an armed society. Even under this ridiculous and unrealistic scenario, that’s still preferable to the status quo in which we arm sociopaths and give them badges.

    So yes… We MUST have the state to ensure that psychopathic/superhuman millionaires don’t go on killing sprees. Sacrificing liberty to prevent this is a small price to pay!

  13. G.E.

    langa – Of course private imprisonment is justified when an aggressor refuses to compensate his victims. I think private capital punishment is also justified in the case of psychopaths in the example above (although I didn’t want to give in to Trent).

  14. G.E.

    Point being: No libertarian would say that Rick Warren and the Obamas should be “thrown in jail” for being members of a group that he doesn’t like. What has the CFR done that the Republicans and Democrats haven’t? Or the U.S. military? Why don’t we throw all Democrats and Republicans and military personnel in jail, too?

  15. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Regardless of how much you pay a judge in a public system,there is always a check on it. That man still COULD goto jail.

    Under a private system,assume you’ve paid the judge 10 million. His crime is found out by his superior in the Corporate-structure and they try him under another Judge. At the end of it, they say, “ohk,you owe 6 million in compensation”. Big deal,since the Judge had this built into his pay-off (or possibly, didnt, but had a clause reserved for “If I get caught,etc etc”) it isnt going to effect him–ESPECIALLY since we know he isnt going to jail under your perfect libertarian system.

  16. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Furthermore, the Millionaire need not be a superhuman or a sociopath (well,anymore than most men need to be sociopaths to kill people). There are plenty of twisted and evil people,regardless of their status of wealth. However, this man has money. Paying for superior weaponry, armaments, and other assets would not be much of a problem for him.
    Of course, it also doesnt have to be a RICH man. It can be the mafia too.

    Also–what about people who have no family? Say our killer isnt a millionaire, or even a wealthy man. Assume he is from the hood and kills a homeless man–because he’s bored, crazy, or wants the homeless man’s coat. What happens? With only private police and a private court system–what will happen to the killer of this homeless man?

  17. G.E.

    what about people who have no family? Say our killer isnt a millionaire, or even a wealthy man. Assume he is from the hood and kills a homeless man–because he’s bored, crazy, or wants the homeless man’s coat. What happens? With only private police and a private court system–what will happen to the killer of this homeless man?

    That’s a good question for which I don’t have an answer. But again, let’s just say this type of thing can happen without “proper” consequences: Is that justification for the state and all its aggression? NO!

  18. darolew

    The lackluster answers the purist libertarians provide when it comes to crime, law, and punishment are one of the reasons I don’t subscribe to anarcho-capitalism.

    And that’s all I have to say on that.

  19. Trent Hill

    ” Is that justification for the state and all its aggression? NO!”

    Absolutely not. Is my scenario a good reason to doubt this system can work? Yes.

    Now–assuming this system would probably fail, in multiple instances, to protect liberty and freedom, we are now simply argueiing about degrees and levels. Under anarcho-capitalism, you are going to lose some liberty. If someone can kill me and suffer no consequences, I call this as a travesty of justice,and it means that our freedoms under that system are not “unabridged”. Similarly, under a minarchist system, we KNOW that our liberty will be bridged in some cases.

    For the record, I think private defense is great,as is privatization of roadways. Hell,the Jersey Turnpike was once a private roadway–but Police and Courts get somewhat murkier because of the ethical considerations. Will they be more economically efficient? Definetly.

  20. G.E.

    Someone can kill you now — particularly if you’re a homeless bum — and suffer no consequences — particularly if they’re rich. Worse yet, under statism, many rich people get rich via unethical means and are therefore more likely to be criminal aggressors, and many homeless bums are victims of the state. So in a free society, the rich would get that way from voluntary exchange, and homeless bums would be people who wanted to be that way (their right). A voluntary homeless bum with no family would be making a calculated risk that his life would be in moderately greater danger — just as today, people who engage in certain voluntary activities make that same calculated risk.

    DEFEATED!

  21. G.E.

    Also, in a free society, homeless bums would either be trespassers (since there would be no public property) and therefore criminals, or they would be under the care of a private property owner who would provide much better protection for them than the state does.

  22. langa

    “Also–what about people who have no family? Say our killer isnt a millionaire, or even a wealthy man. Assume he is from the hood and kills a homeless man–because he’s bored, crazy, or wants the homeless man’s coat. What happens? With only private police and a private court system–what will happen to the killer of this homeless man?”

    What happens to him under the statist legal system? You really think that a millionaire would have a hard time killing a homeless man and getting away with it? In fact, it doesn’t even have to be that extreme of a disparity in wealth. Ever hear of O.J. Simpson?

