non aggression principle & politics
 

This thread is meant to restart what Radar and I started in the "RIP Reagan" thread. Radar, if you will...

When last we were involved in this, we were trying to determine how the NAP is an all-encompassing coherent "philosophy", and I was asking you questions about what sort of government it leads one to.

as an aside to the confused, the NAP as stated in the LP membership form becomes: "I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals."

We were talking about your theoretical neighbor who speeds through a school zone. I think we had determined that, under the NAP, he could be considered as initiating force through putting people at an unreasonable risk.

We had determined that, under the NAP, those at risk could hire agents to prevent the neighbor from speeding.

We had determined that, under the NAP, a disagreement over what constitutes force in this speeding is determined by a judiciary which is appointed or elected.

We had not yet determined what would happen under the NAP if a judiciary acts out of accord with the NAP.

*pulls seat forward* :corn:

*psssst. pass the popcorn*

my :2cents: before the main event...

Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule? Sure you have. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. [/KJV dialect] It is a fine rule, as good as a rule can be, really. That's why it's called "Golden" to connote it's preciousness. More precious than silver.

By the way, have you ever heard of the Silver Rule? Yeah. Just as one golden coin is as valuable as many silver coins, the Golden Rule is as valuable as many Silver Rules. You're probably wondering when I'm gonna get to the actual Silver Rules. Hehehe, well. If you can't take advantage of a golden coin for whatever reason, you'll have to rely on several silver coins instead. Similiarly, if you find that the Golden Rule can't be applied, then you're stuck with several Silver Rules.

I wouldn't want my neighbor to speed through a school zone; I don't speed through school zones. I deliberately leave the cause and effect ambiguous in this example. While the Golden Rule works, no speeding in school zones occurs. Voila!

Inevitably though, there comes a time when some behavior of mine, while fine by me, is not ok with my neighbor. The Golden Rule is tested. Perhaps my neighbor and I can come together and and out of mutual respect for each other and for the Golden Rule, we can reach and understanding. Perhaps not. The issue could easily be speeding in school zones, or anything else. Perhaps the Golden Rule cannot help in this situation. That makes it a job for the Silver Rules.

They're "lesser" rules, in the sense that they're more specific, they could address the defnitions and consequences of speeding in school zones, for instance. But being silver, they would be less valuable in deciding the consequences for spitting on the sidewalk, or emptying my crankcase into the storm drain, or building a discotech in my backyard, or selling dope in a school zone. See?

The more situations in which you can't appeal to the Golden Rule, (or it's peers), the more situations you'll have to mint a new Silver Rule. As you can probably imagine, there is no limit to the number of scenarios that could result in the production of more Silver Rules. Witness our own laws. The more specific the less useful. A law that is less useful has little value. Compared to a golden coin, a silver coin has little value.

The moral of my story is that although there are limits to the practical application of the Golden Rule, it is in our mutual best interest to attempt to use it alone if possible, but at least use it first, before resorting to lesser coins.

Here endeth the sermon.

I'd come to your church (small c) any time. (A lot easier to follw than Radar's, Guerilla's, etc.)

:tips cap to QotR:

Thanks, ma'am.

To BigV

Trying to follow your gold and silver approach. Is this similar to cause and effect, in that the silver rules support the golden rule.

For example, silver rules might be (using the school zone as the subject):

1. I drive carefully
2. The school zone is for children
3. I acknowledge that children's actions are unpredictable

which leads to
If (1) I drive carefully, and
if (3) I acknowledge that children's actions are unpredictable

Then the effect is (another silver)
4. I drive even more carefully when there are children about

and next
If (4) I drive even more carefully when there are children about, and
If (2) The school zone is for children

then the effect is (gold)
5. Children are safe/will come to no harm when I drive in the school zone

Maybe not the best example, but hope it allows you to say yay or nay. If nay give me another example to explain what you mean.

Thanks

bump?

Actually I believe we did discuss the consequences HERE when I said...

Also, I never said anything about "all encompassing philosophies. I don't believe any philosophy is "all encompassing". I do think it's a flawless ethical philosophy though.

I prefer the Iron Rule, "do unto others as they have done unto you".

