Despite all the handwringing and hyperventilation about the unorthodox DOGE, we have to dig deep and figure out our principles and priors in a dying constitutional order.
I didn't vote for either Harris or Trump, but I agree with the Mises Institute that the least awful candidate won. Trump is turning out to be a little better than I expected, mainly because of DOGE.
I agree with you: Justice trumps legality. Your quotation from the Declaration of Independence, America's founding document, effectively states that the legitimate function of government is to secure certain rights; i.e., to maintain justice, since an injustice is a violation of a right.
However, there is a problem: Different people have different ideas about what is just. More than 40 years ago I discovered a metatheory of justice (a theory of theories of justice) according to which there are four “pure” theories of justice and all other theories are mixed theories. All mixed theories can be disregarded on the ground that they're invalid systems because they contain elements from at least two pure theories that are incompatible with each other. There can be only one correct theory, which must be both internally and externally consistent. By “internally consistent” I mean that no two statements within the theory can be either contradictories or contraries. By “externally consistent” I mean that no statement within the theory can be the contradictory or contrary of any true statement in any other field of knowledge. I can prove that two of the pure theories are, surprisingly, inconsistent. (Both are authoritarian theories.) I haven't proved that either of the remaining two pure theories is inconsistent, but one of them (a collectivist theory) has a highly implausible implication. The one that seems most likely to be correct I call the individualist libertarian theory. The main reason I'm an individualist libertarian is that I discovered that theory by a process of reasoning in 1972 from which I independently derived a political philosophy I later learned is called libertarianism. My basic principle is similar to (but, in my opinion, superior to) the NAP.
Please share your superior principle if you care to do so and explain why you think it's superior. I am genuinely curious and I suspect readers will be too.
In the space allowed for a comment I can state the principle but I can't adequately (1) explain it, (2) explain how I discovered it, and (3) explain why I find it superior to the NAP. If you want more than a brief account, I'll have to send it by an email attachment. If you'll settle for a brief but inadequate comment, tell me how many single-spaced lines I can use and I'll try to fit something in.
Until folks have caught up with the censorship regime under the previous administration, they have literally no idea what's going on and their tightly-wound perspectives cannot be trusted. "Wrecking the government machinery" doesn't look so bad when you're aware of what the machine has been up to. Frankly, if we want to talk civics, let's start with free speech. Without that, it's all morally bankrupt top to bottom.
"Saw Max Borders’s “critique” of my claim that libertarian veneration of Musk and Doge shows that they would fail Civics 101. His post proved my point. THere is a carnival of confusion in the post, but, briefly, whistleblowers like his beloved Snowden (and my personal favorite Daniel Ellesberg) are absolutely vital for exposing government corruption. But that is why he should be concerned with what Musk and Trump are doing: They are flattening every point of internal resistance to the president. They are purging anyone in the executive branch who would possibly blow the whistle on the duo’s or anyone’s corruption while stacking civil service with loyalists and those willing to snitch on wayward colleagues who are insufficiently loyal to the POTUS. I’m not sure we are going to get “small” government at the end of this given how much the DHS and ICE and other draconian agencies exercising the hard power of the police state are going to grow. But we are going to get a robustly abusive state. Libertarians have given their side a bad name already causing people like me to quit. They should stop now lest they end up defending what is shaping up to be a Stalinist regime. (Trump is actually deporting people without any due process to the Guantanamo Gulag. Shouldn’t libertarians show some concern fot that?)
PS: I have zero interest in engaging further on this given that there is a Republic to save."
This borders on insanity. The Administrative State IS currently unaccountable and robustly abusive to any who don't bow the knee; this is the problem! Trump is the cure and Musk is the means. We know what the Democrats would do if they could; keep the darkness firmly in place. We know what Trump & Co are doing; tearing off the roof. We don't know what will be but we do know how to prevent the future from becoming the past; Daylight! It will be up to the voters to do a better job at the polls; that is the only way forward.
Snowden committed espionage - not against the American people, but on their behalf. If there are any illegalities in DOGE (which I doubt), they are in the same spirit.