  23. langa

    Also, the providers of private law would have a tremendous financial incentive to prevent (or at least minimize) gross miscarriages of justice. In the present system, what incentives do they have?

  24. langa

    Finally, it would be hard to bribe professional judges than it currently is to bribe amateur juries, for the same reason that you see more examples of point shaving and corruption in amateur sports than you do in pro sports.

    Bottom line: there’s always going to be corruption. The market, however, provides incentives that discourage it, while the state provides incentives that encourage it.

  25. G.E.

    Okay, I have an answer for Trent: Someone with no family could designate heirs or potential beneficiaries (i.e. charities).

    Here’s what Trent supports: Making victims of crime pay for the incarceration of perpetrators.

    Here’s what I support: Making the perpetrators PAY the victims and/or their heirs.

    Which system makes more sense?

  26. Trent Hill

    “Someone can kill you now — particularly if you’re a homeless bum — and suffer no consequences ”

    When the man’s body is found–there is at least an investigation, even if its dispirited.
    Under the privatized system,when his body is found–no one will care. Not the media, not the privatized police, no one.

    As for the idea that there would be no public property–this is essentially false. Large swaths of land would be OWNED by someone,but still relatively untouched by that person. Homeless people would likely still wander the privatized streets, just like they do now on privatize toll roads.

  27. Trent Hill

    Here is what GE supports:

    Having any killer or rapist simply BUY his way out of a crime.

    Here is what I suppose:

    Having killers or rapists put behind bars.

    Under your system,GE, you haven’t indicated how it is that these men are stopped from committing those crimes again?

  28. G.E.

    Under the privatized system,when his body is found–no one will care. Not the media, not the privatized police, no one.

    Not true. The man will have designated beneficiaries — friends or charities. If he didn’t do this, then it’s his own fault. But still, Saint Trent Hill could form a group that paid for investigations of trespassing bum murders. When they found the murderer, a jury could award damages to a charity on the bum’s behalf, maybe even your group — that is, IF he didn’t designate a charity, which would be the entity to pay for an investigation in that case.

    If the bum is trespassing, then he is not innocent. Surely, trespassing isn’t a capital offense, but still. I would think that the owner of that land would have an interest in finding out who murdered someone on his property!

  29. G.E.

    In fact.. Awarding damages to the Society to Prevent the Murder of Trespassing Bums would make a lot of sense. This would be a charitable organization, and if the bum did not leave any beneficiaries, and it is assumed that he didn’t want to be murdered, then it would be reasonable to assume that he would like the SPMTB to continue its good works and prevent his fellow trespassing bums from befalling a similar fate.

    Thanks for helping me work this out, Trent!

    Another point: The owner of the property on which the bum was murdered would also be owed compensation from the bum for his trespassing. Therefore, he would have a lien on the murderer. Now we have another interested party who might pay for an investigation.

  30. Trent Hill

    Also,

    Just because I support imprisonment doesnt neccesarily mean I support taxation to support it. Prisons could be payed for voluntarily. They could also be self-supportive private industries. Imagine if you will: After the court, public or private–I dont care, says Jimmy is going to prison. Instead of the taxpayer footing the bill, or a charity—Jimmy has to pay his own bills. How? The Prison is a private business who pays for its own bills by Farming or something.

  31. Trent Hill

    “The man will have designated beneficiaries — friends or charities. If he didn’t do this, then it’s his own fault.”

    Designated friends or charities? The guy is a bum…where did he get an attorney or a will GE?

  32. G.E.

    Trent supports robbing the families of murder victims to pay for the room and board of the person who murdered their loved one.

    I support making that murderer pay damages to the family. Putting him in jail and on the public dole does NO GOOD to the family.

    What’s to stop a rapist or murderer from committing the crime again? I assume they don’t want to incur more debts. I’m also not against the person being executed by the family of the victim, either. That would stop them.

  33. G.E.

    Trent – He got a will from an Attorney who went around looking for homeless bums to sign up. Add this attorney, who gets a fat commission since the bum could not pay, to the list of beneficiaries who stand to benefit from apprehending the bum’s murderer.

  34. Trent Hill

    GE,

    I just said I didnt support taxation for the running of prisons. Now that i’ve made myself clear, accuse me of the same again and it’ll be a lie.

    As for your situation–it doesnt even HINDER crime. Amongst the poor and debtless,they’ve nothing to lose. Say they owe $12,000 and can’t pay it back, so they try to rob a bank…now what? You’re going to leverage them with more debt? HAH.
    And you’ve done nothing to stop the wealthy from committing even the worst of crime, including murder. As i’ve said before, these men don’t even have to game the system…they can simply be covicted over and over again and pay the fines.

