Defend vs Alter the Constitution

sudden valley gunner said:

Tell someone they can't do anything with their body is as much against natural law and the rights of liberty as pedophiles. In some ways worse because its intstitutionalized, and supported by state apologist. They are willing to use violence and kill you for not allowing you tell them what to do with your body.

Click to expand...

Your lack of moral compass is beyond all civil description. I am utterly disgusted. But I'm sure NAMBLA is pleased by your comparison.

utbagpiper said:

Your lack of moral compass is beyond all civil description. I am utterly disgusted. But I'm sure NAMBLA is pleased by your comparison.

Click to expand...

qft

Oh boy! If that doesn't confirm Utbagpiper injects his own prejudice into reading--meaning he doesn't actually read--I don't know what does.

SVG is saying telling a person he can't put drugs into his own body has at its foundation a disregard for personal rights just as strong as a pedophile's disregard for a child's rights when raping that child.

Man, Utbagpiper has such an assumption of the evil of libertarian anarchism, he didn't actually read SVG's post.

That, or he actually thinks he has a right to tell a person what they can or can't put in their bodies, and it elevates NAMBLA by using pedophiles for the comparison.

utbagpiper said:

Is there any law or ordinance that can't escalate to the point of lethal force?
SNIP
What is the alternative? To eliminate all laws a person won't consent to being individually enforced against him? That is clearly what the anarchists argue for.

To have laws, but make them unenforceable? Not materially different than the first option.

Click to expand...

I did not suggest that anything about the laws be changed other than adding a preamble to remind the legislators casually voting for or the executive casually signing legislation, of the seriousness of even the most banal law with the idea that perhaps that preamble language would make them think twice about if this particular restriction upon a free people really is necessary and warranted. That does not mean that it is not warranted, just that maybe they shouldn't be so casual in increasing the federal criminal code by 50% in 25 years. For example.

Reasonable to still pass a speed limit in residential neighborhoods and enforce stopping at stop lights? Absolutely. Failure to do so well injure or kill far more people than will be harmed significantly by the statute. Reasonable for passing a law that requires an adult wear a seatbelt or other personal safety requirements? Probably not.

deepdiver said:

I did not suggest that anything about the laws be changed other than adding a preamble to remind the legislators casually voting for or the executive casually signing legislation, of the seriousness of even the most banal law with the idea that perhaps that preamble language would make them think twice about if this particular restriction upon a free people really is necessary and warranted. That does not mean that it is not warranted, just that maybe they shouldn't be so casual in increasing the federal criminal code by 50% in 25 years. For example.

Reasonable to still pass a speed limit in residential neighborhoods and enforce stopping at stop lights? Absolutely. Failure to do so well injure or kill far more people than will be harmed significantly by the statute. Reasonable for passing a law that requires an adult wear a seatbelt or other personal safety requirements? Probably not.

Click to expand...

If nothing else, such a preamble to every statute would ensure that people understood the actual limit to which government was willing to go, and maybe give some of the legislators and regulators pause.

I say some of the legislators and regulators because I'm guessing most enjoy power and the degree of force they can wield over others. If you can't wield force, or your dictates don't have the threat of force, you can't really enjoy the rush of power, can you? Otherwise, people would just laugh at your pronouncements.

deepdiver said:

I did not suggest that anything about the laws be changed other than adding a preamble to remind the legislators casually voting for or the executive casually signing legislation, of the seriousness of even the most banal law with the idea that perhaps that preamble language would make them think twice about if this particular restriction upon a free people really is necessary and warranted. That does not mean that it is not warranted, just that maybe they shouldn't be so casual in increasing the federal criminal code by 50% in 25 years. For example.

Click to expand...

I can agree with the need to be more thoughtful.

The aspect of law that troubles me the most is the decline in requirement that violations be "knowing and willful". We can expect that everyone knows it is unlawful and wrong to rape, murder, assault, steal, trespass, etc. With licensing requirements, anyone with a valid driver license knows the motor vehicle code. Ditto for hunting. All sensible men today understand that disposing of used oil in a creek or using it for weed control can damage the environment significantly.

But when a guy can face long prison terms and massive fines over innocent, unintended violations of arcane tax laws, environmental laws, etc, there is definitely a problem. Ignorance should not a carte blanc excuse, but neither should citizens be expected to keep up on hundreds of thousands of pages of laws and regulations just to avoid committing a crime with no obvious victim.

