Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Bennett, Dissenting

The first time I got to vote in a pres­i­den­tial elec­tion was in Novem­ber 1988. I was a sopho­more at Rice Uni­ver­sity, reg­is­tered to vote in Texas. The race was between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. I voted for Ron Paul, who was run­ning as the Lib­er­tar­ian candidate.

I believe that the answer to “how much gov­ern­ment do we need” is, and prob­a­bly always will be, “less,” but I am not an anarchist.

Do away with gov­ern­ment, the anar­chists say, and the mar­ket will fill the role of the state—keeping us free, pro­tect­ing our prop­erty, keep­ing us safe.

I don’t share the anar­chists’ rosy view of human nature. Do away with gov­ern­ment, and for a while the strong will dom­i­nate the weak. Then the weak will band together and dom­i­nate the strong. Then the strong will band together and dom­i­nate the weak again. Some of the weak will join the strong until finally more than half of the col­lec­tive power is dom­i­nat­ing less than half. What­ever this dom­i­nant 50+% is called, it will be, for prac­ti­cal pur­poses, the state. Over the long term, anar­chy is impossible.

Less gov­ern­ment equals more free­dom; I see it as a zero-sum game. I’m will­ing to give up some free­dom to have fire pro­tec­tion and paved roads (for exam­ple), but we could do with less gov­ern­ment, and every day we have more. More gov­ern­ment and less freedom.

So: Ron Paul. Ran as a Lib­er­tar­ian in 1988. “Intel­lec­tual god­fa­ther of the Tea Party.” Run­ning as a Repub­li­can now. Doing well for a Lib­er­tar­ian. But the Tea Partiers come out in droves for Rick San­to­rum, who is unabashedly opposed to per­sonal lib­erty:

They have this idea that peo­ple should be left alone, be able to do what­ever they want to do. Gov­ern­ment should keep our taxes down and keep our reg­u­la­tion low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bed­room, we shouldn’t get involved in cul­tural issues, you know, peo­ple should do what­ever they want. Well, that is not how tra­di­tional con­ser­v­a­tives view the world, and I think most con­ser­v­a­tives under­stand that indi­vid­u­als can’t go it alone, that there is no such soci­ety that I’m aware of where we’ve had rad­i­cal indi­vid­u­al­ism and that it suc­ceeds as a culture.

San­to­rum is half right. Most con­ser­v­a­tives are, as San­to­rum says, author­i­tar­ian rather than lib­er­tar­ian. (He’s wrong about there not being a suc­cess­ful soci­ety with rad­i­cal indi­vid­u­al­ism.) Ron Paul runs as a Repub­li­can, I sup­pose, not because there’s any­thing inher­ently lib­er­tar­ian about the Repub­li­can Party, but because it’s some­how a bet­ter fit than the Demo­c­ra­tic Party.

Lib­er­tar­i­an­ism in national gov­ern­ment serves author­i­tar­i­an­ism in state and local gov­ern­ment. Tra­di­tional conservatives—Santorum conservatives—if they favor less gov­ern­ment, favor less fed­eral gov­ern­ment, as though state gov­ern­ments are benign. I sus­pect that their rea­son­ing is that gov­ern­ment is not dan­ger­ous when it is close to home. And for those in the major­ity, this may be true—it’s eas­ier to remove a school board mem­ber who dis­agrees with you than to remove a sen­a­tor. But for any­one who might not share the polit­i­cal views of the major­ity, the oppo­site is true: the nearer gov­ern­ment is to us, the more it can intrude in our lives and inter­fere with our liberty.

I am cheered to see Ron Paul pulling down good num­bers (maybe bet­ter than you’ve heard) in the Repub­li­can pri­maries. He may have some influ­ence on the party’s plat­form, if not on its choice of candidate.

