Comments on: Eugene Volokh hits the Eject Button

By: Crooked Timber » » Libertarian Litmus Test

Crooked Timber » » Libertarian Litmus Test — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 04:23:22 +0000

[...] When they originally made the comparison, Amnesty were not engaged in a scholarly debate about Soviet history; they were making a strategic effort to draw public attention to a real scandal. (If even libertarian lawyers prefer to ignore the issue, they might have said to themselves, what do we have to do?) When a respected group like Amnesty does something like this, you have a choice. You can read the strong comparison as a bona fide effort to draw your attention to something very serious, and try to understand what’s happening. Alternatively, you can start listing the ways in which the comparison is not literally true. The substantive question fades away and we’re in the realm of debate about rhetoric. The history and record of the organization making the claim may help you empirically weigh the options. But the choice, I believe, is also an important moral judgment about what you think is worth learning enough about to at least have a point of view. [...]

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:39:55 +0000

I was curious about Instapundit. This is what he had to say about torture: “STEVE STURM says that I’m wrong to oppose torture, and compares me to Mike Dukakis. UPDATE: At least he didn’t subject me to an animated cartoon caricature, as this long, and actually rather thoughtful post (with many disturbing photos) does to Alan Dershowitz.”

By: RD

RD — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:11:40 +0000

Great comeback from “Caddyshack”. I couldn’t resist. Sometimes I just crack myself up.

By: q

Wed, 16 Jun 2004 04:07:57 +0000

Question: “What CRITERIA do you use to rate whether one administration is better than the other?” Answer: By height. rd- What do you mean? Can you provide a more specific and detailed answer to the question, or are you opting out of answering the question by trying to be funny?

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:13:40 +0000

Dr. Weevil wrote:

Reading Volokh in context, it appears to me that that is a gross misrepresentation, and that Volokh is apologizing for being too squeamish to write about torture, which is not at all the same thing. It is not that he would like to support torture but is held back by “anti-torture ethical qualms” but that he would like to examine the question thoroughly and dispassionately and is held back by revulsion from the entire subject.

Quite correct which is no doubt why those who wanted to do a “why aren’t conservative bloggers talking about this” theme decided to take his comments out of context in order to get a version that fit more closely with the story they were trying to create.

By: Thorley Winston

Thorley Winston — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:11:33 +0000

Zizka wrote:

Libertarians who fail to realize this are pornographic and entirely without redeeming social value, absolutely worthless for any human purpose, and they should be mercifully put to sleep. Remember, we’re talking about people who are thrown into a rage by the very idea of the unconstitutional Smithsonian Institute and the unconstitutional National Acadamy of the Arts.

And who would these individuals be exactly?

By: RD

RD — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 17:31:47 +0000

“Any very stupid person will find it extremely gratifying to control the agenda of a lot of smart but excessively polite people. The ignorant slut must be absolutely giddy with delight by now.” Dear polite person, I may be an ignorant slut, but I haven’t been real giddy lately. I accept the validity of the debate as to what extent Americans might accept pursuading violent prisoners to provide potential lifesaving information. Should they be granted the same rights as an American citizen accused of malfeasance, or is the another level reserved for those who would murder innocent women and children. What is acceptable – q.? pepi? I can see why Volokh hasn’t come out of the closet yet. What does John Kerry propose? Is it as simple as the Golden Rule? Can these terrorists be negotiated with? Are we wrong about the threat? Is it uncomfortable that as a nation, we portend to abhor such behavior, yet so many Americans willingly exhibit the same behavior in prisons at home and abroad. Go ahead and elect your candidate, life will go on. But if you’re going to debate this issue, do it honestly. This can’t be just about Volokh or Bush. These issue were prevelant in the previous administration. Remember, this country has hundreds of thousands of twits like me. Give us good choices and you might accomplish something.