As for the guy speeding through the school zone; forget it, you can't do anything about it if you follow the NAP. If you start making imposition of an arbitrary amount of risk into "initiation of force" (and the amount of risk from doing 25mph in a 15mph zone is pretty small compared to other risks accepted daily) which can be legitimately responded to with retaliatory force, you've vitiated the NAP. The amount of paternalistic legislation which can be justified under the "non-imposition of risk" principle is enormous.

The NAP, of course, is not the be-all and end-all of libertarianism; it started as a way of keeping the LP from getting tagged as a revolutionary organization, back when the government was especially oppressive about such things.

Which is my view of it. Seems to me the sine qua non of libertarianism is to limit the governmental sphere to quite a small part of the life of the polity, rather than any attachment in any degree to an unsustainable (albeit neighborly) philosophy like pacifism. If pacifism is not to kill its practitioner, the practitioner must under certain circumstances discard it in order to survive those circumstances. Almost no other philosophy of life has this problem.

We are at the crux of the matter.

The judge can do whatever he or she likes as long as he or she remains electable/appointable. The judge has no specific burden to follow the NAP; the only burden is to the voters.

Therefore the voters determine the nature of the system. The system is only as principled as the voters are. If they decide that the NAP is not the law of the land, they will abandon it. If they decide that force is required they will vote for it and their will is in effect.

The practical result is pretty much what we see today. The NAP is not in effect, nor will it ever BE in effect as a way to operate between people, because it is simple not how the voters decide.

Politics is inevitable. The practical result of your application of the NAP is that it will never be applied. Is that what you expected? How will you operate as a result?

Bump?

Actually the judge has a burden to follow the law. And if what the voters want exceeds the legitimate authority of the government, then the whole system is screwed and we have oppression. We've got people voting to steal from other people.

We've end up with 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. At this point, the only option is to have a violent revolution. This does not violate the N.A.P. because it is fighting in your defense, not for conquest, and not to take what belongs to others.

But as long as you fight for a minority viewpoint, violent revolution only means the people with the biggest guns win -- pretty much your "worst case" scenario for a people angling for freedom from coersion.

Bigger problem: let's assume that you do indulge in some sort of violence to bring about the government that you want. How would you ensure that the new government does not inevitably fall into the same trap?

You might say you would write a new Constitution, for example, with the wording that you particularly think will work. But isn't that what they did in the first place? Isn't that your whole take - that the plain language of the Constitution is understandable enough already not to violate?

Wouldn't it be folly to indulge in violent revolution without an approach that is guaranteed to be better than the previous?

The goal of a revolution isn't to create a great government. We already had that. The goal is to get those who have taken over government and usurped power out of government and to make all who serve in government fear for thier lives if they step out of line and work toward the best interests of politically influencial campain contributers rather than the best interest of the people.

The Constitution is only a piece of paper. It can't defend itself. Dishonest people have failed to uphold and defend it and actually worked against it. The lazy, apathetic, and ignorant have allowed it to happen. The stupid will always outnumber the intelligent.

The approach is clear. Keep government limited to defending rights, but not defining them or limiting them. Put the rights of the people above all things, and don't allow the desires of millions to infringe upon the rights of a single person.

People need to be educated as to the difference between rights and privileges. They also should learn that nobody's needs entitle them to steal from others and to use government to do it so they sleep better at night.

The majority doesn't see the government's actions as force, and so they don't accept your premise.

The majority will always have the bigger guns, so whether it was right or wrong, the net result is you are dead. As a dead person your rights are no longer a concern.

The current government has something very important: the consent of the governed. The vast, vast majority does not always agree with government, that's clear; but they agree to be governed in this way. They don't agree with the government, but they agree with the system of government.

We know that the government does not have your consent to govern you in this way. But they will govern you in this way. You will have to find a compromise between your rights and how the government you find to be governed by, allows you to live. May I suggest moving out of California, as a good first start.

You say that the only valid government is one that doesn't initate force. But you can't find a government on earth that operates that way. This is not a coincidence. Human nature itself, abhoring disorder, defines force differently than you do. The only answer, in the long term, is education and evangelism, because we see through history that education has a transformative effect on people (and their ability to make choices based on abstract things like "freedom").

