Skip to main content

"Marines Kill Innocent Family"

Butler Shafer - a columnist at LewRockwell.com - described his disgust while staying in San Francisco during a Navy Blue Angels demonstration in an article written several weeks back. The first time I read it, I felt he was being a bit of a whiner - almost everybody loves to see stunt airplane performances... so what if it irritates Butler Shafer?

But one of the things he discusses is the double-standard between rules on private sector and government air safety. There is a double-standard between private and government performance of stunts, or levelling of houses in residential neighborhoods with jet fighter aircraft during routine training flights.

If this had been a private jet, we would read something like, "Nike Corporate Jet Kills US Immigrant Family" and we would hear of lawsuits being filed against Nike, Leer, and so on. But since this was the Marines, why, the father ought to forgive the pilot for saving his own skin while letting the jet hurtle, unguided, into a residential area. The thought that, perhaps, the Marines are responsible for killing an innocent American family is unpatriotic and unthinkable. There will be no lawsuits against the US Government, the Navy, the Marine Corps, Northrup Grumman or General Electric (who built the engines which apparently failed). We should all quietly mourn with this man who has given the ultimate sacrifice for his country... his wife, two daughters and mother-in-law. We should all be willing to make the same sacrifice if called upon by our country, should we not? After all, it is the US Government who will deliver us during times of economic uncertainty with their stimuli and bailouts.

Etienne de la Boetie belittles the Roman citizens during the height of the Roman empire who did much the same as we do today:

"Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, “Long live the King!” The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them. A man might one day be presented with a sesterce and gorge himself at the public feast, lauding Tiberius and Nero for handsome liberality, who on the morrow, would be forced to abandon his property to their avarice, his children to their lust, his very blood to the cruelty of these magnificent emperors, without offering any more resistance than a stone or a tree stump. The mob has always behaved in this way—eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honorably accepted, and dissolutely callous to degradation and insult that cannot be honorably endured." (from The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude)

Maybe if Nike starts sending out "stimulus checks" they can lower the maintenance standards on their aircraft and everybody will forgive them when a Nike jet hits their house, killing the women and children inside. Of course, if Nike could fund this liberality by first taking the money from us in the form of taxes (they could justify taxing us as follows, "Shoes are a necessary good that would not be produced without very expensive factories that no private investor could ever afford to build without the collection of taxes"), they would have hit the gravy train called "government." I wonder what a worldwide Nike government would be like? At least we'd all be well-shod. But I digress.

We all know what is going to happen. Absolutely no one who should be held responsible will be held responsible for this incident. The Department of Defense won't even pause its training regimen of flying thousands of tons of steel and jet fuel at sonic speeds over the bedrooms of our children. After all, Osama bin Laden might sneak in to the country and we have to have these planes on alert to bomb him. An investigation will be opened and some hapless mechanic who has been following the established maintenance guidelines will be faulted by some engineers and lawyers for "not having followed maintenance procedures" and sent to Fort Leavenworth to break rocks for some ungodly lengthy sentence and the Marines and "all branches of the Defense Dept." will adopt new guidelines, oversight and audit procedures to "ensure" that aircraft maintenance achieves the "high standards which the US public has come to expect from its finest" and so on.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Constitution has gone to the dogs

Actually, it should have gone to the dogs, but didn't. I'm talking about  Leona Helmsley's estate , of course. The contract clause of the Constitution says, "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." This means that private contracts cannot be changed by legislative edict. This clause is incredibly important because the willingness of private individuals to engage in profitable enterprise - which is the foundation of social welfare - crucially depends on their belief that they can realize a profit. In turn, their belief that they can realize a profit depends on their belief that they can hold parties to a contract liable to the terms in the contract. For example, lenders must have confidence that they can repossess the collateral for a loan if the loan is defaulted on. Otherwise, they will not take the risk of giving the loan in the first place. When lenders are too scared to lend, everyone is worse off. In the case of Leona Hel...
So, I spent all weekend watching JFK assassination videos and doing armchair JFK assassination research. Here are my notes: 1) Most of the debate seems to rage around trying to get evidence or proof that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy. This is silly because it grants - from the outset - the bizarre assumption made by the official theories that political figures are as likely to die at the hands of "mad attention-seekers" as they are to be assassinated by their enemies who actually stand to benefit. How many people are insane enough to think that the electric chair is a fair trade for "being remembered" by history, even if in infamy? And of those people how many are resourceful enough to pierce the security perimeter of the President of the United States? Kennedy was threatened by Richard Pavlick in 1960 after Nixon lost the election and, by all accounts, Pavlick was a lone nut. But all we know of his "assassination attempts" are his own tall tale...

What Law Is

Law What is law? Frederic Bastiat, in his treatise The Law, defines law as the collective use of force. As much as I love Bastiat’s treatise, I think his definition is not sufficiently analytical. It is certainly the case that the law plays a role in the collective use of force but the law is something more basic than this. We can begin by looking at law as it is today. The website for the Oregon courts has an excellent summary [1] of modern law and courts. I will quote it at length: Throughout history, people have had disputes and have needed some means to settle their disputes. As civil societies develop, they need an orderly system of conflict resolution. One system that developed in "western" cultures is the "law court" or court of law. In England, those early law courts developed a "body of law" called the common law, which defined both the rights of the people and the government and the duties people owe each other and their government. T...