"In other words, if the totality of law has devolved so much that it becomes an impediment to you and me—but not the enemies of justice, law, and the people—we have to think seriously about being on the side of justice to contemplate a constitutional reboot—that is a good old-fashioned Second Declaration..."
This is exactly how I feel about the current situation in Peru... We are fighting an asymetric warfare against criminal interest plus corporate interests! Jeez. No person inside the system can bring the second declaration for Peru. It's time to declare our independence from politicians... What an inspiring time to be alive!
Respectfully, you miss a critical distinction between Snowden and DOGE. Snowden was an individual acting against the interests of the presidential administration. DOGE is acting at the behest of the presidential administration that is itself authoritarian in nature.
And I wouldn't throw Musk in jail. I would just ask the courts to require presidential administrations to act legally.
As for throwing Snowden in jail, I would prefer he not be thrown in jail or have to become a refugee in a hostile country. I do wish that you had asked me directly for my line drawing when we were discussing DOGE on Facebook rather than asking it in an insinuating way here, but that's my answer.
To further clarify my position, I don't disagree with your general framework of justice and legitimacy (although I would prefer the term legality, since I don't think all that is legal is legitimate, or all that is illegal is illegitimate, and if I understand you correctly, you would agree). Where I disagree with you is that I think you are not taking into account what Trump is and what his overall goal is. It appears to me that you are hoping we'll get the good and that it will be worth the cost of the bad, which seems to me an "at least the trains will run on time" argument. As much as I agree that the federal bureaucracy needs real auditing, financial controls, and sunlight, I not only don't believe there's anything that actually resembles real auditing going on, but I don't believe that's what we'll get. I think we'll get nothing more than a fig leaf for a president attacking particular policies/programs they don't like.
And even if we got a real audit, financial controls, and sunlight - a good that we both are on - I wouldn't buy it at the price of executive authoritarianism, tyranny, the smashing of all checks and balances, which I believe is Trump's goal.
It is my cynicism that leads me to distrust what is going on, and I think anyone who believes we'll get the trains to run on time at all, much less get them to run on time without paying the price of smashing checks and balances, is not cynical enough.
For me, it's not making the trains run on time, instead it's moving from a strictly procedural outlook to a sense of urgency around justice. For far too long, the Fourth Branch has grown up and hidden behind procedural minutiae. In my view, there is a threshold beyond which we cannot let zealous fidelity to process create gross asymmetries between us and freedom's adversaries. They have never cared a jot about procedure until they thought it would protect them. The whole thing is an empire graft and worse. So you have this grotesque, authoritarian administrative state. Beyond a certain point, we can't wring our hands about whether it gives the executive too much power. The cancer is Stage Three. The patient needs surgery and chemo. We've got one shot at counterpower, and we'd better take it. I fully acknowledge that it comes with risks, though I still do not see illegality in this. The President has cause due to malfeasance and can appeal to the "taking care" clause. (This might test the Impoundment Control Act.) At least, I think the legality of these actions is arguable, while their justice is not. I acknowledge that you couple justice and legitimacy (legality) more tightly in your view. And I respect that.
Thank you for engaging me over here. While we might disagree on certain things, I have big respect for your mind and am a reader now. You're a gentleman.
Great post! Legality is often a matter of timing... While I'm not one to buy "ends justifying the means" either, I think being against it really says that where there are costs to action, we have appropriately weighed them and chosen or not chosen to proceed in the action. The former is standard ideological program, the latter the act of a conscious reasoning. The latter may still make mistakes, but at least it's trying to do the least harm....ideally. "Harm" is also, apparently, a matter of definition these days...
I have been called insubordinate. In fact I was taken to task by one of my first professors in college, who tried to get me expelled for insubordination. I managed to talk my way out of expulsion, but i never understood insubordination for decades. It never occurred to me to ask to whom or what was I expected to be subordinate. In that particular case, I now believe that it was to that professor that I was expected to be subordinate. A huge injustice.
