No victim, no crime?

[Fargo]

Have you considered the possibility that the only way people are going to rise up and become self-sufficient, responsible, and non-dependent people is if we repeal the web of nanny-state laws?

But thats the rub right there. We got here because a large portion of the population got lazy, irresponsible and wanted everything done for them. Part of that was government sponsored, particularly by FDR using the platform constructed by Lincoln. Part of it was human nature.

Lazy, irresponsible people are never going repeal the nanny/welfare state; it goes against their interests. Consequently, if you want to get those things repealed, you have to convince people to be responsible and industrious.

Outside of conquest, society is almost never changed by law or authoritarianism. Rather, law and government reflect the values of the members of society that have created it. You just can't really change things unless you change those members first.

That is why you hear me crying out against those who want judges to impose libertarian rule. They are just exchanging one master (the legislature) for another (the judiciary) and the judiciary is usually far more cruel.

It is precisely that web of laws that has turned our country into a bunch of sheep. Some of them defend Big Government without even realizing it.

We survived without these ridiculous laws before, and we can do it again.

While the law certainly has had something to do with the decline of this country, it was really the choices made by the members of society that cause these laws to exist. Remember, we still have representative government.

Sure we can do just fine without the nanny state, but not until we get the lead out and start acting morally and with responsibility. If we will not rule ourselves on the personal level, we will continue to be ruled by others as we are today.

Joe

 

[rambone]

Outside of conquest, society is almost never changed by law or authoritarianism. Rather, law and government reflect the values of the members of society that have created it. You just can't really change things unless you change those members first.

That is why you hear me crying out against those who want judges to impose libertarian rule. They are just exchanging one master (the legislature) for another (the judiciary) and the judiciary is usually far more cruel.

I'm not sure I understand. All I would ask of the judiciary is that they follow the constitution. How are you mixing the concepts of liberty and authoritarianism?

While the law certainly has had something to do with the decline of this country, it was really the choices made by the members of society that cause these laws to exist. Remember, we still have representative government.

When was the last time you felt represented by your government? We are given a choice of candidates produced of the establishment, by the establishment, and for the establishment.

Sure we can do just fine without the nanny state, but not until we get the lead out and start acting morally and with responsibility. If we will not rule ourselves on the personal level, we will continue to be ruled by others as we are today.

And nanny state will not go away until more of us stop supporting it and resisting liberty.

 

[Fargo]

I'm not sure I understand. All I would ask of the judiciary is that they follow the constitution. How are you mixing the concepts of liberty and authoritarianism?

Oh, I'm all for the judiciary applying the constitution, but sadly they have largely abdicated that role in favor of social experimentation as well a judicial legislation.

When was the last time you felt represented by your government? We are given a choice of candidates produced of the establishment, by the establishment, and for the establishment.

That we the people let ourselves by run by party hacks is our own fault and no one elses.

And nanny state will not go away until more of us stop supporting it and resisting liberty.

Agreed, but people who lack self control and personal responsibility aren't going to jump on the bandwagon. You are going to have to change the hearts/minds of the people before anything meaningful changes.

Best,

Joe

 

[Duncan]

I'd be interested in hearing some examples of "victimless crimes." I don't doubt they're out there but most things people think of as "victimless" are only victimless in a direct sense. Somewhere down the line someone deals with it.

selling Moonshine Whiskey

Full Auto Conversion - homemade without ATF stamp

Tearing the Label off of your mattress .

Putting Dual Exhaust on a 1979 Chevy

Selling an Incandescent Light Bulb after 2012

Recreating the Wright Brothers first flight without a permit

Putting up a yard sign for a candidate more than 60 days before the election

Telling the King George he is trespassing _ 1776

Speakeasy the 30's

Not paying Social security tax

the list is endless
t

Thanks
Duncan

 

[ATF Consumer]

Outside of conquest, society is almost never changed by law or authoritarianism. Rather, law and government reflect the values of the members of society that have created it. You just can't really change things unless you change those members first.

That is why you hear me crying out against those who want judges to impose libertarian rule. They are just exchanging one master (the legislature) for another (the judiciary) and the judiciary is usually far more cruel.

Why do you find it to have limited government and following the rule of law so difficult?

While the law certainly has had something to do with the decline of this country, it was really the choices made by the members of society that cause these laws to exist. Remember, we still have representative government.

That IS the problem, our representative government has not been held accountable for their actions and through time and manipulation, our elected officials have failed their people and destroyed what was once a sound foundation. If every elected official was held to their word of defending the constitution, then not one piece of legislation that was unconstitutional would have ever been passed. That is all I ask...accountability and responsibility for their positions.

Sure we can do just fine without the nanny state, but not until we get the lead out and start acting morally and with responsibility. If we will not rule ourselves on the personal level, we will continue to be ruled by others as we are today.

