The United States Needs . . . Libertarianism! [Archive]

16th May 2005, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by WWFStern
It's time this country dug down and found some good old fashioned libertarianism within itself.

As such, we should:

1. Legalize adult drug use, including steroids and ephedra.

All drugs? So parents can blitz their kids with antibiotics as they wish? What is the basis for a claim of "informed consent" when a person is helplessly addicted? Can we then have accross the board drug testing for anyone in a sensitive position?

2. Legalize adult prostitution.

Cool.

3. Legalize euthanasia, whether by a doctor or a friend/relative.

Ummmm "but he said he wanted to die". Within limits, yes.

4. Legalize gay marriage via federal constitutional amendment.

No. The constitution is silent on the issue so it is up to the states. I am against using the Constitution to support the cause de jour. PS. it wouldn't pass. Are you suggesting ammendment by fiat?

5. Repeal helmet and seatbelt laws.

Issue for the States but provided there is a "do not medically help idiots" rider I view this as natural selection at work and am ok with it.

6. Enact legislation to prevent people from suing tobacco companies, alcohol producers and fast food restaurants.

And gun companies too? Seems like license to commit felonies. Tell me, if a company management conspires to remove assets thereby destroying your investment you wouldn't want to sue? Philip Morris owns Kraft. Suppose you find pig genitiles in your Velvetta during your annual Superbowl bash, you don't think that you shold be able to sue?

7. Abolish the FCC.

Excellent. Let's all broadcast on the same frequency. Particularly emergency frequencies.

8. Eliminate all laws regulating private, consensual, adult sexual behavior.

Those are........

9. Federally amend the Constitution to permit ownership of assault weapons (though background checks and other measures to keep guns from criminals must remain strictly intact and harshly enforced).

Define "assult". Then tell me how this is different from the current state of affairs.

10. Repeal obscenity laws with respect to everything except legitimate snuff films and child films.

Those are.... You mean things like not opening a tittie bar within 500 feet of a school? Stuff like that?

Edit to add: Define "snuff film". Is a tape of a person being beheaded a "snuff film"? Are you suggesting that the internet be policed to prevent such things from being made available? How large a government would you want?

After those 10 steps are taken, personal liberty in this country would finally be on the rise, and the pathetic "nanny state" would be in decline.

Your notion of "liberty" is rather banal.

Marquis de Carabas

16th May 2005, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by WWFStern

3. Legalize euthanasia, whether by a doctor or a friend/relative.

*snip*

10. Repeal obscenity laws with respect to everything except legitimate snuff films..

If I can elect to end my life, why can't I elect to allow someone to brutally kill me while my friends videotape it? Your laws limit my right to use my death to entertain weirdos.

DavidJames

16th May 2005, 07:32 PM

I would be happy to support these 10 steps, if my family and I could be immediately transported into the future 1000 years or whenever those taking advantage of many of them were naturally selected out of the gene pool. ;)

MrFrankZito

16th May 2005, 09:06 PM

"8. Eliminate all laws regulating private, consensual, adult sexual behavior."

Which laws would those be?

How about laws forbidding incest? I have no problem with incest committed between consenting adults. It's none of my business. I don't endorse it, by any stretch, but I don't think that every legal behavior requires my endorsement.

I would prefer that my children ride on the roof, I will provide handles for them to grip.....This would be ok under a libertarian government? On sundays they want to be towed behind the car on skateboards, can that be worked into the new laws too?

Children are different. They are incapable of legal consent. Thus, they cannot legally consent to put their lives at risk by not wearing a seatbelt or helmet. Adults, however, have a legal right to say, "I want to make a dangerous choice, and I'm willingly putting my life at risk." Seatbelt and helmet laws, when applied to adults, infringes on an adult's right to put his/her life at grave risk.

All drugs? So parents can blitz their kids with antibiotics as they wish? What is the basis for a claim of "informed consent" when a person is helplessly addicted? Can we then have accross the board drug testing for anyone in a sensitive position?

Once again, children are a different issue. Children cannot consent to put their lives at grave risk. Adults, however, can consent to that. If an adult makes a dangerous choice to use drugs, they deserve what they get. If they get addicted, it's their own fault. They have nobody to blame but themselves. And, it's not the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves, and pre-emptively outlaw possibly dangerous choices. Do the drug laws save lives? I think so. But, they also inhibit freedom, namely the freedom for an adult to choose to use cocaine. And then, based upon that terrible choice, if that person dies, it's their own fault and they made their decision. That's freedom; casualties are inherent to the concept of liberty.

Issue for the States but provided there is a "do not medically help idiots" rider I view this as natural selection at work and am ok with it.

That's exactly my point: The government has no responsibility to protect people from themselves and their bad choices. The government is not in the business of enacting laws for peoples' own good. The government is there to protect me from you, and protect this country from other countries. Period. If you want to flush your life down the toilet, the government shouldn't be clogging the pipes trying to stop you.