The situation in the Netherlands is pretty much the same as the one in America. We have a president called Jan-Peter Balkenende at the moment who is, with the coöperation of most of the ministers who are appointed to run the country (his cabinet as we call it in Dutch), de-liberalising and "re-organising" the Netherlands in very drastic ways. Most of the population doesn't like the road our country is taking but they ARE letting it happen.

The unrest here is growing and political scandals have become day-to-day material. My parents are pretty left-wing and they are awed at the fact that there haven't been any major protests yet while the majority of the population is not happy with the situation at hand.

The cabinet we have now is a stubborn one and even a few scandals haven't been able to make it fall. And I certainly don't agree with most of their policies but as you said, Undertoad, there is not much a person can do solo and most of the people will never have the guts to stand up and really come out for their opinion. People tend to be like a flock of cattle. So it's just a long wait for the next election, hoping that the remaining time of the current government won't drag the country down into a real troublesome situation.

Face it... There is not and will never be a Utopian government.

Welcome, Ero! Its always great to hear from a member of the international community. I'm sorry that things sound as bad in the Netherlands as they are here.

I honestly believe that the US no longer has the "consent of the governed." We have the consent of corporate and multi-national business, as well as the consent of Halliburten. Unless you have a few million, AT LEAST, to buy yourself some representative government, you are not represented by anyone.

The US two party system has a death grip on the electoral process. The Libertarians may howl, the Greens may scream, and the common man may wish someone else ran for office, but it ain't gonna happen.

Dem or Rep, by time you are running for national office, you have become a person without a soul long ago. Campaigns are big business and big business knows this and contributes accordingly.

Everyone here can sit and philosophize about what constitutes a good government, and argue about the value of my silver ideal versus your brass act of government theft. Its not going to make one iota of difference. The government allows free speech up to a point, because this keeps us busy arguing with one another while Rome burns and the Senate sends out for pork flambe' catered by Halliburten to the tune of a $150.00 per blackened chop.

You want to go out and have a revolution by force to change this?

Good luck, my friend. Your registered gun has just been confiscated and you have been declared a threat under the National Security Act and can plan on spending the next 20 years in jail without benefit of the writ of habeas corpus.

We'll think of you sometimes, but not often.

I haven't mentioned a revolution by force and i'm certainly not planning one. However I must admit my thoughts dwindle sometimes...

But I know, whenever you are in a position with which you do not agree but your leaders, the ones with the power, do; You could either bide your time or speak up. I'm trying to make that second choice as much as I can but without getting into too much trouble.

I didn't think that you were, but reading back over my reply I can see how it must have been confusing. I was responding to another poster who had posted earlier in the thread advocating overthrowing the government by force.

Good luck with your own efforts to make a difference in the governing of your country. :)

Ask most people on tax day if they want to pay taxes, or if they pay them because they are forced to do it. Ask them what happens to them if they don't pay the taxes.

They will have more guns, but that doesn't matter. Only 5% of the people in the Colonies actually fought against the British, and they won. I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of American soldiers would NOT fire on other Americans, even if they were taking the government back. In fact many would help out in returning the government to the Constitutional Republic we started with.


Saying it has the consent of the governed is debatable. I can't consent to steal my neighbors car. I have no right to offer such consent. So the "consent" you're talking about is false. The government doesn't so much have consent as it has apathy, and ignorance thanks to government funded schools.

I already live in California. I'm on the Executive Committee of the statewide Libertarian Party.

Actually I said a valid government only initiates force for the defense of rights, and the common defense of the nation from outsiders and pretty much nothing else. It doesn't use force to tell people how to live thier lives, it only uses it to defend them when a crime has been committed against them.

Libertarians don't believe in a utopian government. We just want one that allows us to live the way we want as long as our actions don't PHYSICALLY harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property or violate their equal rights.

This is not utopian. It's a form of government we actually had in America.

Yes, but where will you be asking them? On line while they are waiting to mail their taxes, that's where.

They don't like it, but they accept it, and they do not act to change it. Their apathy is a signal of acceptance. For the things that bother them, they work within the system and nearly unanimously believe that is the best approach.