Joe

End the welfare state!

 

[Fargo]

Why do you find it to have limited government and following the rule of law so difficult?

I am completely befuddled as to what you are talking about. My quote you reference deals with judges who want to legislate from the bench. Judgement is for the judiciary, legislation is for the legislature. I don't know how you get much more "limited gov't" and "rule of law" than that.

That IS the problem, our representative government has not been held accountable for their actions and through time and manipulation, our elected officials have failed their people and destroyed what was once a sound foundation. If every elected official was held to their word of defending the constitution, then not one piece of legislation that was unconstitutional would have ever been passed. That is all I ask...accountability and responsibility for their positions.

I agree completely but don't see you proposing any solution.

End the welfare state

Just what that I have posted makes you think I like the welfare state? I recall multiple postings of mine both decrying it and proposing a solution to removing it.

Joe

 

[ATF Consumer]

I am completely befuddled as to what you are talking about. My quote you reference deals with judges who want to legislate from the bench. Judgement is for the judiciary, legislation is for the legislature. I don't know how you get much more "limited gov't" and "rule of law" than that.

Judges that follow their oath would not be able to legislate from the bench and using the ballot box is a weak method of accountability. They need to be held to the rule of law, not make it up as they see fit. No one should be above the rule of law.

I agree completely but don't see you proposing any solution.

A simple review board could be in place to determine if the legislation being brought forth is constitutional or not...if it is not, that portion is identified for its lack of constitutionality and sent back rejected.

Just what that I have posted makes you think I like the welfare state? I recall multiple postings of mine both decrying it and proposing a solution to removing it.

Joe

What part of that makes you think I believe you support it? I simply stated that in response to your comment...I certainly wasn't trying to imply anything by that at all.

 

[Indy317]

If people could carry a gun without any fear, they'd be shooting up the streets and blah blah blah blah....

If there was no fear of punishment of shooting up the streets, yes, more people would do just that. You would have hot heads fire a couple of rounds during their road rage incidents if there was no law and order. It happens now even with law and order, I don't see it happening less just because government turns around and OKs that behavior. I believe it would happen more often if you could shoot at someone and there was no law that you could be arrested under.

Society doesn't need a law to determine what is proper behavior. In fact, many of the laws we have are the RESULT of societal norms, not the other way around.

Then get rid of criminal laws that:
-Control how people drive motor vehicles.
-How they treat other people's property, let the home owner sue the homeless bum who causes $10K in property damage in civil court.

Lets take it further and save money by:
-Not using stop lights and stop signs.
-Remove all the paint markings from the road, let people drive on the road how they wish. Nothing is criminal until after there is a victim remember.

 

[ATOMonkey]

It's one thing to have guidelines. It's quite another to make someone a criminal for not following them. All traffic laws should be traffic guidelines.

By the by, I don't shoot people, because I think it's wrong to shoot someone, not because I'm afraid I'll go to jail because of it.

Going out on a limb, I believe that is why most people don't shoot others over trivial mishaps.

Also, it's been covered, but I have a right to my property, and if anyone disturbs my property or takes it, that is a criminal offense, since I am clearly a victim. We as a society punish criminal behavior, in order to ensure that our rights will be upheld in the event that we become a victim. That is the stake we have in our neighbor's rights to his/her property, liberty, and life.

And once more with feeling... Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's without consequence. Shooting at someone would most likely result in bullets coming back in your direction.

 

[Indy317]

It's one thing to have guidelines. It's quite another to make someone a criminal for not following them. All traffic laws should be traffic guidelines.

Yes. Because it should be OK for the 50 to 200 kids leaving a high school to drive 120MPH+ to get home quickly. Guidelines are paper are good for toilet paper. Sane, logical people shouldn't be put at unnecessary risk because thousands decide not to follow the guidelines. If we are going this route, then I want back all my tax dollars I paid for public roads, all my tax dollars for fire service, police service, etc.. I want all those things made private. Let the fools who decide to have their meth lab in their home pay for their own fire protection. If they choose not to pay, their kids and home is allowed to burn.

And once more with feeling... Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's without consequence. Shooting at someone would most likely result in bullets coming back in your direction.

Hard to shoot back if your dead.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Your line of thinking is why we have gun control laws.

You believe the unwashed masses are incapable of self control unless the government is there to threaten them. Truly sad...

 

[Indy317]

Your line of thinking is why we have gun control laws.

You believe the unwashed masses are incapable of self control unless the government is there to threaten them. Truly sad...

So since everyone on the planet is so capable of self-control, owing nukes shouldn't be an issue...right? If one has the money, they have a right to have a nuclear device in their home.

 

[rambone]

LOL. As long as we dispel the myths that your gun control laws are for protecting us from evil. Terrorists are not going to give up their nukes.