Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Here Comes Da Judge

Judge Steven Fleece has responded to my two recent columns about the State Board of Accounts Audit for Clark Superior Court 3, that implicates him in a few misdeeds. See the first column by clicking here. And for the second part, click here

Here's an excerpt to his response:

"At the risk of boring everyone except Debbie Harbeson and myself, I must take issue with some of the comments made in her columns concerning the State Board of Accounts audit of the Clark County Alcohol and Drug Services Program. First of all, however, I wish to thank the News and Tribune for what seemed to me a fair and balanced account of the controversy in the April 5 edition.

 I also want to commend Mrs. Harbeson for taking the time to read my response to the audit. I could do without the sarcasm. But, I suppose when you view the world from her “all government is evil” libertarian perspective, some of what I wrote in my response really does seem “hysterical” to her. Personally, I think it’s hysterical every time she compares any governmental restraint on personal conduct, no matter how reasonable, as the government “holding a gun” to somebody’s head.... Click here to read more."


  1. You could also say (without being hysterical in the least) "I suppose when you view the world from Fleece's “all government is OK” authoritarian perspective, some of what I wrote in my column really does seem “hysterical” to him.

    I think it's hysterical that Fleece considers any restraint on personal conduct- apart from theft, aggression, or trespassing- "reasonable. And if The State isn't holding a gun to a person's head to keep them from doing something that has no victim, how does Fleece really think that this compliance is imposed?

    Fleece may as well be claiming (and I suspect he really is): "Theft isn't theft as long as government does it. And if you comply before government is 'forced' to shoot you, then there is no gun held to your head."

  2. "Here is what Harbeson’s libertarian blinders prevent her from seeing. The service fee I charged in association with traffic tickets was an alternative to a fine."

    You have to love this kind of convoluted logic that tries to make it seem like the government isn't using force. Fees are voluntary. You don't have to pay the service fee. Of course, if you don't "volunteer" to pay the service fee then he'll just impose the fine on you by force.

  3. And, of course, it never occurs to these benevolent dictators that none of their intentions, let alone their actions, are in the least "reasonable."

    Self ownership, individual responsibility for choices and actions, non-aggression and rational self defense when one encounters those who do not practice such... those are the bottom line.

    No "fees" OR "fines" are necessary - any more than is prohibition of any kind.. Nor is any of that effective in preventing aggressive behavior. And that, of course, goes double for the various government "enforcers."