It has the consent of the governed. It doesn't require any particular person's consent. It doesn't require your consent at all. It requires a large majority agreeing that the elected government is actually the valid government. That the police's job is to police them, that the courts determine how the law is applied, that elections are how we determine who's in charge.

There are a few people in New Orleans tonight who believe that the police do not police them. These people are called "looters". The vast majority expects that the police do police them. In fact they *demand* it and are incredulous when it is not present. This is consent of the governed in action.

Or at least that you like to think existed; blacks, women, and non-landowners might take some offense with the idea that force was correctly applied or not applied, in 1800s US. Unfortunately you will have to deal with modern citizens... the ones who actually elect the current government.

Sad to see this not continue.

Sad but predictable.

It does not have the consent of the governed. I've discussed in another thread that the income tax amendment is blatantly unconstitutional and was fraudulently ratified without the consent of the governed. Saying that people consent to it because they do it out of fear of government retaliation is like saying a person being robbed at the point of a gun consented to give you his money. He was coerced under the threat of violence to comply. If this threat were removed, nobody would pay.

This is a nice strawman you've setup, but completely irrelevant. The valid role of government includes protecting people from others and from each other when it comes to crime. This does not need to be funded by income taxes. 100% of the valid functions (Constitutional) of government can be funded without raising any taxes and without collecting a penny of income tax. We'd have firefighters, policemen, judges, courts, a military, etc. without a penny of income tax if we got rid of the unconstitutional parts of government.

People vary on whether they personally want to pay taxes, but they want taxes to be paid. But that, too, is practically off-topic. The point is, they recognize the government's ability to tax. They believe that the government is legitimate, even if the particular tax amount they don't want to pay is legitimate. They may complain about the tax, but their answer is to request lower taxes from their legitimate government, and/or to change the government through elections.

If their neighbor does not pay taxes, they want the government to go use guns on him. When the government does, the people say it was justice. If that threat were removed, the people would find another means to threaten their neighbor into paying the tax.

Nine wo/men in black robes determine whether something is unconstitutional, not you. The Constitution invests that power in the court system. The people believe in the legitimacy of the court system. If the courts found the amendment to be unconstitutional, the people would demand another amendment be drawn up and passed immediately. One day after the social security checks bounced, there would either be a constitutional convention or martial law or both. Neither option would be very pretty, or very libertarian, to you or anybody else.

Here is the fatal flaw in your logic. The Supreme Court IS NOT the sole arbiter of the U.S. Constitution. In fact ALL citizens determine whether or not something is or is not Constitutional. There is absolutely no requirement for judical review for something to be unconstitutional. The first supreme court said this in the Marbury vs. Madison case.

The Constitution invests very limited powers in a very limited scope to all branches of the U.S. government. The Supreme Court routinely violates those limits and rules against the U.S. Constitution (making the court ruling itself unconstitutional in its face and thus null and void) by allowing unconstitutional laws to pass if they deem them to be in the "interests" of the U.S. government, even though the USSC is not granted such discretionary powers by the Constitution.

The fact that people pay taxes under duress is absolutely NOT offering consent and does NOT mean they see legitimacy in the process. That's a baseless claim.

How do the citizens determine whether something is unconstitutional? How do they express that?

Leave tax out of it then. Just ask people if The government is Their government.

Each and every person has a RIGHT to petition the government for a redress of grievances. If the government does not address this petition, we have the RIGHT to cut off ALL TAXES. The founders said so themselves.

Government has the authority to tax, but not the right to tax our incomes. Even if 99.999% of America voted to grant the government such authority, it would NOT have this authority legitimately. I don't have the right to steal from another person to pay for the things that I want, therefore, I can't grant this power to government. Nor can 350 million people.

No matter how many people "consent" to income taxes, (and most don't) the fact remains that unless it is voluntary, it is theft. It's armed robbery to be percise. The government demands money to pay for programs I don't want and if I don't pay, men with guns show up at my house. That's theft.

Didn't some recent decision just say that the government doesn't have to respond to such a petition?

I've been a little overwhelmed with the whole Katrina thing, and it's been too busy at work for me to pay attention to what I usually might on the news.

The government doesn't have to respond to such petitions, but until they do, I can withhold taxes.

