Good Article on Libertarians

EMNofSeattle · Oct 9, 2012

mobiushky said:
By that logic, if a law aligns with what someone deems is "natural" then it is a natural law. In that sense, an argument can be made by the King that it aligns with his right to be owner of all the land. I'm not arguing he's correct, but if all law is subjective then his interpretation of natural law is as accurate as yours. In fact, that is exactly what the monarchy argued. They were placed in position in their minds "by God" and therefore they had that natural right to make the laws. So then all laws they made were natural laws. You (and I would to) argue they are incorrect in that conclusion. But, again, if all law is subjective then both positions are equal correct. That is the pitfall of "natural law" that is ignored or avoided too often. The argument that natural law is somehow innately fair is tenuous. In reality, natural law is only fair to the people who interpret it to be fair. (btw, that's circular logic) It is a matter of perspective more than right or wrong. So if that is the case, you can argue natural vs positive, I see it as an amalgam that shifts depending on your perspective. Which is why I say they are subjective. And while this may irk you, I think Natural Law is equally subjective depending on perspective.

So let's ignore the extreme ends of the spectrum of totalitarian rule on one end and total anarchy on the opposite. My point is, and always has been, that the best we can hope for is a balanced approach that lands us somewhere in the middle. And we all tug in one direction or the other. I do think that libertarians tug in the direction of anarchy, but by no means desire that as an end. And to a large extent I would tug that way also. Some tug more so than I do. But I also accept that some laws, even if I don't like them, are a necessary part of being a civilized society. Case in point, the speed limit. What is an acceptable speed limit? I'm a pretty good driver, so I say 100MPH. But my MIL is horrific so she says 25MPH. Who is right? Which one is "natural"? What about the person who says "no speed limit at all!" In that case, who's perspective is used to define the rule as being "natural" because it aligns with self preservation?

There is a member on this forum who does believe it's his natural right to drive as fast as he wants with no drivers license.....

Law is law, whether or not it's codified and written or simply accepted custom.

OC for ME · Oct 10, 2012

sudden valley gunner said:
There can be criminal penalties for civil judgement.

Please provide a specific historical example. Not questioning your contention I just have no knowledge of such an occurance occurring simultaneously in a court of law. Or, is part of the criminal punishment that directs restitution the same as combining civil and criminal punishments?

For much of our history, you stole my horse I took you to court and proved you committed the crime. And you were sentenced accordingly or found not guilty accordingly.

Does this support the above? Horse theft is a criminal matter. Giving back your horse would be criminal restitution. I also think any monitary restitution for lost wages because you had no horse to go to work on would be criminal and not civil. But, I'm just guess at this point.

Private prosecution is still allowed in this country too.

Where is this allowed? I have a few folks in mind that deserve private prosecution. Starting with my local school board.

sudden valley gunner · Oct 10, 2012

OC for ME said:
Please provide a specific historical example. Not questioning your contention I just have no knowledge of such an occurance occurring simultaneously in a court of law. Or, is part of the criminal punishment that directs restitution the same as combining civil and criminal punishments?

Does this support the above? Horse theft is a criminal matter. Giving back your horse would be criminal restitution. I also think any monitary restitution for lost wages because you had no horse to go to work on would be criminal and not civil. But, I'm just guess at this point.

Where is this allowed? I have a few folks in mind that deserve private prosecution. Starting with my local school board.

Roger Roots "Are cops Constitutional" is a good read on it some of it's cites are a bit hard to find and easy to dismiss though, but it still has some good hits on history. Tyranny of Good Intentions is better written by actual constitutional lawyers but it helps describe how our legal system started.

The modern proactive cop and prosecutor wasn't a fixture in our Blackstone, common law foundlings, I would hire a "prosecutor" to prosecute and although this truly isn't "private" prosecution in the true sense, because ultimately myself and my attorney acting as prosecutor are acting as agents of the state. Since crimes like theft, etc are considered public crimes which the state has authority over. I guess from my understanding civil and criminal punishments weren't combined sorry for my misleading words (not intentional) but that criminal complaints can be filed civilly or by civilians which was the case for many common wealth centuries.

In Washington it is this document....http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.rulesPDF&ruleId=cljcrrlj2.1&pdf=1

I have talked to a local Lawyer who has filed a case against Des Moines officers for their illegal stalking, torture and ultimately killing of a family pet. The courts have bounced his case around not sure how to handle it, and the prosecutors want it dismissed even though they don't want to prosecute. I should find time to see what happened to that case.

Roberts vs. United states was a case that reached SCOTUS and the private prosecution was upheld but now that I look at it again it looks like they made a newer ruling on it in 2010 I'll have to look at it more when I have some time.

Good Article on Libertarians

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member