Today The Caped Persuader welcomes his fellow free will advocate and Dragonslayer, the Dread Pirate Roberts himself, Penjammin, for a very special episode of Blossom–er… guest post.

Without further ado…

Normally right now I am sitting at the cafe with an artful cup of coffee that flatters a pretty good sandwich, sitting at a deuce after sunrise reading the paper and breathing the fresh morning air through the gardenry of the courtyard, thinking about whatever pleasantries come to mind. Today, I’m thinking about a disagreement that, fun as it is, doesn’t beat that. *sigh* CC, why dude? Just kidding. Kinda. Where were we? Oh yes.

Some bad things should not be criminal, and a good test for what those things are is asking if anyone’s rights are being violated. The idea of criminalizing behavior that does not violate anyone’s rights seems pretty dumb and even wrong in itself. Let’s provisionally call it a bad idea. Meddling busybodies are bad enough without guns, cages, and qualified immunity. There are better ways.

This much seems right so far. Why would CC disagree? He dropped a clue, one criterion for public policy, along the lines of: “Will this law will make a better society?” That is just jaw-dropping mad to me. First, there should be other questions. Maybe there are for CC, but this one sure seems to enjoy a troubling singularity, being singled out and all. Why not add:

Is the law just? Moral besides?
Are the means worthy of the ends?
What of unintended consequences?
What is a better society?
Can we even know if this will make a net improvement, and how do you quantify that?
Is this a smart way to go about the action?
Are there times to make policies that have a net drop in greater good for (say) some moral principle?
Does this set a bad precedent even if it gains a net good?
Do I have the right to meddle in other people’s lives like this?
Is this law a priority, or is it taking resources from something else?
Am I going utilitarian in my ethics with all this “better” talk, and if so do the troubles of such a philosophy trouble me?
By the way, when is initiating violence against peaceful citizens ever a good idea?
Who do I think I am?!
What would Plato do, and actually, never mind on that.

CC seems pretty cool, but that singular question seems rather sure of itself, all alone and above the others. What Hayek said of economics seems just as true of law. We should be humble about what we imagine we can design. For example, it is not obvious that criminalizing such behavior is effective at actually curbing it or even in not making matters worse. It also seems lazy and wrong for good folk and puritans to contract out their societal reforms, especially to a bully institution with solutions worse than problems. No, we do what we can cultivating good, but God makes it grow. Much social-engineering is better left to him, especially over unjust deals with the state.

These are conservative and smart notions. All things being equal the other position is less conservative for lacking them, so it boggles the mind why CC disagrees. The idea of criminalizing behavior that does not violate anyone’s rights seems neither right nor smart. His criterion to the contrary seems both highly problematic and lonely. What seems more the case is what most know intuitively: Interference that isn’t to protect rights is probably violating them.

I’m not done. I have more to say, but I want to give CC a break, so I might mix it up next time. I don’t know. For now, it’s all about my refill. Peace.

EDIT: Chronological note. This post continues in responding to CCs argument at the time of volume 1. CC has since responded to that first post, and now his argument isn’t quite the same. So, there is more on the way.

Penjammin hails from the mythical realm of Chora, where he enjoys… you know what? Ima just let him tell it…

Those raised deep within the labyrinthine cavern chose to run with the wolves when they came of age. I chose quickly, and for years, life was sweet in the scent of my game. Then pirates landed, and I was separated from my pack. Unaccustomed to my captors’ speech, I watched, learned, and cleverly escaped! Actually, they were all drunk at port, so leaving was pretty easy. Living was not.

Them were mean streets for a stranger like me, but thankfully there were gypsies. Their circus provided me a haven and quite an education, but eventually, every city seemed the same. A few of us traded the road for the sea. 

Fortune found us not long thereafter, even leading my former captors in my hands! I claimed their wretched ship as compensation and left them on a deserted island to die by their own ways. Then, I set sail for home. But the sea, she had other plans. Jealous wench.

Hobbies: Civilization, Whittling with my teeth. 
Renown: Dread Pirate Roberts, Man Who Pinned Chuck Norris*

…or my armchair’s rocking-action is powered by matters epistemic, NAP, and free-will and serves as a place where I appreciate thinkers like William Lane Craig and Ron Paul. If that were the case, I suppose I would be here to think out loud and stuff. So, it’s either that or, you know, the other thing. 

*Thumb-wrestling