The following website has a list of decrees of the Continental Congress in 1774 in Philadelphia.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/decres.htm

Pay special attention to the part that says...

In otherwords, government may choose not to respond, but until they do, I am under no obligation to give them taxes. I am the master, and government is the servant. If the servant gets out of hand, you starve the servant into submission. I will not contribute money to be used against me.

Returning to this thread, this question was not answered:

How do the citizens determine whether something is unconstitutional? How do they express that?

For the most part, the citizens are sheep. A handful of really smart or creative people determine constitutionality. Then it's a matter of convincing the masses.

The Constitution is very clear. It's not ambiguous or vague in any sense. It doesn't require "translation". It means exactly what it says; no more; no less.

If an amendment says "Congress shall make no law", it means "Congress shall make no law". If it says, "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", it means "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

If a law is created that infringes our right to keep and bear arms, for instance a law requiring us to wait a certain time period before buying a gun, or one that limits what type of guns we may buy, we know that this law is unconstitutional in its face and we have no obligation to follow it.

The Constitution limits the powers of government, not the rights of the people. Any laws which attempt to limit our rights, are illegal ones.

Nevertheless, there is great disagreement over what is and what is not Constitutional.

The most common example is probably whether or not you can shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre/gathering/whatever.

The Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Yet if you incite a riot by faking a disaster through your speech, you'll rightly be charged and locked up. What's the deal there?

Ls would agree that fraud is aggression. But the C says speech can't be abridged. Doesn't say anything about truth of that speech.

Somebody has to resolve this question. Who does it in your world?

(Takes 5mg of Wolf's suggested Haldol dose and steps into hypothetical land)

The men who framed the Constitution expected that both the governed and the government would act with common sense. In fact, I believe Thomas Paine authored a tract entitled just that - "Common Sense."

I have freedom of speech. Does this mean I am free to give military secrets away to the enemy in time of war? After all, I have the right to speak freely to whomever I please.

Do I have the right to shout "FIRE!" where there is none in a crowded theater? What if I stand on a soapbox downtown on the corner of 1st and Main and shout "FIRE!"? In both instances I am telling a lie.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to bring others harm by my use of it. If it did, then there would be no laws about deceptive banking practices, truth in advertizing, inciting riots, on and on.

Falsely shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is an act of coercion, even agression. The people in the dark, crowded theater are unable to judge the validity of my words for themselves. The unwritten social contract in all human societies is that we will not knowingly harm one another. That's why we are shocked by acts of murder or the abuse of an innocent child. The warning shout is taken at its face value. No one would willingly jump up in a mass stampede for the exits when no need for such an action exists.

If I have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," the man falsely shouting "FIRE!" has infringed on all three of these rights. My life is in danger since I may be trampled by the fear crazed crowd, my liberty to make a rational choice has been taken from me, and I'm certainly not happy as I struggle with the mob to escape.

In this sense, the shout of "FIRE!" is far from being a constitutional right. It is in fact, an unconstitutional act. In my world, even a six year old has more common sense then that.

Ah, but are those laws constitutional? ;)

Lookout123 is very funny and I agree with the golden rule----I think.

If the Constitution is the be all end all, what is the point of further laws?

Gold versus silver, friend.

If you are going to argue the Constitution, that document needs to be examined in its entirety, not merely a single phrase from the Bill of Rights, taken out of context from the whole.

For example, here is the 9th Amendment to that document:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Various disingenuous arguments such as the one about shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater being free speech have been offered to get around the plain meaning of this text, but it clearly allows that rights exist which are not listed in the Constitution, and it thus implies that such rights do not exist because they are granted by positive law.

There is no such thing - as others have demonstrated by example. We keep trying to make things less ambiguous. Contracts that once took one page now take hundreds. And still the contract has ambiguities.

As cybernetic research demonstrates - which is why computers cannot comprehend conversations - everything is stated within implied context. And once those contexts were defined by the additional 99 pages in that contract, still, more 'context' remains undefined.

Only in an ideal world is anything, defined by human communication, "not ambiguous or vague in any sense." Everything must be interpreted within unstated context and other assumptions. It's called a meeting of the minds - not a statement of absolutes. No way around reality regardless of what rhetoric proclaims.