For subordination is not as clearly defined as insubordination. According to the American Heritage Dictionary subordination is an adjective meaning, "1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary. 2. Subject to the authority or control of another. 3. Placed in a lower order, class, or rank; holding a lower or inferior position." The only times I have seen the word used it was in defining a subordinate clause. Many do the word toward people without using the word. However, many use the word insubordinate against the people who they are intent upon subordinating.
I believe that it should have been used on multiple occasions in the U.S. Constitution. For instance, it should have been front and center in the first three articles: No congressman shall demand or expect any citizen to be subordinate to himself; No one in the executive branch shall demand or expect any other citizen to be subordinate to himself; No judge shall demand or expect any other citizen to be subordinate to himself; and no citizen shall demand or expect any other citizen to be subordinate to himself.
Well put, but there's a narrow and decisive argument about legitimacy:
Any enterprise can undergo an audit at any time. The auditors have the right to ask for all records, and have a duty to keep them confidential. The audit can be a surprise, and the enterprise does not have a right of refusal.
Normally, of course, the auditors are certified public accountants, but I don't think that's a legal requirement. Security audits, for example, are not done by CPAs.
Another good job. The founders made a number of mistakes that have had a powerful effect on today's world, not just in America but everywhere. They didn't fully understand rights as the concept was still too new but they tried and made progress over their known predecessors. They made the usual mistake of believing humans were bad and, if free, would run amok so man needed government to control them. But humans are such wonderful beings that we just naturally seek perfection in ourselves to make our lives more valuable to ourselves and others because it is in our rational self-interest to do do. Man lived for millions of years before governments were invented by criminals to be able to impose their will on the innocent 'legally'. One mistake the founders made which you cited was that in the DOI where it declared government derived its just powers from the 'consent of the governed'. If the purpose of government is to secure rights, then the only people to be governed are rights violators, not the innocent, and rights violating criminals would never give their 'consent' to be governed.
As George Washington told us, "Government is force!" The only right any human has to use force is in defense against aggressors, those who use force in offense against the innocent, so the only source of government's right to use force has to be derived from the voluntary delegation of one's right to use force in defense to one's agents of defense, traditionally but not necessarily, government. One has a right to contract with private detective agencies, insurance and security companies and security guards to protect one's rights. The founders had a right to create an insurance company - call it Liberty mutual if you will - but they had no right to create a crime syndicate, call it a 'government' to give it an illusion of legitimacy, and then 'authorize' it to commit the twin fascist crimes of tax and regulatory extortion.
I followed Jefferson's advice, recognized that our government at all levels had become destructive of my rights, so I declared my own independence, abolished it over me, and established anew government over me more conducive to my safety and well-being. I wrote out my own natural law as the only lsaw governing my life and you can do the same if you have the courage. It is the universal natural law that has governed the innocent for over 10 million years before governments were invented by criminals and imposed on humans worldwide. Perhaps I have told you about it before as I have others but it is hard for me to tekk to whom i have A crime is any act of harm by force or fraud by anyone against the innocent or their property. It is the it. Here is how I articulated the universal natural law.
"One's life is one's responsibility in its entirety. Any innocent act one can perform in the pursuit of one's happiness is one's absolute inalienable natural human right. These include the 5 rights of property of INNOCENTLY acquiring, possessing, using, defending and disposing of any conceivable item of property except another human being. Innocent means not harmful to others except in defense. A crime is any act of harm by force or fraud by anyone against the innocent or their property. It is the responsibility of the criminal to make his or her victim(s) whole again, to the extent possible, through a process of restitution."
Man lived for millions of years largely by that law without understanding it explicitly and without any governments to impose it or any other on them. It is intuitive, natural and a combination of common sense and the Golden Rule..
I didn't vote for either Harris or Trump, but I agree with the Mises Institute that the least awful candidate won. Trump is turning out to be a little better than I expected, mainly because of DOGE.
