I thought this deserved its own thread. From the article:
“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News. Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars. “Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car,” Sonya Romero, one of the drivers who was handcuffed, told ABC Newsaffiliate KMGH-TV in Denver. From there, the police went from car to car, removing the passengers and handcuffing the adults. “Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”
“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.
Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.
“Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car,” Sonya Romero, one of the drivers who was handcuffed, told ABC Newsaffiliate KMGH-TV in Denver.
From there, the police went from car to car, removing the passengers and handcuffing the adults.
“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”
Well at least they caught the guy.
Could be the case. We'll know eventually. From the article, it seems the only evidence they have against the suspect is that there were loaded firearms in the car. It's probably the guy, but we don't know yet.
Very true.
bloomj31:Well at least they caught the guy.
But they wasted a hell of a lot of taxpayer time and put those cops in a lot of danger. And we're not even sure if the guy was caught. Plus he might escape anyway. They should have just called in an air strike to napalm the whole area. Just to be sure.
I mean, sure there would be some collateral damage, but hey. At least we'd be sure they got the guy.
johnjames: But they wasted a hell of a lot of taxpayer time
Oh heavens no!! TWO WHOLE HOURS WASTED NOOOOOO!!!
johnjames: and put those cops in a lot of danger.
That's part of their job. But ofcourse I'm glad nothing bad happened to any of them.
johnjames: Plus he might escape anyway.
Always a possibility. Maybe he did escape maybe he didn't I guess we will find out.
johnjames: They should have just called in an air strike to napalm the whole area. Just to be sure. I mean, sure there would be some collateral damage, but hey. At least we'd be sure they got the guy.
Seems a bit excessive imo. But you're trolling so it's ok.
bloomj31:Oh heavens no!! TWO WHOLE HOURS WASTED NOOOOOO!!!
Exactly. Who knows how many people got raped, robbed, shot, maimed, murdered, and god knows what else while these coppers were wasting all this time.
Napalm. Problem solved.
That's part of their job.
Doesn't mean they need to be put into danger unnecessarily.
But ofcourse I'm glad nothing bad happened to any of them.
Why? It's part of their job.
Exactly.
Napalm. No "finding out" necessary.
Spoken like a typical, lobotomized, would-be central-planner...
Tell the emergency heart-surgery patient that waiting two hours for his heart surgeon is no big deal. Tell the organ-transplant recipient that his organ sitting on ice for another two hours is no big deal. And so on. The presumption that time is of no essence to any random subset of the public is ludicrous in the extreme.
Clayton -
johnjames:Exactly. Who knows how many people got raped, robbed, shot, maimed, murdered, and god knows what else while these coppers were wasting all this time.
Who knows? Maybe none of that stuff happened during that two hour window and they did actually catch the guy.
johnjames: Doesn't mean they need to be put into danger unnecessarily.
But they will be put into danger from time to time that's their job.
johnjames: Why? It's part of their job.
Ofcourse. It's still unfortunate when something bad happens to a cop but that's what they get paid for.
clayton: Tell the emergency heart-surgery patient that waiting two hours for his heart surgeon is no big deal. Tell the organ-transplant recipient that his organ sitting on ice for another two hours is no big deal. And so on. The presumption that time is of no essence to any random subset of the public is ludicrous in the extreme.
Nothing in the article suggests this was the case for any of these people. Where are you getting this from?
Did the cops know that? Would that have altered their behavior? After all, the bank robber himself could say "I'm a heart-surgeon in a rush to such-and-such hospital, I must get there right away!" Then he might escape.
clayton:Did the cops know that?
No idea. There's nothing in the article to indicate that they were given that type of information.
clayton: Would that have altered their behavior?
I have no idea and I'm not inclined to speculate.
clayton: After all, the bank robber himself could say "I'm a heart-surgeon in a rush to such-and-such hospital, I must get there right away!" Then he might escape.
Did that happen?
And, by the way, two hours is a big deal. I have paid $500 an hour for legal representation. If that lawyer were held up for two hours by the cops so they can catch a bank robber, that's a $1,000 loss to him. Is Wells Fargo going to reimburse him for the costs that their publicly funded security forces have imposed on him? Of course not. Any lawsuit along these lines would be laughed out of the government courts. Because they don't exist to protect you and me, they exist to protect the government, the government's interests and the interests of their rich criminal friends on Wall Street (h/t George Carlin).
bloomj31:Who knows? Maybe none of that stuff happened during that two hour window and they did actually catch the guy.
Maybe unicorns flew out of his butt too, and that's what gave him away. But probably not.
Ofcourse. It's still unfortunate when something bad happens to a cop
Exactly. Which is why I don't know why you haven't latched on to my excellent napalm idea that solves all these problems.
Nothing in the article suggests that anyone was raped and murdered while this was going on. So I guess that means it probably didn't happen.
bloomj, you shoot from the hip a lot but - in this case - you're just being downright trollish. I've lost respect for you.
I thought the hip-shooting was the exception and the trolling was the rule, myself.
John James: Nothing in the article suggests that anyone was raped and murdered while this was going on. So I guess that means it probably didn't happen.
Funniest thing I've read all day.
john james:Doesn't mean they need to be put into danger unnecessarily.
What's the difference between "necessary" and "unnecessary" danger?
johnjames: Nothing in the article suggests that anyone was raped and murdered while this was going on. So I guess that means it probably didn't happen.
There's really no way to know. This is pure speculation.
clayton: bloomj, you shoot from the hip a lot but - in this case - you're just being downright trollish. I've lost respect for you.
Why because I don't go into hysterics over something like this? I don't jump to conclusions. I'm looking at the information that was presented, nothing more. Do you have any evidence that a heart surgery patient was held up or that a lawyer lost 1,000 dollars in billable hours? No. You have literally no evidence. You're speculating. You say this imaginary lawyer would be laughed out of court. Really? When did that happen? Show me the case file. Yet I'm the one shooting from the hip? Please.
johnjames: Which is why I don't know why you haven't latched on to my excellent napalm idea that solves all these problems.
No. I ignored the napalm thing because it's silly hyperbole used to make a rhetorical connection between something which would probably be seen as a complete overreaction to most people with something that was arguably overdone. You clearly think the police overused their police powers in this instance, I get it. I don't feel the same way.
bloomj31:What's the difference between "necessary" and "unnecessary" danger?
One is necessary, one isn't.
Exactly. Why speculate? Why not use my napalm idea and be sure? I'm not sure why you're not seeing the big picture here.
I'm looking at the information that was presented, nothing more.
Kinda short-sighted, wouldn't you say?
I mean, if I tell you that Tom shot a guy in the face, are you going to say, "I sure hope Tom rots in hell. Bastard."? Looking only at information presented and then making assumptions that nothing else outside of what is presented matters (as if the event took place in a vacuum of space time) is kind of, well, asinine.
johnjames: One is necessary, one isn't.
Thanks John Madden. And who gets to determine what is and is not necessary danger?
john james: Exactly. Why speculate? Why not use my napalm idea and be sure?
The short answer (even though I know you're trolling) is that the cost would have been too high by my judgment. Sure they would've probably gotten the guy but then they would've probably killed a lot of people in the process. Is it worth it? Not to me. But stopping people for a couple hours? Yeah I can accept that.
John James: Kinda short-sighted, wouldn't you say? I mean, if I tell you that Tom shot a guy in the face, are you going to say, "I sure hope Tom rots in hell. Bastard."? Looking only at information presented and then making assumptions that nothing else outside of what is presented matters (as if the event took place in a vacuum of space time) is kind of, well, asinine.
I wouldn't be able to come to any conclusion based on such limited information. It would be asinine to jump to any conclusion about "Tom" just because he "shot a guy in the face." I would think it would be wise to reserve judgment until more facts were available about this alleged shooting.
I try not to assign principal values to anything. What really bugs libertarians about this sort of thing is that it's heavily authoritarian and arguably an abuse of police power. Either way, it's an imposition of liberty which is like the bestest thing ever to libertarians. I do not share your values. Liberty is just one of many things I like in life it's not the primary one and/or the only one.
bloomj31: The short answer (even though I know you're trolling) is that the cost would have been too high by my judgment.
The short answer (even though I know you're trolling) is that the cost would have been too high by my judgment.
For you to make this judgement, you would have to make a moral statement, something I thought you refrained from doing.
bloomj31:Thanks John Madden.
And who gets to determine what is and is not necessary danger?
I would assume the cops do.
At least they would have got the guy though, right?
I wouldn't be able to come to any conclusion based on such limited information.
Ah interesting insight. Imagine if that could be applied elsewhere. Oh the possibilities.
gotlucky: For you to make this judgement, you would have to make a moral statement, something I thought you refrained from doing.
I do try to refrain from making moral statements because I cannot substantiate them. I have no real framework for examining moral issues other than my personal moral feelings. I cannot prove that napalming them would have been any morally worse than stopping them for two hours it just seems like the severity of the consequences of the napalm option is significantly greater than the detention option.
I read the article. I think I understand the facts that have so far been presented. Based on what I can see the police may have overstepped their legal bounds. But at the same time they might have caught the guy? Was it worth it? I don't really know. Seems like it to me.
bloomj31:But at the same time they might have caught the guy?
May have? Psh.
Napalm. No question marks needed. (Damn, that could be a slogan)
At least they'd be sure they got the guy. That's all that matters, right?
John James: That's all that matters, right?
No. I would say it's one of several considerations.
Well, my subjective judgment is that it's not a consideration at all. So who's right?
Agh!!!!!!!!
clayton: Well, my subjective judgment is that it's not a consideration at all. So who's right?
I really don't know.
bloomj31: clayton: Well, my subjective judgment is that it's not a consideration at all. So who's right? I really don't know.
Hmm...
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Wed. 12/06/06 12:41 EDT.post #159 bloomj31:You clearly think the police overused their police powers in this instance, I get it. I don't feel the same way.I think you've missed the point, which is: The government road-and-copopoly cannot calculate costs, consumer wants, and the most efficient use of resources, nor does it have any incentive to even try. Taxpayers, forced to pay for the road/copopoly whether or not they like it, even whether or not they use it, have no effective way of expressing their values or punishing the monopoly. Sure, they can protest or "vote," but that won't change the behavior of the monopoly, nor will it compensate the hapless motorists for the two hours (and associated opportunity costs) they can never recoup. Your sarcastic retort "Oh heavens no!! TWO WHOLE HOURS WASTED NOOOOOO!!!" expresses well the arrogance and cavalier attitude with which the monopoly, protected from competition and the necessity of making a profit, regards its "customers": It's my way or the highway (and we own the road monopoly, too).
bloomj31:You clearly think the police overused their police powers in this instance, I get it. I don't feel the same way.
+1 MMMark, well said...
I want to underscore that there is a moral dimension to this, as well. The whole point is that consumers matter (that is, people matter) and that's a value judgment. If we can "define morality" any which way as the moral nihilists like bloomj would have it, then yes, we could say "the purpose of society is to have well-policed roads and to always catch the bad guy, even if that means napalm" and that would just be one way of looking at it.
But the fact is that there are laws of morality because there are laws of human nature. What's worse is that the lobotomized nihilists completely miss the fact that the laws of human nature (and, thus, morality) are value-free facts!
mmmark: I think you've missed the point, which is: The government road-and-copopoly cannot calculate costs, consumer wants, and the most efficient use of resources, nor does it have any incentive to even try. Taxpayers, forced to pay for the road/copopoly whether or not they like it, even whether or not they use it, have no effective way of expressing their values or punishing the monopoly. Sure, they can protest or "vote," but that won't change the behavior of the monopoly, nor will it compensate the hapless motorists for the two hours (and associated opportunity costs) they can never recoup.
I understand the economics involved I just see no reason why I should value two hours of someone else's time over potentially catching a criminal. Napalming them all seems excessive but handcuffing them for a few hours is something I can live with. Particularly if they actually got the guy. If they didn't then that would change things too. To me catching the criminal matters more than potentially wasting two hours time of people I couldn't care less about. Perhaps if I'd been detained for two hours or something I'd be more inclined to care but it didn't happen to me it happened to people I care nothing for nor have any reason to care for. Perhaps if this were happening more frequently I might care more but I see no reason to think this was an example of an ordinary practice. Additionally, as far as I can tell, the law does not require me to care for them either unless their constitutional rights were violated in which case I would investigate the legal reasoning behind such a claim. As far as I can tell no such claim has been put forth yet.
I also don't care about the plight of the people who wish there were more liberty in this society but simply cannot seem to make it happen. If they don't like it they can leave. If they choose not to leave they can take their grievances to the legal system. If they find no satisfactory recompense through the legal system then, as far as I'm concerned, their case is closed. The only thing they can then do is complain to people and hope someone listens. I probably won't be one of those people. If you choose to live in this country, you choose to live by its laws. If you don't like it go away. If you don't go away then you understand that it's theoretically possible that you might be detained against your will for two hours.
clayton: The whole point is that consumers matter
Consumers seem to "matter" insofar as their preferences provide a method of calculation for the proper distribution of goods throughout an economic system, assuming that one cares about properly allocating resources throughout a given economic system and also assuming that such proper allocation is weighted more heavily than other possible goals in one's moral considerations. Consumers matter to you more than they matter to me because I have other priorities than just properly allocating resources within our economic system.
clayton: But the fact is that there are laws of morality because there are laws of human nature.
The only law of human nature that would seem to apply here is the universal understanding that if it can be done to them it can be done to me. There is a sort of possible reciprocality at work here that one must recognize. However I cannot say that I would not be willing to trade two hours of my time if it meant that a criminal might be caught particularly if such a situation only occurs occasionally. There are ofcourse other possible considerations that might lead me to weigh such a trade differently but no such information was presented in the article that would cause me to do so.
To me, catching the criminal matters
Why?? How is that not an arbitrary moral position??
consumer preferences provide a method of calculation for the proper distribution of goods throughout an economic system
Wha?
Consumers matter to you more than they matter to me because I have other priorities than just properly allocating resources within our economic system.
I don't give a rat's ass about "properly allocating resources".
The only law of human nature that would seem to apply here is the universal understanding that if it can be done to them it can be done to me. There is a sort of possible reciprocality at work here that one must recognize. However, I cannot say that I would not be willing to trade two hours of my time if it meant that a criminal might be caught particularly if such a situation only occurs occasionally. There are ofcourse other possible considerations that might lead me to weigh such a trade differently but no such information was presented in the article that would cause me to do so.
When I say "law of human nature" I mean a law of human behavior (praxis, praxeological law). You, like most people, are deeply confused about the nature of morality. There are multiple, often conflicting, connotations to moral language. If you want to analyze moral questions and actually get somewhere rather than just chasing your tail, you need to be clear on which connotation you are talking about.
The laws of human nature - the facts about how human beings behave - are not subject to revision. Even governments, with their immense material resources, cannot change human nature. Hence, questions like "should we have a society where there is murder?" are absurd. The conditions that lead to murder are hard-wired into human nature. The fact of murder is ineradicable.
Questions of government policy, on the other hand, are entirely different. There is nothing inevitable about police dragnets. All we have to do in order to not have police dragnets is not have police dragnets. Heart surgery, transplant organ transport, nuclear waste transport, overnight parcel delivery, and commerce of every imaginable kind is inevitable in the sense that humans act.
We cannot remake society into a prison complex to suit the preferences of the police who want to be able to yell "freeze!" at any moment and stop-motion the entire social order while they "sort things out". The logic of "the police power" is upside-down and backwards. The world is what it is. The police have to learn how to operate within the world as it is. The rest of the world will not reconfigure itself to adapt to the lazy-ass procedures of the cops.
This is not a statement of "my preferences" or some kind of subjective assessment. It's the case in fact.
Clayton: Why?? How is that not an arbitrary moral position??
It's entirely arbitrary as are all moral judgments. I'm merely stating a personal preference. I value catching the criminal over the value that those people might've assigned to those two hours. Why on earth would I care more about their two hours than the prospect of catching the criminal?
Clayton: Wha?
I'm sorry, I'm no expert economist. I thought revealed preferences go into determining meaningful prices which are important for the proper allocations of goods and services within a given economic system. Perhaps my economics is incorrect.
Clayton: I don't give a rat's ass about "properly allocating resources".
Then what do you care about? What are you so afraid of?
Clayton: All we have to do in order to not have police dragnets is not have police dragnets.
But why shouldn't we have police dragnets? Just because something isn't necessarily natural (which dragnets may or may not be) doesn't mean it's wrong or undesirable.
Clayton: Heart surgery, transplant organ transport, nuclear waste transport, overnight parcel delivery, and commerce of every imaginable kind is inevitable in the sense that humans act.
As you have pointed out to me before, just because something is natural does not make it right. Why are any of those things more right than dragnets? Because they represent voluntary interaction? Why should I place any absolute value on the outcomes of voluntary interactions?
Clayton:The world is what it is.
So what? Police dragnets are what they are too. Doesn't mean they're right or wrong.
Clayton:The police have to learn how to operate within the world as it is.
They do operate within the world as it is. They are a part of the world just like everything else. Police officers are people too. They're humans acting.
Clayton: This is not a statement of "my preferences" or some kind of subjective assessment. It's the case in fact.
Well the fact is that those people sat and waited for two hours. Obviously people can be made to respect authority. That's a part of human nature too: respect for authority. Does that make it right? I have no idea, but it is what it is.
Stating how things are doesn't tell us how things ought to be.
Clayton: We cannot remake society into a prison complex to suit the preferences of the police who want to be able to yell "freeze!" at any moment and stop-motion the entire social order while they "sort things out".
I have not said that we should try to make society into this sort of extreme "prison complex." This is not an issue of 1's and 0's.
But why shouldn't we have police dragnets?
That's a separate discussion. I'm against police dragnets but that's beside the point I'm trying to make - that there's a fundamental difference between a police dragnet and commerce generally. The difference is precisely that the question "why should/shouldn't we have police dragnets" is intelligible. The question, "why should/shouldn't we freeze all commerce in the search for a criminal?" is not even an intelligible question. Yet, this is precisely the question on which the logic of police drag-netting is founded.
Just because something isn't necessarily natural (which dragnets may or may not be) doesn't mean it's wrong or undesirable.
But that's not my argument.
As you have pointed out to me before, just because something is natural does not make it right. Why are any of those things more right than dragnets?
They're not "more right", they're simply inevitable. Asking, "Should we have heart surgeons driving around, should we have organ transplant transports occurring" and so on are nonsense questions. It's like asking "Should we have the sun rise each morning?"
Because they represent voluntary interaction? Why should I place any absolute value on the outcomes of voluntary interactions?
You don't need to value them, they are facts of nature like the rising and setting of the Sun and, therefore, inevitable. Police dragnets are the result of teh decisions of the police chief, the mayor and so on up the chain of command. If the appropriate authority says "no more dragnets", there will be no more dragnets.
This is the same reason that police corruption, for example, cannot be stopped. It's like the rising and the setting of the Sun - because police have power which can be abused, therefore, it will be abused. It's silly to ask "given that we have public police, should we have police corruption?" If you're going to have public police, you're going to have police corruption and this is not something that is in the control of the mayor or the police chief or anybody else because it's a fact of human nature: power that can be abused will be abused.
And there it is.
I'm calling psy-op on this one.
And police chief Daniel Oates does not think it is a Constitutional violation so, obviously, it isn't. Brilliant.
And I can tell you where that "virtual certainty" comes from.
1) That's part of their job. But ofcourse I'm glad nothing bad happened to any of them.
That is correct. I have a first responder job (though I'm not a cop), for those of us who actually like what we do - the fact that this is part of the job is part of the attraction. There is nothing to glorify or feel sorry for about. The higher risk of death on the job, danger, or whatever and usually lower pay still beats office work by a long shot.
2) I don't see what the big deal is. This a unique situation in which people are working and living under certain expectations and precedent - something very random and shocking and potentially dangerous (?) happened to the system that the public officials are supposed to protect and use the existing apparatus at their disposal to do it. This is custom, let the people of Aurora deal with it - let them judge if their tax money they already paid was wasted.
I think the most interesting things Austrians should take out of stories like this are the incalulable disequalibrating forces that can happen to a system and the unpredictability and importance of random events in actual factual lives that models simply can't attest to, particularly on a large federal level or by econometrics.
P.S
From the bits and pieces I can put together I may be very empathetic with angry residents at Aurora - but that's just from the scaps of info I saw.
EDIT
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Clayton: The question, "why should/shouldn't we freeze all commerce in the search for a criminal?" is not even an intelligible question. Yet, this is precisely the question on which the logic of police drag-netting is founded.
I don't think you mean to use the word intelligible here. I understand the latter question just as well as the former. There were consequences to freezing the commerce of those 19 individuals for two hours. We can sort of find out what those consequences were. Obviously we cannot know exactly what those 19 people might have done had they not been detained. But do we really need to have perfect information to make a value judgment? No I think not. No one has the gift of omniscience and yet people still act and make value judgments everyday. Someone might claim that they didn't get to their heart surgery on time or that they missed out on 1,000 dollars of billable hours. We can investigate those claims to see if they hold water. If those claims do hold water action can be taken to remedy the grievance. But we can also ask whether there seems to be reason to care or not.
We can also find out the consequences of the search. We can find out if the man apprehended actually committed the crime or not. Taking all this information in we can weigh what appear to be the costs and benefits of that two hour search. Will this moral determination be an exact scientific evaluation? No. But it will give one an adequate rational basis for determining how one should feel about the search in general and its consequences in particular. As of current, I'm in moral support for the search pending the discovery of new information.
Clayton: Asking, "Should we have heart surgeons driving around, should we have organ transplant transports occurring" and so on are nonsense questions.
Just because something is inevitable doesn't mean it's right. It also doesn't mean that there necessarily must be a fixed amount of it. Organ transplants may still occur even if we police them, but perhaps they will happen to a lesser extent than they would have had they not been policed. Murder is inevitable and yet we punish murder. We punish murder because while we understand that murders are going to happen either way, there is no fixed number of them that has to happen. Should we not punish murder at all just because murders will still inevitably happen somewhere?
Clayton: If the appropriate authority says "no more dragnets", there will be no more dragnets.
Right. So what? That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have dragnets. It just means they're evitable (I heard Dennett say it in one of his lectures so I'm gonna say it here.) Whether something is inevitable or not doesn't tell us whether or not it's right or whether we should seek more of it or less. If something is inevitable it just means that it cannot be completely eliminated. If something is evitable it means that it could be eliminated though we then have to ask why would we do such a thing?
Clayton: It's like asking "Should we have the sun rise each morning?"
This is only a valid analogy because we do not yet possess the power to destroy the sun. If we did then we could ask whether or not we ought to do so.
Clayton: If you're going to have public police, you're going to have police corruption and this is not something that is in the control of the mayor or the police chief or anybody else because it's a fact of human nature: power that can be abused will be abused.
I'm not entirely sure that that's a good way of stating this law of human nature. I think a better way is to say that where there exists a system of reciprocal altruism there will always be people trying to cheat the system so as to get the benefit without paying the cost. Systems that have an uneven standard for reciprocity (dual moral standards) will see this phenomena even more because some people will realize that they are not held to the same standards as everyone else. In other words someone somewhere will take advantage of the system. That doesn't mean we have to tolerate it when we encounter it. It just means that it can't be completely gotten rid of because there will always be someone seeking to game the system. Corruption also occurs in degrees. Not every corrupt person is corrupt in the same way or to the same degree as the next.
Not every single human being is exactly the same. Despite the fact that we clearly share a certain level of inherent programming, there is still great diversity among individuals because there is a great deal of diversity within the genetic material itself and in the environments in which the genes interact.
Clayton: And police chief Daniel Oates does not think it is a Constitutional violation so, obviously, it isn't. Brilliant.
He's a cop not a constitutional scholar. It's not really his department anyways. The executives execute, the judiciary judges.
I don't think you mean to use the word intelligible here. I understand the latter question just as well as the former.
No, I mean to use it in precisely that way. For example, if I ask "What are the properties of a square circle?" - this question is unintelligible because it hypothetically posits the existence of an impossible object (a square circle) then proceeds to ask questions about it.
You might think you know what it means to freeze all commerce (I guess I should say all action) but you don't. It's an inherent contradiction because human beings act. They are always acting. They never stop.
The idea of dragnetting - stop-framing all action within some subset of the population - is inherently contradictory. It's not even intelligible. So, asking whether we should freeze all action is absurd. But asking whether we should attempt to freeze all action (i.e. do the impossible) is not absurd, it's perfectly intelligible.
Clayton:But asking whether we should attempt to freeze all action (i.e. do the impossible) is not absurd, it's perfectly intelligible.
Asinine, but yes, intelligible.