By: Jon H

Jon H — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:03:54 +0000

The way I see it, torture should remain illegal. Should circumstances come up where torture is considered the only way to prevent [bad thing] from happening, then let the justifiability be dealt with in trial and sentencing of the torturer. If torturing someone leads to information that halts the nuking of New York, I’m sure that would be taken into account, resulting in a reduced or suspended sentence, or even acquittal. It’s a way of flipping the usual hypothetical situations on their head. It’s usually “is torture justified to save a life? 10 lives? 1 million?” Instead, consider: “Would you spend life in prison for torture if it saved 1 life? 10 lives? 1 million?” Seems to me if the threat is so bad as to justify the one, then it should justify the other as well. On the other hand, if 100 randomly selected Muslims were also tortured, and those people had no information, the torturers should not be treated lightly. That should be incentive to not torture unless you’re damn sure the person has the information needed.

By: pepi

pepi — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:31:45 +0000

agm: that’s all very well and of course anyone can write about anything, or not. And anyone has a right to comment on that, too. No one is forcing anybody, right? You forget thought that this not just someone avoiding the topic altogether. He is not going to go into detailed discussion, but he is nonetheless writing about it. The quote at the top, the whole post, are about torture, and the memos. And I don’t think it’s that wild to comment on the view that “sometimes people need to do disgusting things to avoid greater harms”, or on a question assuming there is a possible choice between “torture” and “saving lives” – just because the author says he’s really to squeamish to argue about it, doesn’t mean he hasn’t given a couple of clear indicators he’s thinking in terms of “lesser evil” choices, therefore, not really dismissing torture altogether. It’s not even hypothetical scenarios anymore, since the memos have been published already and they do contain those very assumptions. Now I couldn’t care less what Volokh writes about or not, I don’t read his website. But it’s interesting his reaction seems so widespread. Indifference, or unwillingness to delve into it. It’s not because the topic is so horrible, it’s because it calls into question everything about political power and decisions and the nature of this democracy we’re supposed to be exporting and the moral authority that’s been invoked to do so. And especially for anyone who supported the entire Bush anti-terrorism policy and the Iraq “strategy”, it requires either too much self-criticism, OR the honesty to acknowledge they’re inded sharing those same “lesser evil” mentality to justify even torture – and that’s what the squeamishness is about.

By: agm

agm — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 05:16:53 +0000

Mr. Healy, touche =). I also would like to know Volokh’s opinions on the matter, but alas it is not to be. At least I now feel in good company to be “thinking Kieran’s thoughts after him” (pardon the paraphrase).

By: Zizka

Zizka — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 03:46:40 +0000

A pleasant afternoon listening to rd talking to himself. Any very stupid person will find it extremely gratifying to control the agenda of a lot of smart but excessively polite people. The ignorant slut must be absolutely giddy with delight by now.

By: jdw

jdw — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 03:04:55 +0000

Their silence is rather deafening.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 02:01:53 +0000

Hmmm, interesting how people are now required to blog about whatever the current topic is, no matter how comfortable they are about doing so, how firm (or soft) their views, or any of a number of different reasons they might have for not saying something. … Whatever he feels about the memos, he doesn’t owe anyone an apology for choosing not to comment on them in his blog. I guess we’re at that point in the thread where the content of the original post has been forgotten. A reminder: At the end of the day, Eugene doesn’t have to write about anything he doesn’t want to. He doesn’t have to take the trouble to publicly explain his decisions, either. But I can’t help feeling disappointed that we’re not going to hear from him … The right blogosphere has been a bit quiet about this issue in general, though again I acknowledge that people are free to choose their own topics, especially when it comes to blogs run as hobbies.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 01:51:56 +0000

agm:nice defense. Point taken

By: agm

agm — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 00:41:00 +0000

Hmmm, interesting how people are now required to blog about whatever the current topic is, no matter how comfortable they are about doing so, how firm (or soft) their views, or any of a number of different reasons they might have for not saying something. It is really poor treatment talk about Volokh as if he (tacitly) approves of torture unless at least one person here has proof of it, which no one here has so far presented evidence of. All we have is a lot of arguing over Volokh’s decision not to post about the torture memos; can any one here say that he has not talked with people, or written letters to his representatives, or spoken out on campus, or even decided upon a position on, either for or against, the argument in the memos? One’s blog entries are NOT communal property, even if IA commenters tended to feel otherwise about the comment threads, because the blogger is expressing him/herself. Whatever he feels about the memos, he doesn’t owe anyone an apology for choosing not to comment on them in his blog.