I agree with you: Justice trumps legality. Your quotation from the Declaration of Independence, America's founding document, effectively states that the legitimate function of government is to secure certain rights; i.e., to maintain justice, since an injustice is a violation of a right.
However, there is a problem: Different people have different ideas about what is just. More than 40 years ago I discovered a metatheory of justice (a theory of theories of justice) according to which there are four “pure” theories of justice and all other theories are mixed theories. All mixed theories can be disregarded on the ground that they're invalid systems because they contain elements from at least two pure theories that are incompatible with each other. There can be only one correct theory, which must be both internally and externally consistent. By “internally consistent” I mean that no two statements within the theory can be either contradictories or contraries. By “externally consistent” I mean that no statement within the theory can be the contradictory or contrary of any true statement in any other field of knowledge. I can prove that two of the pure theories are, surprisingly, inconsistent. (Both are authoritarian theories.) I haven't proved that either of the remaining two pure theories is inconsistent, but one of them (a collectivist theory) has a highly implausible implication. The one that seems most likely to be correct I call the individualist libertarian theory. The main reason I'm an individualist libertarian is that I discovered that theory by a process of reasoning in 1972 from which I independently derived a political philosophy I later learned is called libertarianism. My basic principle is similar to (but, in my opinion, superior to) the NAP.
Please share your superior principle if you care to do so and explain why you think it's superior. I am genuinely curious and I suspect readers will be too.
In the space allowed for a comment I can state the principle but I can't adequately (1) explain it, (2) explain how I discovered it, and (3) explain why I find it superior to the NAP. If you want more than a brief account, I'll have to send it by an email attachment. If you'll settle for a brief but inadequate comment, tell me how many single-spaced lines I can use and I'll try to fit something in.
If you receive my newsletter in your inbox you can reply and that’s my email. Please feel free to share, but only if it’s convenient for you, sir.
Nice rant!
Until folks have caught up with the censorship regime under the previous administration, they have literally no idea what's going on and their tightly-wound perspectives cannot be trusted. "Wrecking the government machinery" doesn't look so bad when you're aware of what the machine has been up to. Frankly, if we want to talk civics, let's start with free speech. Without that, it's all morally bankrupt top to bottom.
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
Your pithy summary of the essential Civics lesson here is spot on.
From Shikha Sood Dalmia:
"Saw Max Borders’s “critique” of my claim that libertarian veneration of Musk and Doge shows that they would fail Civics 101. His post proved my point. THere is a carnival of confusion in the post, but, briefly, whistleblowers like his beloved Snowden (and my personal favorite Daniel Ellesberg) are absolutely vital for exposing government corruption. But that is why he should be concerned with what Musk and Trump are doing: They are flattening every point of internal resistance to the president. They are purging anyone in the executive branch who would possibly blow the whistle on the duo’s or anyone’s corruption while stacking civil service with loyalists and those willing to snitch on wayward colleagues who are insufficiently loyal to the POTUS. I’m not sure we are going to get “small” government at the end of this given how much the DHS and ICE and other draconian agencies exercising the hard power of the police state are going to grow. But we are going to get a robustly abusive state. Libertarians have given their side a bad name already causing people like me to quit. They should stop now lest they end up defending what is shaping up to be a Stalinist regime. (Trump is actually deporting people without any due process to the Guantanamo Gulag. Shouldn’t libertarians show some concern fot that?)
PS: I have zero interest in engaging further on this given that there is a Republic to save."
This borders on insanity. The Administrative State IS currently unaccountable and robustly abusive to any who don't bow the knee; this is the problem! Trump is the cure and Musk is the means. We know what the Democrats would do if they could; keep the darkness firmly in place. We know what Trump & Co are doing; tearing off the roof. We don't know what will be but we do know how to prevent the future from becoming the past; Daylight! It will be up to the voters to do a better job at the polls; that is the only way forward.
Snowden committed espionage - not against the American people, but on their behalf. If there are any illegalities in DOGE (which I doubt), they are in the same spirit.