But lib­er­tar­i­an­ism can’t be imposed from above. Lib­er­tar­i­an­ism in fed­eral gov­ern­ment but not in state gov­ern­ment is not lib­er­tar­i­an­ism, but mere fed­er­al­ism. Lib­er­tar­i­an­ism has to start at home and grow from there.

That, friends, is why I’m run­ning for office.

What office?,” you might ask.

My first thought was to seek a seat on the Texas leg­is­la­ture. But when I learned that the Lib­er­tar­ian Party of Texas needed a can­di­date for one statewide office to have a full ticket, and that the office was right in my bailiwick—not pol­i­tics, but crim­i­nal law—an office that ought to be beyond par­ti­san pol­i­tics, an office that is pol­luted by the two-party sys­tem, and an office in which I could do real and last­ing good, I knew that was the race for me.

And that’s why I’m run­ning for the Texas Court of Crim­i­nal Appeals.

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

41 Responses to “Bennett, Dissenting”

  1. Pauline says:

    Con­grat­u­la­tions and good luck!!

  2. Gideon says:

    You know, if you get elected — and I hope you do — the phrase “inter­est­ing opin­ion; I shall book­mark it for fur­ther review” will take on a whole new meaning.

    Make us proud. We always knew you were the smartest one of us all.

  3. Out­stand­ing. Good luck!

    BTW, I’m a small-gov’t type who’d like less fed­eral and more state, but not because I think local gov’t is any more benign. It’s not. But I see the role of gov’t as doing those things we can’t do for our­selves. Things the fam­ily can’t take care of should be han­dled by the local­ity. Things the town can’t do should be han­dled by the county. And so on up to the state and the feds. The stuff that’s left over by the time you get to the feds is impor­tant stuff, but there’s not quite so much of it.

  4. Can I come and hand out flyers?

  5. shg says:

    This is quite a day. Ben­nett (dis­sent­ing) will never lock the cour­t­house doors.

  6. Alice Harris says:

    I hope you are elected.

  7. Alex Bunin says:

    Against whom?

  8. Go for it, Mark. I can’t wait to read your opinions.

  9. Oddly enough, I find this to be a really great idea! You have my vote!

    Go get ‘em, Mark!

  10. Wow. Ok. That is real news. Con­grat­u­la­tions. Where do I get a t-shirt? I will also take a lawn sign because Tex­ans some­times travel to Oregon.

  11. Mike Paar says:

    Fan­tas­tic! I hope you win. We need more hon­est peo­ple tak­ing the chance and run­ning for polit­i­cal office. I am cur­rently of the opin­ion that every judge in this coun­try is cor­rupt to one degree or another. How­ever, if you are elected I’ll be happy to change that opin­ion because I know that you have too much pride, self respect, and your con­vic­tions are too strong for you to ever make a rul­ing just for polit­i­cal gain as the rest of them do.

  12. Ric Moore says:

    If it wouldn’t embar­rass you too much, I’d love to have a poster for my yard here in Vir­ginia. Of course that would put you in close prox­im­ity to exactly what you’re writ­ing about, a state that tram­ples on indi­vid­ual rights to the point of being the butt of jokes on national TV.

    If your lovely mug is on it, it would be look­ing out towards Rich­mond and the unholy trin­ity of A.G. Cuc­cinelli, Gov. Bob McDon­nell and Sen­a­tor Can­tor. I’m going to put bicy­cle reflec­tors where your eyes are and rig up a blink­ing spot light to shine on them. That’ll put the fear of God in them!

    I’ll email you and let you know when it’s up. If you don’t hear back from me, please check with Home­land Secu­rity and, after you’re elected, GET ME OUT! Ric

  13. Mark Draughn says:

    Seri­ously? You’re run­ning for office? On the Lib­er­tar­ian ticket? You know those guys are crazy, right?

    How can I help?

  14. david ryan says:

    Who is your cam­paign trea­surer? Where can we sign?