And I can understand where you are coming from on the preamble. I would pick nits slightly over the wording to make clear that the potential escalation to deadly force is not because of the law itself, but because of some potential for some members of society to refuse to obey and to then refuse the prescribed enforcement mechanism.

deepdiver said:

Reasonable to still pass a speed limit in residential neighborhoods and enforce stopping at stop lights? Absolutely. Failure to do so well injure or kill far more people than will be harmed significantly by the statute. Reasonable for passing a law that requires an adult wear a seatbelt or other personal safety requirements? Probably not.

Click to expand...

Full agreed here with the exception that I'm ok with seat belt (and helmet) laws for children. Mature adults ought to be free to make these choices themselves.

Charles

Citizen said:

I say some of the legislators and regulators because I'm guessing most enjoy power and the degree of force they can wield over others. If you can't wield force, or your dictates don't have the threat of force, you can't really enjoy the rush of power, can you? Otherwise, people would just laugh at your pronouncements.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many legislators really feel this way. I understand your sentiments. I used to share them for a lot of legislators who didn't see the world the way I do: ie those in the "other" party.

I've spent enough time interacting with legislators (in Utah) that I now believe very few of them have the desires you ascribe to them.

Rather, I believe the vast majority are sincere in their desire to provide for a good society that protects the rights of all members in the best way possible. In many cases they have vastly different understanding of individual rights than I do (A "right" to free medical care, free housing, guarantee retirement, to "feel" safe", not to be offended, etc). Some naturally have a different view of what a good society looks like than I do.

But the vast majority I've interacted with are as sincere in their desires to have a good society that respects rights as you are. It would be unjust for me to ascribe evil motives to these people as it would be for me to accuse you of wanting to bring about mass suffering, horrible declines in the standard of living, and a dramatic increase in violence. While I believe anarchy would result in those things, I don't think you believe that.

Put another way, as a friend once observed, "I don't believe Ted Kennedy actually wants to bring about the downfall of the United States. But if I were to assume that he woke up every morning with that as his goal, I could pretty easily predict how he will respond to any given bill."

From my observations, the vast majority of legislators (in Utah) are sincere. Often misguided and wrong, but sincere. A few are self-serving and corrupt, either rent seeking or flat out taking bribes. Even fewer have evidenced any real desire to be control freaks.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

The aspect of law that troubles me the most is the decline in requirement that violations be "knowing and willful".
snip
Full agreed here with the exception that I'm ok with seat belt (and helmet) laws for children. Mature adults ought to be free to make these choices themselves.

Click to expand...

As to the first point, I much agree that except for rare exceptions (none of which pop to mind but probably exist) mens rea or some level of depraved indifference should always be an element of any crime that can deprive a citizen of life, liberty or wealth.

As to the 2nd matter ... that is why I specifically wrote "adult"

deepdiver said:

As to the first point, I much agree that except for rare exceptions (none of which pop to mind but probably exist) mens rea or some level of depraved indifference should always be an element of any crime that can deprive a citizen of life, liberty or wealth.

As to the 2nd matter ... that is why I specifically wrote "adult"

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I don't mean to suggest a citizen should need to know every jot and tittle of a law before being held to account. But a general standard of care for one's fellow man should be required. All sane men know it is wrong to harm others, to vandalize property, to deliberately pollute, to defraud, etc. That should be sufficient to then charge then with the specific crime that is carefully codified.

But when the victim is "government" I want a higher standard. Tax laws are nuts. Heaven help the guy who has anything more complex than a single W2 form and the standard deduction.

In my part of the world riding a motorcycle across an unmarked boundary on a map can get you hit for nasty charges of trespass into a "Wilderness Area" or national park, supposed damage of artifacts, etc.

A landowner who makes any changes to a small, private pond can get hit for all kinds of eco-violations having not intended nor even done any actual damage but just not asking the right obscure federal agency for permission to move a little dirt on his own land.

What we really need is a much better informed populace, better informed of jury nullification, and more willing to use it.

Charles

Citizen said:

qft

Oh boy! If that doesn't confirm Utbagpiper injects his own prejudice into reading--meaning he doesn't actually read--I don't know what does.

SVG is saying telling a person he can't put drugs into his own body has at its foundation a disregard for personal rights just as strong as a pedophile's disregard for a child's rights when raping that child.

Man, Utbagpiper has such an assumption of the evil of libertarian anarchism, he didn't actually read SVG's post.

That, or he actually thinks he has a right to tell a person what they can or can't put in their bodies, and it elevates NAMBLA by using pedophiles for the comparison.

Click to expand...

He will purposefully lie. Look at the hypocrisy about moral compass while lying and making false attributions about someones character. I will continue to point it out, in the effort of self moderating forum, thank you for doing so too.

Citizen said:

You've touched on something that bugs the devil out of me.

First, I agree.

The thing that bugs me is that some people are so far gone into Stockholm Syndrome or whatever they actually deny that I can be killed for such, or accuse me of hyperbole.