Only among those seeking to get around the Constitution.

The Constitution defines and limits the scope and role of the government. It grants Congress limited powers to carry out specific tasks such as providing a common DEFENSE. Congress is given the limited power to make laws in the specific areas mentioned only to carry out the specific goals mentioned. This means the point of the further laws is so that Congress can carry out those things and to do nothing else. For instance law enforcement is the domain of the states, and not of the federal government. Neither is charity, education, retirement, healthcare, and the vast majority of the other areas government has gotten involved in.

Yes there is. What AI on computers can or can't comprehend is irrelevant. There are absolutes in the world. Government is the creation of the people and its powers are limited to what we as individuals can do and that we grant power to do.

As an individual I have no authority to tell anyone else what kind of medical procedures they can or can't have, whom they may or may not marry, what drugs they take, what type or number of guns they can or can't own, etc. This means that I can't grant this power to government. Nor can any of you. Nor can all of the people in America combined.

As individuals, we do not have the right to physically harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property. Only when this happens has a crime truly happened.

In the case of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you are endangering others. Your speech is not being infringed. You are free to say fire anywhere you like, but if you do so in a way that endangers others, the crime isn't what you said, it's that you endangered others with your actions. If you didn't say a word but set off smoke grenades and people ran out because they thought there was a fire and trampled others to death, it would be the exact same crime.

You are free to say fire anywhere you like, but if you do so in a way that endangers others, the crime isn't what you said, it's that you endangered others with your actions.

The Constitution only protects speech. It sounds like you have determined that there is reason to abridge freedom of speech. I am not sure what section of the Constitution makes it a crime to shout Fire. Please point it out to me and explain why it trumps the first amendment.

As I just said, it's not a crime to shout fire. It's a crime to endanger others. Shouting fire isn't a crime. Doing something to endanger people such as drunk driving, setting off fire crackers in a crowded theater (the same thing as shouting "FIRE"), etc. is a crime. As I said, there is nothing that trumps the first amendment. Free speech means you're free to say what you want, but you are still responsible for the consequences of your actions. If you use your speech to harm others, such as the "FIRE" example, or to threaten people, or to libel or slander people, your actions have consequences. The consequences are not for what you said, but rather for the results of what was said. It's a very important distinction.

Oh. So, you can not be punished for speaking, unless what you said had a bad result.

Well let's play with it a bit. What kind of bad result? If you create a mob in which people are trampled and property destroyed, sure. If you shout FIRE in a theatre and nobody gets hurt, is that a crime? What if you intended to incite a riot and you just screwed up and announced the FIRE in a theatre at a firemen's convention and it just made people happy instead?

Apparently.

Why are you arguing this, anyhow, UT? Where are you going with it? Are you laying the groundwork to prove that people should be gagged from expressing their opinions or documents shredded in the name of Homeland Security or the War on Terror?

Mar, you often react to the very last posting when the larger context doesn't justify it. Whenever you can't figure out where someone is going you should go back and read the entire thread.

Well, somewhere in this thread, you said that there is disagreement over what is and what is not constitutional and used the example of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point of arguing that particular example. The Bill of Rights does not give people free rein to commit crimes under the guise of the Constitution. The false shout of "FIRE" when it will bring harm to those who hear it is obviously a crime. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to tell lies that bring others very real damage. I guess I'd rather argue an example that is a little less absurd and more relevant to what is going on in the nation today. But that's just me.

And somewhere before that was the whole setup of what UT and Radar are doing here, which is not in any sense a traditional debate about "what is going on in the nation today." You should go read those posts.

I did, but if you'll notice there's been a bit of thread drift here. Hey, UT and Radar can duke it out just fine without any more help from me. They've lost me - if I was ever NOT lost.

Gentleman have at it, sorry for the interruption!

And who determines whether it's a bad result? What if I yell "potato" and a riot ensues, but I had no intention of starting one?

Most likely a judge would decide, and intent would play a strong role. Unless you had hypnotized the audience into believing potatoes would kill them all, it would be hard to prove that you had any rational way of believing if you shout the word "potato" a riot would result.

We need ZOD in 2008. :D
Check out his platform and the Q&A.