    I per­son­ally would rather see you run as a Repub­li­can — you’d stand a much bet­ter chance of win­ning. That, of course, goes with the dubi­ous nature of par­ti­san judi­cial elec­tions, but that’s another thread for another day.

  15. Ric Moore says:

    Good luck Mark! One thing is for sure. You’ll find out who your real friends are, and who your ene­mies are. Espe­cially if there is a chance that you will win. Be care­ful. Ric

  16. I hate the idea of elected judges, but …

    Very best wishes — it will be the most inter­est­ing race this year

  17. lewis kennedy says:

    The advan­tage in this method of judi­cial selec­tion. Good luck!

  18. Felicia Herman says:

    Mazel tov! — How can I help from Minnesota?

  19. Mike Trent says:

    Awe­some! But, wait, not for gov­er­nor? –Oh, sorry, that’s Jenn’s race.

  20. Let judges secretly despair of jus­tice: their ver­dicts will be more acute. Let gen­er­als secretly despair of tri­umph; killing will be defamed. Let priests secretly despair of faith: their com­pas­sion will be true.~Leonard Cohen

    Best of luck, Mark.

    Regards,

    Nino

  21. Good luck Sir. I hope to one day blog about the break­ing CCA opin­ion penned by Judge Bennett.

  22. John Regan says:

    Per­son­ally I don’t think the great state of Texas deserves you as a lawyer or a judge, but they’ll prove me wrong if they elect you, one time I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong. I wish you every good for­tune and elec­toral suc­cess in this, not so much for your sake but for every­one else’s, and not just the peo­ple of Texas either. We would all be bet­ter off if you were on the Texas Court of Crim­i­nal Appeals.|

  23. Lisa J says:

    That’s won­der­ful! Good luck!

  24. J G says:

    Peck ‘em, owls!

    TFW :-D

  25. Thomas Stephenson says:

    I’m hardly a lib­er­tar­ian but you have my vote.

    • Mark Bennett says:

      Thank you. I’m hop­ing for many votes from peo­ple who aren’t lib­er­tar­i­ans. We can’t opt out of par­ti­san judi­cial elec­tions, but we can opt out of the two-party system.

  26. David T says:

    So when does the cam­paign web­site go up? Have you made it offi­cial — reg­is­tered for the race?

  27. Mark Kernich says:

    Don’t mix up anar­chism and lib­er­tar­i­an­ism. You amer­i­cans have proud tra­di­tions on both strands of the anti­au­thor­i­tar­ian spec­trum, give them both credit :) . Last time I heard of an ‘anar­chist’ in gov­ern­ment was back in pre-civil war repub­li­can spain (Min­is­ter of Jus­tice, iron­i­cally), and the guy who first coined the word in its mod­ern polit­i­cal con­text was also a mem­ber of his national par­lia­ment (Prouhon, of ‘prop­erty is theft’ fame / France) for a period. But they are rare, unlike the lib­er­tar­i­ans, who seem often involved with big gov­ern­ment of any par­tic­u­lar colour.

    But that’s just my view from semi social­ist aussie down under.

    Good luck in the com­ing dust up.

    • Mark Bennett says:

      The two threads of main­stream (!) lib­er­tar­ian polit­i­cal thought in Amer­ica are minar­chism and anarchocapitalism.

      It’s pos­si­ble that I mis­char­ac­ter­ize the anar­chocap­i­tal­ists when I call them anar­chists, but I don’t think so.

      Thanks, Mark.

  28. Lee Stewart says:

    Good luck. Don’t let the power go to your head.

  29. Good luck, Mark. I don’t have any­thing inter­est­ing or insight­ful to add, but that’s the story of my life.

  30. My best to you in your elec­tion, Mark!

  31. Bryan Simmons says:

    You’ve got my vote! I’ll even donate money to your cam­paign. The CCA could use a jurist who isn’t just a for­mer pros­e­cu­tor now act­ing as co-counsel on the bench for the State. Good luck!

Leave a non-anonymous Reply