"In other words, if the totality of law has devolved so much that it becomes an impediment to you and me—but not the enemies of justice, law, and the people—we have to think seriously about being on the side of justice to contemplate a constitutional reboot—that is a good old-fashioned Second Declaration..."
This is exactly how I feel about the current situation in Peru... We are fighting an asymetric warfare against criminal interest plus corporate interests! Jeez. No person inside the system can bring the second declaration for Peru. It's time to declare our independence from politicians... What an inspiring time to be alive!
Respectfully, you miss a critical distinction between Snowden and DOGE. Snowden was an individual acting against the interests of the presidential administration. DOGE is acting at the behest of the presidential administration that is itself authoritarian in nature.
And I wouldn't throw Musk in jail. I would just ask the courts to require presidential administrations to act legally.
As for throwing Snowden in jail, I would prefer he not be thrown in jail or have to become a refugee in a hostile country. I do wish that you had asked me directly for my line drawing when we were discussing DOGE on Facebook rather than asking it in an insinuating way here, but that's my answer.
What do you think is illegal in this matter?
To further clarify my position, I don't disagree with your general framework of justice and legitimacy (although I would prefer the term legality, since I don't think all that is legal is legitimate, or all that is illegal is illegitimate, and if I understand you correctly, you would agree). Where I disagree with you is that I think you are not taking into account what Trump is and what his overall goal is. It appears to me that you are hoping we'll get the good and that it will be worth the cost of the bad, which seems to me an "at least the trains will run on time" argument. As much as I agree that the federal bureaucracy needs real auditing, financial controls, and sunlight, I not only don't believe there's anything that actually resembles real auditing going on, but I don't believe that's what we'll get. I think we'll get nothing more than a fig leaf for a president attacking particular policies/programs they don't like.
And even if we got a real audit, financial controls, and sunlight - a good that we both are on - I wouldn't buy it at the price of executive authoritarianism, tyranny, the smashing of all checks and balances, which I believe is Trump's goal.
It is my cynicism that leads me to distrust what is going on, and I think anyone who believes we'll get the trains to run on time at all, much less get them to run on time without paying the price of smashing checks and balances, is not cynical enough.
For me, it's not making the trains run on time, instead it's moving from a strictly procedural outlook to a sense of urgency around justice. For far too long, the Fourth Branch has grown up and hidden behind procedural minutiae. In my view, there is a threshold beyond which we cannot let zealous fidelity to process create gross asymmetries between us and freedom's adversaries. They have never cared a jot about procedure until they thought it would protect them. The whole thing is an empire graft and worse. So you have this grotesque, authoritarian administrative state. Beyond a certain point, we can't wring our hands about whether it gives the executive too much power. The cancer is Stage Three. The patient needs surgery and chemo. We've got one shot at counterpower, and we'd better take it. I fully acknowledge that it comes with risks, though I still do not see illegality in this. The President has cause due to malfeasance and can appeal to the "taking care" clause. (This might test the Impoundment Control Act.) At least, I think the legality of these actions is arguable, while their justice is not. I acknowledge that you couple justice and legitimacy (legality) more tightly in your view. And I respect that.
Thank you for engaging me over here. While we might disagree on certain things, I have big respect for your mind and am a reader now. You're a gentleman.
Great post! Legality is often a matter of timing... While I'm not one to buy "ends justifying the means" either, I think being against it really says that where there are costs to action, we have appropriately weighed them and chosen or not chosen to proceed in the action. The former is standard ideological program, the latter the act of a conscious reasoning. The latter may still make mistakes, but at least it's trying to do the least harm....ideally. "Harm" is also, apparently, a matter of definition these days...
I have been called insubordinate. In fact I was taken to task by one of my first professors in college, who tried to get me expelled for insubordination. I managed to talk my way out of expulsion, but i never understood insubordination for decades. It never occurred to me to ask to whom or what was I expected to be subordinate. In that particular case, I now believe that it was to that professor that I was expected to be subordinate. A huge injustice.
