Degrees of Freedom: Surprising Criminal Political Scandal Unfolds: Politics, Philosophy and Economics from a libertarian point of view.

Surprising Criminal Political Scandal Unfolds Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The NYT asks, "Why do politicians at all levels keep starring in this familiar and non-partisan soap opera rerun?" in Politics, and Scandal, as Usual. The question was prompted, of course, by New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's recent announcement that he had broken a few laws by spending some time with a prostitute.

I believe the article has been archived already so you need an NYT login to view it, but essentially the story searches for the answer in psychology, explores entitlement mentality and alpha-male status as possible reasons for why politicians, of all people, continually find themselves embroiled in law-breaking scandals.

I wonder though, did anyone ever consider the fact that they're... CRIMINALS?!

Politicians are criminals. They exist off of stolen wealth (tax money), their entire job revolves around writing positive law which is responsible for the further confiscation and redistribution of wealth as well as the directing of State violence in those efforts. These people are violent criminals, to the man (or woman, as the case may be, though female politicians involved in sexual scandals seem to be rare, maybe just because female politicians are relatively rare themselves). So, then, does it really come as a surprise that people who consider it to be acceptable to practice one form of crime, have no problem engaging in other criminal activities?

Does it matter if they're family men or "Christians?" Who reading this is surprised to find out a Mafia man is unfaithful to his wife and operates or participates in a prostitution ring, despite being a dedicated family man and an affirmed Catholic (consider the depiction of Tony Soprano in The Sopranos)? If you aren't surprised to hear a Mafia man who commits one crime has no trouble demonstrating he's capable of committing others, why is it that it's suddenly SO shocking to find out a politician does the same kind of things?

Is it because the Mafia doesn't hold elections?

Labels: absurdist society, democracy, politics, statism, taxes

4 Comments:

At Sun Mar 16, 04:34:00 PM EDT, Benjamin said...: I am skeptical about the assertion that politicians are criminals by nature, simply because criminality entails breaking a law. The law provides for political activity here, so they are far from criminals. Perhaps we should consider a revision of the law, but until this occurs, taxation etc. is far from criminal.
We would not call thieves in an anarchical society criminal (no law would exist to violate), though we may very well call them unethical, and it is in the arena of ethics that I think criticism of the behavior of politicians belongs. I think asserting criminality comes across as a bit dogmatic, and while the ethical claim may very be (and in my mind is often) valid, criminality is not.
At Sun Mar 16, 09:09:00 PM EDT, James said...: Benjamin,

You do realize that criminality may be understood to mean deviations from normative principles of justice, right? By that natural law standard politicians are criminals.

It may be the case the politicians are behaving within the limits set by various statutes, but so what? I'm sure that even the most indefensible tyrants could defend their own actions along similar lines. Unless those statutes that they adhere to are consistent with how people should behave themselves, it doesn't make the least bit of difference, just as private theft would be no more excusable if it were made legal tomorrow.
At Sun Mar 16, 11:24:00 PM EDT, Benjamin said...: That is just my point, criminality is not in play here, though unethical behavior most certainly is. Appeal to normative standards of justice will certainly be tendentious, and also this seems to make many behaviors that we see as unethical, though not criminal, as both. I agree with the second half of your post, though I would say that is exactly why ethics, and not legality, is in play here.
At Mon Mar 17, 01:43:00 PM EDT, TAYLOR said...: Benjamin,

Positive law in this country already prohibits theft. By that standard alone, politicians and employees of the State are all criminals because their salary is derived via taxation, aka forcible theft euphemistically dressed up as official State business.

Of course, I reject the meaningfulness of State-written positive law, all that's important to me is natural law which describes natural justice and the mechanics of property rights. By this standard, as well, politicians are obviously criminals, again because they must steal to stay in business. Taking another individual's property against their will is called theft.

Your definition of criminality is confusing and lacks the important element of JUSTICE. Justice only exists when the law (whether it be positive or natural law) is applied equally to all persons, and is consistent with a proper understanding of property rights. What we have right now in this country is essentially a class-based criminal justice system, by which the population as a whole is split into two classes-- State politicians and employees, who enjoy special legal protections, reduced legal liability and often times outright immunity from various laws, and then "the Others," which is everyone who isn't so lucky as to wear an "official" badge or have an office in a State-owned building.

If I steal someone's property, that's called theft and I can be sent to prison for it. When the IRS or other government tax collecting agency steals property, that's called "taxation" and there is no criminal liability. But both acts are fundamentally the same in their means and their ends.

If I murder someone, that's called murder and I can be sent to prison for it. If an agent of the State murders someone (say a police officer, or a soldier), they're just doing their job, and if an investigation ever occurs, they often spend time on paid leave before being let off the hook.

Two standards of justice means no standard of justice.

I don't think you should be speaking about what we would call theives in an "anarchical" society because you don't seem familiar at this point with the fundamental concepts underlying an anarchist society.

I'm curious, if rape laws, for instance, were taken off the books today in all states, would this mean you suddenly define rape as a non-crime but rather just an ethical violation? Do you honestly feel that way?