Thursday, September 22, 2016

On Jail Time for Jesse Benton

At the post, Did Jesse Benton Violate the Non-Aggression Principle?, a commenter leaves:
AnonymousSeptember 22, 2016 at 1:16 PM
So based on that argument you also believe that Dennis Fusaro also broke the law and thus should go to jail. He chose to run a political campaign in MD and violated campaign disclosure laws, deceiving donors and the public of his actions. He is claiming its his first amendment right but MD law states otherwise. I hope you treat Mr Fusaro the same way you treat Mr Benton.
I never said Jesse should get jail time. I said it was on the edge but that he violated the non-aggression principle. I hold that it is injured parties that should determine punishment for NAP violations, not the state.

I am happy for Jesse that he did not get jail time so that he can continue his CNN commentary on Donald Trump from his home while under house arrest.



  1. So if Volkswagen makes a car that skirts regulations it is violating the NAP, because its customers believed that it was producing cars in conformity to all regulations? Couldn't this reasoning be used to make all violations of government rules into violations of the NAP?

  2. RW writes: "I hold that it is injured parties that should determine punishment for NAP violations."

    Few people would want to live in a society where RW could murder children for walking on his grass, so his social dream is not likely to come about. Still, why does he want such a system? What purpose does it serve to advocate such nonsense?

    If our purpose is to discover rules by which we can coexist, proportionality and objectivity must be part of the fun of punishing the transgressions of others.

    Punishments should be according to some reasonable code, not the passions of the plaintif.

  3. Yes the arbitrary whims of "Anonymous" should take precedence over the victim's desire to get restitution.

  4. Puhleeeze! Maryland is charging two individuals with making illegal speech because it lacked government mandated speech in or with its content. This issue has nothing to do with the use of campaign funds. Implicit in the nature of the charges is that private, personal funds were used, not funds from a campaign entity given to it by campaign contributors. Understood in that light no contributors were asked to give for one reason only to have the funds used for another reason which violated Maryland state government campaign election finance laws and regulations.

  5. Mr Waters and Mr Fusaro still violated election law by intentionally deceiving the public who was paying for the robo call. It claims to be paid by Marylanders for Transgenders. Unless one or both want to come out of the closet then they were intentionally deceiving the public.

    Plus Mr Fusaro was working for the opponents campaign. If it was a real campaign issue then why did the campaign not do it directly. That's just dirty politics

    Can't claim the moral high road when you are hiding behind a transgendered skirt