Monday, May 11, 2015

"The case for conservative civil disobedience."

A review of BY THE PEOPLE: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission.
Murray’s proposal is less dramatic and more ingenious. The regulatory state has two related weaknesses, he explains: It relies on voluntary compliance, and its enforcement capabilities are far inferior to its expansive mandate. So he proposes a private legal defense fund — the “Madison Fund,” honoring the father of the Constitution — that businesses and citizens can rely on for representation against federal regulators. By engaging in expensive and time-consuming litigation on behalf of clients that refuse to comply with pointless rules, the fund drains the government’s enforcement resources and eventually undercuts its ambitions. The state can compel submission from an individual or company with the threat of ruinous legal proceedings, Murray writes, “but Goliath cannot afford to make good on that threat against hundreds of Davids.”

10 comments:

Kent McManigal said...

Liberty lovers are already doing this every day.

Why would "conservatives" object to Big Government and want to disobey? They love some of the biggest, most intrusive and liberty-destroying things "government" does- like the military and "border control". You can't have those things- especially "securing our borders"- without an almost unlimited "government" forcibly intruding into all areas of life, all over the planet (including in your own home).

It just seems hypocritical to support such a huge and powerful State while whining about the other nasty and annoying things its employees and agents do in the name of imaginary "authority".

Anonymous said...

What a great idea. Although I'm not sure how much I like the idea of having to use more of our money to defend ourselves against collectivists who are already using our own money to steal our liberty...A stern warning or two, followed by a revocation of their pulse permit would be much cheaper.

Bad Cyborg said...

Got the Kindle edition of this on order (not actually being released until tomorrow, 5/12) and plan to read it soon. I don't think the reviewer is a conservative. Some of the subtext I perceived was not what I would expect from someone sharing conservative values. That's why I bought the book.

Arkindole said...

The basic tactic of crowdsourcing seems to have worked pretty well recently for the left's attacks on Christians and their businesses/beliefs, but I'm not altogether sure it would work with a bust for "illegal magazines" or similar BS laws. Joe the plumber tends to sink low in the Lazy Boy when someone is arrested for breaking a "law"--for whatever reason. As we go along, payment processors like GoFundMe merely change their policies overnight to disrupt crowdsourcing to suit the banks that are extorted by regulators. The funding mechanism would thus be important. I do, however, like the concept. The question is this...will 3% (way overestimated) of the population be able to fund this. I suspect, across 50 states, this would be way up into the 9 zeros and change just for the lawyers.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, light up another bowl. Who do you think pays for the bureaucrats' lawyers? Do you seriously think they won't just put more on or direct them away from other, core tasks to handle these gadfly cases? Do you think they care about deficits or delays? Fedrool judges will give them until forever to do anything, if they whine they're short of manpower. Try again. This time, with feeling.

Anonymous said...

Kent McManigal, you're not very smart, are you? When you find out what a "conservative" is and what the difference is between what is Constitutional for our federal gummint versus what it is today, come back for an intelligent discussion. Until then, don't.

Anonymous said...

I see this as a positive step towards building mind-share among the masses. It starts the journey that many of us here started long ago.

The book argues for civil defense against D.C. Well, if we have one thing, then what about that thing? and that thing? ....pretty soon people are talking liberty again.

Not Me said...

@McManigal- Our country, for the FIRST 200 years, managed to have a secure southern border no matter which party was in power- due to the fact that RADICALS and their bureaucratic minions had not yet taken over our country completely.Conservatives, BY DEFINITION, oppose big government. Unfortunately, "Republicans" are not often conservatives. Reconsider your political definitions before preaching. Nice hat, though.

Anonymous said...

@not me...
WELL said!! 100% agreement

Jimmy the Saint said...

@Not Me: "Our country, for the FIRST 200 years, managed to have a secure southern border no matter which party was in power"

Mostly secure. Pancho Villa and Geronimo (among others) showed that it wasn't totally secure.