Then I patiently explain that if I refuse to comply, government uses force, and if I stand up for myself and reply with force, government agents escalate force. If I continue to stand up for myself, I have to escalate, too. Eventually we arrive at lethal force. I give examples to fill in the escalation. Then I point out that I can be killed for as little as refusing to show up to court for a traffic ticket. Some understand the explanation and get it. Some don't.

Now, I understand if a person never really thought thru on the equation. But, those who refuse to see it after I explain it just bug me no end. "Well, if you just pay the ticket, it doesn't have to come to that." Or, "Why would you fight back? You're obligated to pay your fine, that's the law."

Click to expand...

deepdiver said:

Oh, now that has been a peeve of mine since I figured out that little tidbit back in college and well argued it in a class much to the consternation of the professor. I suggest that any law passed for which enforcement can be escalated to imprisonment, which means that if you refuse apprehension you would face lethal force to "take you in", should be prefaced with, "Under threat of lethal force against a sovereign citizen of the United State of America, we the (Congress, City Council, State Legislature) hereby duly vote and pass the following: " or something of that sort.

Many thoughtful law abiding types really get going when you suggest that reality to them and follow-up with suggesting that if such were required and was read before every single stupid law was passed that perhaps, hopefully, many legislators and citizens would truly consider the ramifications of "there outta be a law!!!!1!11!" and the seriousness of passing any law which would lead to the confiscation of a citizens wealth in the form of a fine or, even worse, the loss of freedom for nothing more than an infraction, either of which could be immediately escalated to lethal force because one forgot a court date.

Click to expand...

You guys might like something I wrote a few years ago, it was published in State and National libertarian magazines...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
-Ludwig VonMises


How true this is. Every time someone says “there ought to be a law” I cringe. Most who say this are well intentioned but they do not know what they are asking for. They are asking us to grant the government more power to kill us, to beat us to imprison us, to thwart yet another liberty and in doing so thwart the growth and evolution of human society.


They are asking for complete obedience to a state and its agents of violence and coercion no matter how trivial the matter. You may look both ways and see no traffic, cross the street in the middle of the block doing so safely. Yet if a costumed agent of the state sees this they now has authority to stop you, infringing upon your fundamental right to be left alone. If you decide to resist this ridiculous intrusion into your life you may be arrested, beat, tazed, killed,imprisoned, you may loose your livelihood your family your friends.Why because someone said “there ought to be a law”.


Some may claim I am exaggerating or being over hyperbolic, but am I? Who wants to test that theory out? I purposefully picked an innocuous example to explore the ultimate result of not obeying, all we have to do is look the current state of things to see the end results of monopolizing the use of force to the state. All because someone said“there ought to be a law”.


They have created a myriad of mala prohibitum laws that are against our common law origins and contrary to freedom. They fight a war against“drugs”, which is not really a war against drugs its a war on it's citizens. The violence in our streets from government sanctioned thugs and from those who engage in a market that is forced underground, the theft of our property in the form of taxes to fight this war and to cage our fellow humans for ignoring prohibition, is drastically worse than the consequences of a small percentage of our population “getting high”. All because someone said “there ought to be a law”.


They created myriads of licensing schemes, to drive, to operate a business, to get married, to hold a public meeting, to engage in trade, to use your property you bought with your hard earned dollars,to communicate, etc. I am sure many of these had good intentions yet the over all cost to society is again more harmful than the free exercise of your liberties, and has put the government in a position of authority and telling you how to live your life, and if you don't comply, we know what the end result is. All because someone said“there ought to be a law”.


They immorally tax our wages, distort our money, interfere with free markets, create laws you can be guilty of breaking no matter what;charge too much-gouging, charge the same of others-collusion, charge less predatory pricing. All because someone said “there ought to be a law”.


They invade our privacy, they infringe upon our right to bear arms and our right to free speech, they coerce or threaten us into incriminating ourselves. They make us pay to “quarter” these enforcers. They overstep the boundaries of protecting individual rights and arbitrating disputes and keeping us safe from invasion. There ought to be a law...........

Drugs are a justification for SWAT?

Who decides the targets in the War on (Some) Drugs?

heh heh heh, I don't think even the right-wing, fanatic drug warriors truly believe that pot does more actual harm than the war to to stop it.
The incredible damage done is worth the price in order to flex our moral will.

It is laughable to ascribe a respect for individual rights and liberty to any (all?) politicians when there remains on the "books," in every state, prior restraint laws. That "all" politicians (some very small few do) do not work everyday to repeal prior restraint laws is evidence that government, that exists today, absolutely does not respect individual rights and liberty. This is irrefutable.