And gun companies too? Seems like license to commit felonies. Tell me, if a company management conspires to remove assets thereby destroying your investment you wouldn't want to sue? Philip Morris owns Kraft. Suppose you find pig genitiles in your Velvetta during your annual Superbowl bash, you don't think that you shold be able to sue?

My statement was overly broad, and therefore flawed. My objection is to people suing tobacco companies because they got lung cancer, or suing alcohol providers because a loved one got killed by a drunk driver, or suing McDonalds because they are morbidly obese. Tobacco companies, alcohol providers and fast food restaurants provide a product. They are not responsible for the misuse of their product, nor the negative consequences their product might cause, as long as they are open about those negative consequences. In my view, there is no reason in the world to ban a pain reliever that instantly kills 90% of users. Put a warning about the 90% death thing on the label (probably 2-3 HUGE warnings) and let people make their own choices. And, if people die from using the product, it isn't the company's fault.

Those are.... You mean things like not opening a tittie bar within 500 feet of a school? Stuff like that?

That, and other things. The Justice Department is cracking down on pornography that it considers to be obscene. I think it is ludicrous. As I wrote, the only things that are obscene, in my view, are child porn and snuff films. That isn't what the DOJ is cracking down on, and so, in my view, they are currently aiming to curtail protected liberty.

Art Vandelay

16th May 2005, 09:12 PM

1. While current drug laws go overboard, drugs shouldn't be [/i]completely[/i] unregulated. That would be a public safety nightmare.

2. Prostitution itself should be legal, but public solicitation is an area in which regulation is appropriate.

3. Euthanasia should be legal, but highly regulated.

4. Same sex marriages are not libertarian issue. Allow civil unions, leave it up to states whether they call them "marriages" or not.

5. There are some public interests implicated in helmet and seatbelt use.

6. Giving immunity to certain industries is just silly. Eliminating certain causes of actions is one thing, but why should certain industries get special treatment?

7. The FCC has been going overboard, but regulation of the EM spectrum is necessary.

8. For the most part, I agree with this one, but one can quibble about just what "consensual" is. If someone cheats on their partner, and passes on an STD, is that "consensual"?

9. Don't let them win the nomenclature battle. "Assault weapon"? As opposed to what? "friendly poke weapon"? All weapons, absent a clear overriding public safety risk, should be legal.

10. Child porn and obscenity are separate issues. "Obscenity" is just an excuse to ignore the First Amendment.

CrimresearchWhat sodomy laws? Last I looked there weren't any valid sodomy laws in the US.So all sodomy laws have been found unconstitutional? Including those not distinguishing between homsexual and heterosexual acts? Including military laws?

I know there are a couple of cases where some judge has applied battery statutes to S&M... I don't see how that could hold up without shutting down any consensual contact sport.Hitting someone is hardly the same as engaging in an activity likely to result in someone being hit. But there is the issue of where the line between S&M and domestic abuse is. A lot of states allow prosecution of domestic abuse even if the alleged victim doesn't press charges.

crimresearch

16th May 2005, 09:21 PM

"So all sodomy laws have been found unconstitutional? Including those not distinguishing between homsexual and heterosexual acts? Including military laws?"

Actually, the US Supreme Court ruling striking down sodomy statutes is only binding on *American* cases.
:rolleyes:

shanek

16th May 2005, 10:05 PM

There are three things on this list I disagree with:

Originally posted by WWFStern
4. Legalize gay marriage via federal constitutional amendment.

The Constitution should absolutely not have anything one way or the other to say about individual human behavior. Its purpose is to grant powers to government. There's nothing in Article I Section 8 even allowing the government to license marriage in the first place. The solution is to get rid of marriage licensing, which only came about to prevent blacks from marrying whites anyway.

6. Enact legislation to prevent people from suing tobacco companies, alcohol producers and fast food restaurants.

I don't think you should have legislation saying who can't sue whom civilly. I understand your motivation, but if you're really a libertarian, you have to understand that government prohibitions don't work. There may be legitimate reasons to sue these entities, and you'd be cutting them off, or, at the very least, giving the government the power to decide who can sue and who can't.

9. Federally amend the Constitution to permit ownership of assault weapons (though background checks and other measures to keep guns from criminals must remain strictly intact and harshly enforced).

A few problems: 1) the Second Amendment already does that; 2) there's nothing in Article I Section 8 giving them the power to prevent ownership of assault weapons anyway, and 3) what the heck does it mean to "federally amend" the Constitution?

Other than that, great list!

shanek

16th May 2005, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I wonder whose sock this is?

Whose?

shanek

16th May 2005, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
What sodomy laws? Last I looked there weren't any valid sodomy laws in the US.

North Carolina (and several other states) still has laws against cohabitation. A lady was just recently indicted for violation of the law; she's currently fighting to have them declared unconstitutional.

shanek

16th May 2005, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
1. While current drug laws go overboard, drugs shouldn't be [/i]completely[/i] unregulated. That would be a public safety nightmare.

Why wasn't it back when drugs were legal? And why was the nightmare of alcohol prohibition ended by simply ending prohibition?

2. Prostitution itself should be legal, but public solicitation is an area in which regulation is appropriate.

What do you mean, "public solicitation"?

5. There are some public interests implicated in helmet and seatbelt use.

Such as? If you're talking about taxes paying for their medicine, I think Ed took care of that.

6. Giving immunity to certain industries is just silly. Eliminating certain causes of actions is one thing, but why should certain industries get special treatment?

Much better than the way I said it. Thanks.

7. The FCC has been going overboard, but regulation of the EM spectrum is necessary.

But why would it have to be done by government?

And even if we assume the government involvement, why is the FCC the best way? Why couldn't we make the frequencies like private property and open them up to homesteading?

8. For the most part, I agree with this one, but one can quibble about just what "consensual" is. If someone cheats on their partner, and passes on an STD, is that "consensual"?

Not speaking for the original poster, I would say that yes, the person who passes on the STD is liable for damages.

All weapons, absent a clear overriding public safety risk, should be legal.

Another excellent way of saying it.

10. Child porn and obscenity are separate issues. "Obscenity" is just an excuse to ignore the First Amendment.

My view is, with child porn, there's no way to make it without committing abuse on someone incapable of giving consent. The Supreme Court has already ruled that models of age dressed up to look younger, animation, and computer simulations don't count.

RandFan

16th May 2005, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
What sodomy laws? Last I looked there weren't any valid sodomy laws in the US. Yeah, I remember that now.

Thanks,

RandFan

The Central Scrutinizer

16th May 2005, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by shanek
A few problems: 1) the Second Amendment already does that;

Just one problem with your "a few problems":

1) No it doesn't.

crimresearch

16th May 2005, 11:01 PM

OK, there may be some musty old laws on adultery, etc. still on the books...
I'm not so sure they would pass the Lawrence test keeping the government out of adult's bedrooms though.

> Prostitution legal, OK... as long as it was openly voluntary.

> Legalise adult drug use including steroids..as in no prescriptions?
Interesting I'm not so sure that it would have the effect of unringing the drug war bell. Repealing prohibition was a less convoluted issue.

> Euthenasia by friends and relatives...You mean the people who are the first suspects in a murder should get a pass if they call it euthenasia?

> Gay marriage....just get a USSC ruling that marriage is a religious sacrament, and off limits to government regulation.

> Helmet and seatbelt laws....make those people replace their safety gear with a large spike in the center of the steering wheel/handlebars.

> Immunity for product liability? BagO'Glass.

> FCC...Sure, why not have the airwaves sink even lower, to the quality of the Internet?

> Guns? My death ray will render them all obsolete anyway. :D

> Obscenity... Needs much more study....

davefoc

17th May 2005, 06:08 AM

I just thought I'd make my standard comment about these kind of threads. Usually the comment is just ignored but I'll make it anyway.

Each of these issues are very complicated with many different aspects so that trying to talk about them in the same thread isn't very useful.

Take, for instance the issue of sexual freedom. Some of the sub issues include.:

What should the age of consent be?

Is statutory rape treated differently between an older man and a younger woman or visa versa?

Is statutory rape treated differently when the sex is between two similarly aged individuals as it is when it is between a much older individual and an individual below the age of consent?

Polygamy?

Incest?

Prostitution?

Regulation of sexual solicitation?

Regulation of explicit sexual advertising?

Homosexual polygamy?

Homosexual incest?

How does parental permission affect the age of consent?

Sado Masochism?

Sex between mentally retarded individuals?

The issue of children that result from some of the practices above?

The new area of all the reproductive options?

But in this thread all these issues get wrapped up into a simple idea:
8. Eliminate all laws regulating private, consensual, adult sexual behavior.

So while, I view myself as a moderate libertarian the simple answer to item 8 would be no since I think that at least some state involvment in these issues is a good thing.

17th May 2005, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by WWFStern

Once again, children are a different issue. Children cannot consent to put their lives at grave risk. Adults, however, can consent to that. If an adult makes a dangerous choice to use drugs, they deserve what they get. If they get addicted, it's their own fault. They have nobody to blame but themselves. And, it's not the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves, and pre-emptively outlaw possibly dangerous choices. Do the drug laws save lives? I think so. But, they also inhibit freedom, namely the freedom for an adult to choose to use cocaine. And then, based upon that terrible choice, if that person dies, it's their own fault and they made their decision. That's freedom; casualties are inherent to the concept of liberty.

