{"id":544,"date":"2010-08-20T14:28:53","date_gmt":"2010-08-20T18:28:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=544"},"modified":"2010-08-20T16:38:32","modified_gmt":"2010-08-20T20:38:32","slug":"to-serve-and-get-paid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=544","title":{"rendered":"To Serve and Get Paid"},"content":{"rendered":"
In the course of the most recent inter-blawg squabble over what role, if any, the pursuit of Justice plays in the job of the criminal defense attorney, Norm Pattis<\/a> and Mark Bennett<\/a> perceived incongruity in someone who writes a blog called “People v. State” implying that some defendants might actually deserve what the State is trying to do to them and that making things difficult for the State is not its own justification. (I implied in one comment<\/a>, consistently with the common observation of criminal defense attorneys that the majority of their clients have done something close to what they’re charged with, that only a minority of defendants don’t deserve what the State is trying to do to them, when in fact I think that a majority of defendants fit in this category.)<\/p>\n But even in an ideal society in which the State was no more (but which was not so ideal that crime was no more), law and processes for addressing transgressions of the law would still necessarily exist. (See, e.g., John Hasnas’ The Depoliticization of Law<\/a>, David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom<\/a>, and Randy’s Barnett’s Is Limited Government Possible?<\/a>) My opposition to the State, as reflected in the title of this blog, does not amount to an opposition to law and legal processes. (To the contrary, it is grounded in respect for Law.) Even the “law” and the processes developed by the State, unjust as it is in its inception and principle, can occasionally produce what appears to be a fair approximation of worldly “justice,” assuming a conscientious prosecutor, judge and jury, and a competent and effective defense attorney.<\/p>\n The evil of the State is its defining idea that the agents-without-principals who act in its name are somehow magically authorized<\/em> to do what would be a crime if committed by anyone else. It’s the false and blasphemous idea that the State is above the Law. It’s the State calling “taxation” what is in reality extortion and armed robbery. It’s the State calling acts which violate no other person’s rights “crimes,” and calling its kidnapping and criminal confinement of people for such acts “justice.”<\/p>\n Whatever agents of the State actually have the right<\/em> to do (e.g., respond appropriately to real crime), the rest of us have as much right to do. But one of the greatest obstacles to us exercising those rights is the financial interests of those in the employ of the State. As Thomas Knapp recently and colorfully put it<\/a>:<\/p>\n Left unsaid, but becoming increasingly clear even to those who generally take little interest in matters political, is the fact that every operation of government is, by definition<\/em>, an exercise in \u201cclass warfare\u201d \u2014 a raid by a political class whose very survival depends on its continued ability to loot your wallet, your wealth, your work.<\/p>\n Like everyone else, the political class has to eat.<\/p>\n Unlike everyone else, the political class proposes to eat us<\/em>.<\/p>\n Now that the pesky mosquitoes have mutated into gnawing rats and threaten to grow into rabid wolves, more and more Americans are finally starting to take notice.<\/p>\n It\u2019s class war, to the death, like it or not \u2014 a war for survival, the political class or us. Personally, I\u2019m for us.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n