  35. G.E.

    I just said I didnt support taxation for the running of prisons. Now that i’ve made myself clear, accuse me of the same again and it’ll be a lie

    My bad.

    As for your situation–it doesnt even HINDER crime. Amongst the poor and debtless,they’ve nothing to lose. Say they owe $12,000 and can’t pay it back, so they try to rob a bank…now what? You’re going to leverage them with more debt?

    Not true. It most certainly hinders crime. Rich people right now can get away with crimes that are made in league with the state. This system would not let them “get away” with anything — even if they bought off the judge, which would be less likely than it is today, the wouldn’t be getting off scot free. As for the poor, under the current system, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain — prison treats people better than the ghetto in many cases. At leas they get meals, TV, etc.

    You have a ton of bad assumptions.

    1. There would be no “fine” for murder. There would be jury awarded compensation. Normally, I suspect the jury would award 100% (or more) of the killer’s assets to the victims’ families and favorite charities. The market would find solutions here.

    2. The payment received by the victim (or family) would be dictated by insurance, normally. Thus, sometimes the family might be awarded $6 million of a $100 million (your insane psycho millionaire plot) settlement, and other times, they’d get $6 million out of a $60,000 settlement. The $100 million payout would keep insurance premiums low.

    3. Let’s say a guy makes $20,000 a year and have no assets and he commits a rape. The jury finds him liable for $1 million in damages. The victim had an insurance policy that capped her awards at $750,000 (making for lower premiums — there could be $0 premium or even negative premium policies!), which she is paid immediately. Now the insurance company has $1 million to squeeze out of the guy. They would essentially “own” him until he paid up. They could even be held accountable for any future crimes he commits while under their “ownership.” So, if they judged him to be a danger, they could send him to a private labor prison, etc.

  36. Trent Hill

    Again–the Millionaire can repeatedly get away with murder. As long as he pays his insurance premiums, which will continue to rise with every murder, he can get away with murder (literally and figuritively). Even if the insurance was somehow invalidated or dropped him–if he has the money to pay these compensatory damages, he gets away scott free.

  37. G.E.

    You misunderstand. You don’t buy “protection for possible murder charges” insurance — you buy insurance to pay off if you are murdered.

    The debt the murderer owes is his life, and that’s non-transferable.

  38. darolew

    The victim of murder is the one who was killed — the victim is dead and thus cannot be compensated. No amount of money given to the relatives of the victim does any good to compensate the victim, only the secondary victims. Even then, you can’t put a price on human life. No amount of money given to the secondary victims is necessarily adequate compensation for their losses — let alone the loss of the actual victim.

    That said, compensation to the secondary victims is better than taxing them to give the murderer free room and board. However, a system of compensation that allows the murderer to live a free life is injustice. Murderers deserve incarceration, and families deserve compensation. I don’t think those two goals are necessarily in conflict.

  39. Trent Hill

    Im going to tentatively agree with darolew. Compensation is, especially in lower-level crimes, adequate by itself. At a certain level, however, incarceration becomes a neccesary thing.

    In that case–it would be preferable for the prison to be funded via voluntary donations or privatized.

  40. Trent Hill

    Of course,this doesnt get rid of the original disagreement–which was over private courts.

  41. Carl M

    Regarding the ideas of private courts and fines for murder, the ideas have been tried. Werguild was common in Northern Europe, and practiced by such enlightened societies as the Vikings. I’ve seen references that Afghans also have the practice, and U.S. failure to pay Werguild to bombed villages has been a point of contention.

    Pre-Norman England had thanes competing to provide protection services. The system was superior to the feudalism that followed, but whether it was superior to democratically elected government I’ll leave as a homework assignment.

    Ironically, by GE’s reasoning, U.S. foreign aid to Iraq could contitute compensation to civilian casualties in Iraq.

    —-

    As for the death penalty, it is INADEQUATE when we have effective life imprisonment for relatively minor crimes due to the drug war and three strikes laws. To reduce murder we would need to reinstitute medieval cruelty in the public square for murder.

    Or, we could reduce the penalties for lesser crimes. (My preferred option!)

    A general rule of effective deterrence: greater crimes must trigger greater penalties, else criminals go into sunk cost mode. If the penalty for armed robbery is the same for shooting someone during said robbery, the criminal has zero incentive to back down — hostages die.

    Corollary — anti death penalty advocates need to focus in rationalizing the entire system, bringing down the penalties of lesser crimes so that life imprisonment is an effective murder deterrent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *