Steve Bainbridge responds to my post on Batman here, linking to an earlier post of his claiming that Batman actually causes more harm than good because he damages property during his car chase in the first movie and violates corporate law by diverting corporate assets to serve his own personal agenda. The first point is easily dispensed with. Yes, Batman did destroy a lot of property during the final car chase in Batman Begins. However, given that the car chase was necessary to save the entire city from being destroyed by the League of Shadows and most of the inhabitants from being killed in the process, I'd say that the tradeoff was worth it. Perhaps Bruce Wayne should compensate those who lost property in the chase (and maybe in the time that passed between the two movies he did). But even if he failed to do this, the good he accomplished in this scene surely outweighed the harm.
The corporate law point is more interesting. I'm no expert on corporate law, but I'll assume that Bainbridge (who is an expert) is right to conclude that Wayne violated those laws. However, I don't think this aspect of the plot is integral to the message of the movie. Indeed, I'm not even sure that the filmmakers intend for the audience to regard Wayne's actions as illegal. If, as Bainbridge suggests, Wayne violated the rights of minority shareholders, one would expect some of them to sue. And if large amounts of corporate assets were being diverted to unproductive personal projects of Wayne's, one would expect shares of Wayne Industries stock to precipitously decline in value as potential shareholders recognize that buying Wayne stock is a money-losing proposition.
Yet in the second movie, Wayne Enterprises seems to be as successful as ever. Indeed, as I suggested in the original post, diverting some corporate funds to crimefighting might well be in the interests of the stockholders because Gotham City's high crime rate discourages investment and thereby reduces of the value of Wayne Industries stock. As for Bainbridge's claim that Wayne violated antitakeover laws when he regained control of the corporation at the end of Batman Begins, this - if correct - would be consistent with the libertarian theme I identify. After all, most libertarians view antitakover laws as unjustified government restraints on the market. Wayne's takeover of Wayne Industries might well have made the firm more profitable by removing less capable incumbent managers. There may be similar libertarian objections to at least some of the other corporate laws that Bainbridge accuses Wayne of violating. Perhaps the movie can be interpreted as a critique of government's role in the corporate world as well as its role in traditional law enforcement.
In any event, Wayne's corporate lawbreaking is hardly a central focus of the movie. By contrast, the skepticism about government and (relative) optimism about private initiative that I stress in my post really are key themes in both movies, especially the second.
Ultimately, criticizing Batman for violating corporate law is a bit like criticizing the coach in Hoosiers for using basketball strategies that wouldn't work in the real world. The criticism is technically correct, but misses the point of the story.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Steve Bainbridge on Batman:
- The Libertarian Law and Economics of Batman:
You can't fight off Russian invaders simply by peeing in a radiator.
Ya think?
Ha-ha-ha!
Man! Think of the course of Polish history if that actually worked. What's Polish or "Wolverines!"?
Generally though, wouldn't Bruce Wayne have an army of corporate lawyers at Wayne Enterprises to make sure that no matter the business action they would be within the letter of the law?
People will be watching a show like 'law and order' or a movie and see some criminal or evidence thing and ask me if it is really the law and I won't have the faintest idea.
Then something made-up in business law comes up and I snort or make a snark comment and no one will care it is wrong.
It spoils the show for me, though.
The American guerillas in Red Dawn didn't win the war. They died or escaped, as you'd expect.
Then something made-up in business law comes up and I snort or make a snark comment and no one will care it is wrong.
This is one of the many reasons people are lining up to take lower-paying criminal jobs over higher-paying firm jobs. :P
The movie pretty much otherwise was bad, but then it got much worse. The main plot point was that owner gifted this huge shop to the queen woman.
The place had to have been worth over 1 mil just in inventory, real estate, and fixtures. There was no phase-in, or control issues or ghost stock to decrease an appraisal.
Not even with the most friendly accountant and appraiser could he give someone the store without a huge freaking chunk of money to pay the gift taxes-- unless he wanted to stick the girl since he was planning on dying.
I got up and walked out of the room.
There's a big difference between naked self-dealing and corporate philanthropy, although the line admittedly gets fuzzy at times. In any case, I addess the issue of corporate philanthropy in detail in a post over at my blog.
So in the game at least he paid for it.
Probably not. The ethical rules of confidentiality make exceptions for future crimes, which the attorney is free to disclose, and as Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent frequently note throughout the film, Batman most certainly breaks a whole lot of laws in his one-man vigilante crusade.
Ilya-- I think some of your speculations are implausible in light of the fact that virtually no one knows that Batman is Bruce Wayne. Thus it seems highly improbable that Wayne would have cut a check to anyone whose property was destroyed by Batman in the first or second film (and there's a lot of wanton and needless destruction of property in the second film too-- see, e.g., the car chase scene and the opening scene in which the Batmobile crashes through the garage wall). Also, since it's clear that Wayne and Lucius Fox go out of their way to disguise the Batman-related expenditures, it's highly unlikely that any minority shareholders in Wayne Industries are aware that the company is partially funding Batman's campaign. Clearly this must entail a whole lot of securities law violations in the company's financial disclosures, not to mention embezzlement.
But as Marvel introduced the "power as a human flaw" motif that began with Spiderman and the X-Men and introduced characters who themselves were flawed and limited, and whose powers were limited, casual comic fans gave way to more serious readers; Stan Lee has complained that the rise of the "comic book store" crowd has cut out casual readers, and he would like start selling cheap comics again at Newspaper stands. Ironically, that is Lee's own fault. Plus, the growth of the dark, rebellious anti-hero in popular culture, in the movies of the 70s; in the music of the 70s; and beyond helped to take a once-beloved hero like Superman and make him less interesting.
Batman has become more popular because we are able to limit him (he is human, he gets injured) and have vamped up his villains to be both more human (Riddler has OCD, Two-Face is a schizophrenic who was beaten as a child, Killer Croc is living with a genetic condition, etc.) and interesting. Superman, however, is still both unlimited in power and his villains remain strange and non-human; Brainiac is more brilliant than anyone and an alien; Lex Luthor is smart but unpowered.
In fact, Superman would do well to exist alone in his own world, without the DC continuity; that would insure that his unlimited powers would tackle unlimited problems, unlike now, when he exists ina world where Batman, Green Lantern (another god-like being), etc. are already cleaning up the streets.
Ultimately, any making of Superman more relevant today involves both limiting his powers and changing his character, plus revamping a few of his villains to give them a more grounded story. Right now, as the Big Blue Boy Scout with God-Like powers who battles mostly an ordinary human megalomaniac and a some overpowered alien overlords, he has neither the darkness of character nor the limitations that have drawn readers to other comics in the last 30 years.
I disagree.
(I wonder if this phrase has even been used before.)
But really, didn't you pay close attention to the extended ending of Batman Begins, The Uncut Version? It's an anti-Libertarian ode to the supremacy of corporate law! The Uncut Version gives us a full 30 minutes of riveting action as Bruce Wayne's attorneys compile and make a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing the required 15 days before consummating his unsolicited cash tender offer, and has a great action sequence about how Wayne Enterprises' accountants book all in-kind donations during the course of the movie as being made to Batman, LLC, an IRS 501(c)(3) organization. So Uncut Version movie fans all know that not only was the corporate provision of Batman's toys legal, it got Wayne Enterprises a charitable income tax deduction!
Although rumor has it that as of the end of the movie, Bruce Wayne's homeowners' insurer is still having a few qualms about making a loss payout without first investigating the possible complicity of the homeowner in not effectively mitigating the cause of the catastrophic fire.
Sheesh...
If it wasn't for batman, would people even READ DC comics anymore?
We have a state level RICO act, but one that only the county prosecutors can use. It is seldom used because the federal act is better and the feds have more manpower to spare. It is also different than the federal act in several ways.
Using the state act, where the federal act didn't cover an activity, would be clever.
Haven't you been paying attention? The yellow weakness thing is gone. Parallax and all that. Now, the ring bearer is only limited by his willpower.
Well, yes, Wayne Enterprises would have an army of coprporate lawyers, but for all their ingenuity, even they could not make sure that whatever Bruce wanted to do with Wayne shares or Wayne assets was legal. Not even Elihu Root in his prime could do that for J.P. Morgan.
Or are we talking pure criminal charges?
Yeah, well, Maggie G. isn't exactly noted for her legal acumen. She dropped out of law school in Stranger than Fiction to become a baker, so she really shouldn't be an ADA at all. And Aaron Eckhart is a lobbyist for Tobacco Companies, and I really think that creates a conflict of interest and would disqualify him from being a DA, especially if he targets big tobacco. Plus he seems to condone torture and tries to participate in it against one of the Joker's henchmen. Plausible deniability, anyone? Me thinks he doesn't have much of a career in politics after this.
And killing him off WAS THE WORST.
That was pretty much how every Green Lantern dealt with the problem.
Except Jack Chance. He just shot people.
I'd presume that the State of Gotham has a Little RICO statute.
I'm not going to argue whether the themes of Nolan's Batman films are libertarian, as most works carry a lot of potential themes and reading a text is an act of synthesis of reader (or viewer) and creator. But the character of Batman is definitely not a libertarian. Would a libertarian conspire with the state to eliminate his competition? (I refer to the other vigilantes who have started running around in masks, who he leaves trussed up for Gordon to arrest.) He's so plainly trying to create barriers to entrance for his chosen profession it's enough to make one weep into one's copy of the Fountainhead.
Anyone who is familiar with Jack T. Chance is clearly a man of culture and intellect. I'm hoping for a follow up on the F-Sharp Bell, myself.
Thank you. My geekdom has been rewarded with like geekdom
Beware my toll, the F-Sharp Bell!
First, Wayne could have compensated these people without revealing that he's Batman (e.g. - by using an intermediary). Second, even if the shareholders don't know that Wayne is Batman, they could surely notice if large amounts of corporate funds are not accounted for and seem to be diverted to nonproductive uses.
Well, the metaphor falls apart here. Batman's job isn't for profit, so its not business. But if it were, these guys aren't competing, but assisting and/or stealing identity--in effect, forced collaboration or contract under duress. Batman is perfectly legitimate in having the police arrest interlopers who would interfere with his business plan and force themselves into his private business efforts> The purpose of the state here would be to prevent illegal actions that prevent free business enterprise and restrict growth and trade--something I think a libertarian would agree with (correct me if I'm wrong).
And let's not talk about the partnership under duress. And no one has mentioned these CopyBats and trademark dilution....
BTW, Batman is open to collaboration and competition. Harvey Dent.
And now, thanks to this geekiness, I will light myself on fire.
Could have, but 1) there's not the slightest indication in either film that he actually did; and 2) doing so would be very risky as, even with an intermediary, it would create a paper trail between Bruce Wayne and Batman that would be easy enough for someone to trace.
Which leads to my speculation, stated above, that Wayne and Fox must be accounting for the expenditures in some fraudulent manner that likely violates the securities laws. Shareholders who, because of the management's fraudulent accounting, don't realize that their rights are being violated tend not to file lawsuits. In any case it makes no sense to assume that shareholders forebear from filing suit out of recognition that vigilante crimefighting efforts are good for the company's bottom line, because they would be unaware of any direct relationship between the company's "nonproductive" expenditures and the crime rate.
He discusses it with Alfred when they see it on tv. Same reason why he went down to the city hall to confess his identity - he didn't want to be the cause of more death or to encourage the Joker to kill more hostages.
Ye gods, I'm surprised at the lack of "The Second Amendment as a check on the tyranny of Batman" arguments.
Oh, dear... I already hate myself for weighing in with this straight-faced observation linking Batman and Constitutional jurisprudence. Almost as bad as trying to argue Batman is libertarian. Maybe "Jack M" was onto something when he ended his comment with "And now, thanks to this geekiness, I will light myself on fire?"
And Batman isn't stepping on "rights" because he's not the government. The reason Gordon/Dent/el al. tolerate and approve of Batman is precisely that: he does the things they can't do, and they need him to do. If Gordon tortures or breaks legs, he's not only outside the law, but he violates rights. If Batman does it, he's only outside the law.
One of Batman's goals, which the Copybats (thank you for the compliment) corrupt, is to inspire ordinary citizens to stop crime themselves and not be afraid. If the citizens stand up to criminals as a force, criminals lose, because citizens outnumber criminals--hence why Batman feels he can retire when Harvey Dent comes on the scene--the citizens have stood up and elected someone to lead their charge against crime.
Yes, yes, we are all losers for discussing this. :)
About all that can be said about Batman is that it paints a bleak picture of governments too paralyzed and corrupt to look out for their own people. Well surprise! That's not just a Libertarian premise. Please look at the fiction written during the 70's and 80's (Death Wish, Escape from New York, Batman Keaton Edition, Dirty Harry, etc) and you get the same message. These people weren't wishing for no government, but complaining about a sense that Government was soft on crime and that through regulation and corruption, we had castrated to really catch and punish evil doers.
Batman's philosophy only works in a world where you can tell a bad guy by the dingy look of his hideout, where you can always catch a person in the act, and therefore where due process is completely unnecessary. I don't think there's anything libertarian about that.
And yes, rights can basically be violated by a private party. I'd say, for example, that a murderer pretty effectively interferes with the right to life of his victim. Batman is basically taking on the functions of what he thinks the state *should* do, complete with intrusive spying and savage beat-downs. Henry has the right of it, I think... what kind of libertarian hero is that?
Is this silly? Yes. Doesn't mean I'm not onto something here.
...you have already performed a public service by reminding us that libertarians are mostly acne-riddled 20-year-olds who think "Atlas Shrugged" is the best book ever and are RIDICULOUSLY out of touch with even the fringes of reality.
Really? Can you provide some evidence as to where they are "out of touch with even the fringes of reality"? (Hint: It isn't economics, because libertarian economists were predicting what is happening economically today for years, if not decades in some cases.)
It's generally not a winning strategy to infantilize one's ideological opponents, especially when they are right. Usually when one is arguing a position they provide some arguments, evidence, etc., not ad hominems.
Thus a whole new topic for geek discussion: how many Constitutional torts did Batman commit in each movie? What injunctive, exclusionary rule, and/or Bivens remedies can be applied to each of Batman's violations?
The Copybats, as Batman says at one point, are merely wearing hockey pads. To Batman, they are merely delusional, dressing up in glorified Halloween outfits. And using guns. big no-no to Batman. The guns are a give away--a true helper to Batman doesn't use lethal force--so they aren't really being him, just infringing upon him and giving him a bad name.
Batman would have no problem with someone assisting him who was trained in the League of Shadows and can use nonlethal force and can meet him at his level. We know that we'll have Robin and Bat-Girl and the JLA later, and even later, Asrael, so hooking up with a partner isn't verboten.
But Batman was born of incredibly unique and intense circumstances--violent ending to parents plus a decade of gruelling, complex training plus all the equipment plus the Wayne billions plus Alfred and Lucious--and so uniquely deals with the problem. These guys in hockey pads and wielding Saturday Night Specials aren't in his league, make his job more dangerous, and threaten innocent lives by their incompetence. So the best bet for an average citizen is to do the average thing: protect one's home, call the police, and enforce the laws.
And I believe a libertarian does believe that some laws are good. In fact, I believe that a strain of libertarian philosophy holds that it is the under enforcement of good laws that creates useless and meaningless laws, gumming up the works and creating too much governmental power where only a little power, properly and efficiently directed, will do. Witness Maggie G's "Duh, RICO!" speech to see that the government in Gotham is waking up to the fact that they have the laws/power to take down crime--they just need to execute efficiently.
Oh dear lord, why am I obsessing about this? I need a girlfriend.
Ah, but you forget that Batman is "officially" a wanted vigilante. They mention that at several points in the movie, and thats why the cops immediately chase Batman at the end; they don't know yet that Gordon will blame him for yet another crime (Dent's death).
The authorities in Batman have "plausible deniability" to say they don't work with Batman. Gordon even tries to half-convince Dent that the Bat Signal is an equipment malfunction, and refuses to say directly that Batman is helping them.
So first you would have to prove Batman has been made an agent of the state. The only one alive at the end to prove this is Gordon, and Gordon's not going to give that up. So basically, the state is absolved from Batman's constitutional violations; Batman can only be wanted for Murder/assault, not the 4th Amendment violations.
I think your analysis is wrong on several levels, but most simply, even if plausible deniability as to whether Batman is an agent of the state exists after the events of The Dark Knight, it certainly did not exist during the film, when Batman was dropping criminals off of fire escapes and torturing the Joker in a police interrogation room.
Must disagree wholeheartedly. Batman was dropping criminals off of fire escapes as a vigilante; no police were there helping him, nor did he claim any special police power. He dropped off criminals to the cops, beaten or tied up, but as a vigilante, which is what you'd expect a non-lethal vigilante to do. No one asked him to do it, nor was he protected or coerced by the police in any provable way.
And as for the Joker scene, if you remember, Batman doesn't walk in the front door, he sneaks in. Gordon's sees him appear behind the Joker, and says loudly, "I'm going for a cup of coffee," giving the plausible story that the slippery Batman snuck in and beat Joker when everyone thought the interrogation was over and no one was there to stop it. In fact, Batman goes so far as to barricade the door with the chair so the police, who see Batman getting violent, try to stop him and are blocked from doing so--more plausible deniability.After all, if the Joker can blow up the station and infiltrate the squad with double crossers, then Batman sneaking in isn't so far fetched.
I think the events of TDS wholly support the notion that Batman cannot be proven to be an agent of the state. Even the end, with Batman talking to Gordon openly in front of the SWAT Team, can support this; Gordon could argue that he was more concerned in capturing the Joker and stopping hundreds of people from dying rather than using man power to capture one vigilante who was not yet blamed for any deaths and yet was a lethal force.
Re: Copybats, it doesn't matter if they're necessarily wise or effective... the nanny-Batman-state, by KOing them and leaving them for the cops, is effectively saying "I know better than you, the free individuals of Gotham." I'm also not sure how pointing out the real Batman's aversion to guns is an argument that he's a libertarian.
True. But Gordon will deny it, and I assume we agree he won't give him up. So there's still no proof.
And consider that even if you could prove that Batman was herefore deputized, consider that during this part, no constitutional violations were proven. Batman proceeds to go into an unfinished building with more than enough probable cause and uses non-lethal force to legitimately capture and not cause reckless injury to anyone, including the Joker---saves his life, in fact. And since this was the only action you could prove Batman was deputized for, and he broke no Constitutional limits here, the city is still not liable. He didn't deputize him retroactively for everything done before.
And your argument about the Copybats misses the point. Batman doesn't want a nanny-bat state, or citizens to have to defend themselves with guns. He wants to retire and let efficient law enforcement work, and have no one risk injury. An average citizen might adjudge that another is using his gun recklessly and take it away from him in the heat of the moment when he's acting reckless and potentially injuring himself or you (Batman believes the Copybats threaten his life by being untrained and undisciplined), and its not a nanny state. Its a nanny state if Batman broke into people's homes and took their guns away permanently. Yes, Batman believes he is better than a Copybat at being Batman. That's not the same as believing he is the only one capable of saving the city.
On Copybats: obviously we will have to agree to disagree, but it seems to me that if Batman allows no vigilantes in his town who do not meet his standards for training, methods, and weapons (and this is the case for every Batman comic from the past 15 years that I know of), he is effectively imposing a monopoly or a cumbersome registration process on the city, and backing it up with some very "statist" seeming powers.
1. If Batman is enforcing his vigilante monopoly against the Copybats, then in addition to his other crimes, he's arguably commiting non-price predation in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Assuming, of course, that you can prove the interstate commerce element of that statute vis a vis Batman.
2. So Gordon and Batman are in a clandestine conspiracy to, inter alia, commit Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendment violations, as well as Section 1983 and other statutory violations? Heck, I'm sure the FBI and DOJ Public Integrity Section can get to the bottom of that in NO time. Agent Scully, Washington is on the line for you!
3. You've convinced me that based on their boorish behavior towards gun-toting Copybats, Batman and Gordon regularly infringe on Second Amendment rights (and Bruce Wayne probably donates to the Brady Campaign and the Joyce Foundation). In the next Bat-Movie, Levy &Gura will make a cameo appearance to file a Federal suit against Gotham City.
And now for something completely different:
My non-libertarian wife, who just read this thread and is laughing uproariously, wholeheartedly agrees with you. But she says my computer playtime is over now, so I have go. And if I don't log off she's putting volokh.com into the kiddie filter's blocked site list. Spoken like a true nanny state fan...
From a libertarian perspective, I think you are stretching. Batman is only a force for good in a world where "Good Intentions" are enough to ensure a just society. In batman's world, there is no need to prove someone guilty before forcefully apprehending them or throwing them off a roof. It is only enough that Batman "Knows" they are bad.
What if I "Know" you are an enemy combatant intent on detonating a bomb in Los Angeles Harbor? Is it in agreement with libertarian ideals for me to detain you and drop you off at Gitmo some evening? Or to just throw you off a fire escape?
And for another example, a Libertarian should insist that Batman doesn't have the right to go destroying my property unless I hire him or otherwise agree to the exchange of risk for his law enforcement. I have already made that deal with the government (c.f. Constitution). But I have made no such deal with Batman.
Again, the only "libertarian" theme in this movie is that Governments can't do their job...But that is hardly a theme unique to Libertarians.
But sadly, nobody at SCOTUSblog wants fun and imprudent VC-style comments to come back haunt them at their next confirmation hearing, security clearance renewal, partnership evaluation, or Georgetown cocktail party.
Now, back to our regularly-scheduled dissection of the legality of Batman movie antics taken under color of state action...
We're set if we can just convince Bill Gates to spend is money on a cool suit and cool gadgets instead of stopping disease in Africa.
>commerce element of that statute vis a vis Batman.
That would be pretty easy given Batman's recent activities in Hong Kong.
I totally agree, I was thinking you were talking about proving this in court. I think its more than plain to the viewer that Gordon has deputized Batman. It's the theme of the movie, which plays in nicely to Nolan's War-on-Terror metpahor; the normal methods of capturing criminals are useless against huge vast conspiracies like the mob and laughable for the Joker. So for justice to reign, the government must act like the new criminals do--more vicious, more ruthless, more torture. But society won't stand for it, so it has to be a "we don't know nothing about Batman" routine, despite the fact that Batman is exactly what Gotham needs.
I think Nolan's movie is advocating that the invasive actions of the War on Terror, such as Guantanamo and water boarding, are necessary and even noble in this new day in age--as the Joker says, he's just "ahead of the curve." The movie says our Constitutional protections hinder us more than help us in this new age.
That's not saying I agree with it. But the movie, through metaphor, makes that argument powerfully.
P.S. did anyone notice the parallels between this movie and the Untouchables? I think Nolan deliberately decided not to obscure Chicago-as-Gotham in order to to draw that comparison. In both movies, law enforcement is powerless to stop super powerful criminals who are emboldened by the law. In both, the police department is rife with traitors. In both, a crusading law enforcer arrives and puts the mob on trial.In both, the crusader starts to bend and break the law in order to get the criminals. Any thoughts?
I think that what some people in the movie are actually condemning in Batman's 'vigilantism' is a perceived stand against moral relativism; Batman judges which people need to be captured and in moral relativism people, especially people not in an official uniform, should not judge other people. Batman's fight for justice in Gotham inspires people to reject the passivity of moral relativism, and the rejection of moral relativism is exactly the issue highlighted by the two ferries which the Joker put into a variation of a "Prisoner's Dilemma".
The one thing he has done which was potentially problematic was kidnapping Mr. Lau from Hong Kong. However, China is a tyranny and has no extradition treaties, making it a criminal haven. Batman may well have provoked an international incident, but this is not automatically an immoral act. The Batman inhabits that space between the moral and the legal. Where a uniformed policeman is understood as an agent of the law, a suited up Batman is a personification of the moral. The law is supposed to serve a moral purpose and should be subordinate to moral considerations, so Batman is free to act where the law is not.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.