For subordination is not as clearly defined as insubordination. According to the American Heritage Dictionary subordination is an adjective meaning, "1. Belonging to a lower or inferior class or rank; secondary. 2. Subject to the authority or control of another. 3. Placed in a lower order, class, or rank; holding a lower or inferior position." The only times I have seen the word used it was in defining a subordinate clause. Many do the word toward people without using the word. However, many use the word insubordinate against the people who they are intent upon subordinating.
I believe that it should have been used on multiple occasions in the U.S. Constitution. For instance, it should have been front and center in the first three articles: No congressman shall demand or expect any citizen to be subordinate to himself; No one in the executive branch shall demand or expect any other citizen to be subordinate to himself; No judge shall demand or expect any other citizen to be subordinate to himself; and no citizen shall demand or expect any other citizen to be subordinate to himself.
BE INSUBORDINATE!
Well put, but there's a narrow and decisive argument about legitimacy:
Any enterprise can undergo an audit at any time. The auditors have the right to ask for all records, and have a duty to keep them confidential. The audit can be a surprise, and the enterprise does not have a right of refusal.
Normally, of course, the auditors are certified public accountants, but I don't think that's a legal requirement. Security audits, for example, are not done by CPAs.
Experts. How has that been working out?
??? I didn't use that word. How is that a response to what I said?
CPAs are generally thought of as experts. Perhaps we are in agreement on the premise that Trump and company are doing excellent work.
OK. They're experts on financial matters. Not necessarily on foreign policy or defense or legal matters.
But yeah -- keep turning over those rocks.
Another good job. The founders made a number of mistakes that have had a powerful effect on today's world, not just in America but everywhere. They didn't fully understand rights as the concept was still too new but they tried and made progress over their known predecessors. They made the usual mistake of believing humans were bad and, if free, would run amok so man needed government to control them. But humans are such wonderful beings that we just naturally seek perfection in ourselves to make our lives more valuable to ourselves and others because it is in our rational self-interest to do do. Man lived for millions of years before governments were invented by criminals to be able to impose their will on the innocent 'legally'. One mistake the founders made which you cited was that in the DOI where it declared government derived its just powers from the 'consent of the governed'. If the purpose of government is to secure rights, then the only people to be governed are rights violators, not the innocent, and rights violating criminals would never give their 'consent' to be governed.
As George Washington told us, "Government is force!" The only right any human has to use force is in defense against aggressors, those who use force in offense against the innocent, so the only source of government's right to use force has to be derived from the voluntary delegation of one's right to use force in defense to one's agents of defense, traditionally but not necessarily, government. One has a right to contract with private detective agencies, insurance and security companies and security guards to protect one's rights. The founders had a right to create an insurance company - call it Liberty mutual if you will - but they had no right to create a crime syndicate, call it a 'government' to give it an illusion of legitimacy, and then 'authorize' it to commit the twin fascist crimes of tax and regulatory extortion.
I followed Jefferson's advice, recognized that our government at all levels had become destructive of my rights, so I declared my own independence, abolished it over me, and established anew government over me more conducive to my safety and well-being. I wrote out my own natural law as the only lsaw governing my life and you can do the same if you have the courage. It is the universal natural law that has governed the innocent for over 10 million years before governments were invented by criminals and imposed on humans worldwide. Perhaps I have told you about it before as I have others but it is hard for me to tekk to whom i have A crime is any act of harm by force or fraud by anyone against the innocent or their property. It is the it. Here is how I articulated the universal natural law.
"One's life is one's responsibility in its entirety. Any innocent act one can perform in the pursuit of one's happiness is one's absolute inalienable natural human right. These include the 5 rights of property of INNOCENTLY acquiring, possessing, using, defending and disposing of any conceivable item of property except another human being. Innocent means not harmful to others except in defense. A crime is any act of harm by force or fraud by anyone against the innocent or their property. It is the responsibility of the criminal to make his or her victim(s) whole again, to the extent possible, through a process of restitution."
Man lived for millions of years largely by that law without understanding it explicitly and without any governments to impose it or any other on them. It is intuitive, natural and a combination of common sense and the Golden Rule..