Except if resistance to various antibiotics increases, you put me and my children at risk. What do I do then? Sue? It seems that lawsuits are part and parcel of the libertarian mode of operation.

As far as addititive substances go, though the initial use might (but probably not) be subject to personal informed consent, once the person is addicted there is no longer any consent. It is, in fact, government sanctioned slavery. That is ok in Libertopia?

If the entire US Pharmacopia is available for sale to everyone, how do you intend to assure the "informed" part of "informed consent"? Doctoral level courses in drug action (and those pesky interactions)? Comprehensive education in social services so that everyone can in fact see the charming effects that drug use has on families and the users? What happens when a kid is born cocaine addicted? Another lawsuit? Unwanted drug addicted newborns are my problem too. How big might this problem become? Who pays?

That's exactly my point: The government has no responsibility to protect people from themselves and their bad choices. The government is not in the business of enacting laws for peoples' own good. The government is there to protect me from you, and protect this country from other countries. Period. If you want to flush your life down the toilet, the government shouldn't be clogging the pipes trying to stop you.

I tend to agree except I am certainly affected by the imact of no controls on drugs.

My statement was overly broad, and therefore flawed. My objection is to people suing tobacco companies because they got lung cancer, or suing alcohol providers because a loved one got killed by a drunk driver, or suing McDonalds because they are morbidly obese. Tobacco companies, alcohol providers and fast food restaurants provide a product. They are not responsible for the misuse of their product, nor the negative consequences their product might cause, as long as they are open about those negative consequences. In my view, there is no reason in the world to ban a pain reliever that instantly kills 90% of users. Put a warning about the 90% death thing on the label (probably 2-3 HUGE warnings) and let people make their own choices. And, if people die from using the product, it isn't the company's fault.

Juries have largely agreed. You want the government to step in when the people seem to be doing a good job?

As an aside, if a person suffers from an acute depression you are ok with him killing himself?

That, and other things. The Justice Department is cracking down on pornography that it considers to be obscene.

Any references for this that are not dismissable out of hand? I hear stories but nothing real. Absent evidence, would you like legislation? Why?

I think it is ludicrous. As I wrote, the only things that are obscene, in my view, are child porn and snuff films.

You have not defined "snuff" and I await the DOJ references. [/QUOTE]

Skeptical Greg

17th May 2005, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
I would prefer that my children ride on the roof, I will provide handles for them to grip.....This would be ok under a libertarian government? On sundays they want to be towed behind the car on skateboards, can that be worked into the new laws too? I appreciate the humor here, but do you need laws to make you protect your children?

17th May 2005, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I appreciate the humor here, but do you need laws to make you protect your children?

I would like their Doctor to have a license. I would like some assurance of the efficacy and safety of the drugs they take. I would like pedophiles locked up or their whereabouts known. I would like their teachers to have certain qualifications. If there is an accident, I would like the other party to be wearing seatbelts so their lifestyle is not ruined thru a lawsuit. I would like that their "Happy Time Wagon" is not constructed out of razor blades. I would like an environment where the pilot of their plane is not working triple overtime nor is on amphetamines nor is apt to have hallucinations or flashbacks. I'd like for them to be able to eat the fish they catch and not get a turd in the mouth when they go swimming. I'd like to be reasonably assured that they will not catch polio from some anti-vaccination loon.

Skeptical Greg

17th May 2005, 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Ed
I would like their Doctor to have a license. I would like some assurance of the efficacy and safety of the drugs they take. I would like pedophiles locked up or their whereabouts known. I would like their teachers to have certain qualifications. If there is an accident, I would like the other party to be wearing seatbelts so their lifestyle is not ruined thru a lawsuit. I would like that their "Happy Time Wagon" is not constructed out of razor blades. I would like an environment where the pilot of their plane is not working triple overtime nor is on amphetamines nor is apt to have hallucinations or flashbacks. I'd like for them to be able to eat the fish they catch and not get a turd in the mouth when they go swimming. I'd like to be reasonably assured that they will not catch polio from some anti-vaccination loon. I was talking about personal responsibility; dressing them appropriately for the weather, securing them in vehicles, not putting kerosene in soda bottles and keeping it in the refrigerator and not purchasing them a "Happy Time Wagon" constructed of razor blades.

I share your concerns also, and feel there should be laws and regulations in place to manage those concerns; just not at the federal level.

CFLarsen

17th May 2005, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by billydkid
Why do you assume it's a sock? Did I miss something? It is just possible there are a few libertarians out there. There, consider that the straight line.

Well, those few that exist must be somewhere.

They sure as hell aren't in the voting booth!

17th May 2005, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I was talking about personal responsibility; dressing them appropriately for the weather, securing them in vehicles, not putting kerosene in soda bottles and keeping it in the refrigerator and not purchasing them a "Happy Time Wagon" constructed of razor blades.

I share your concerns also, and feel there should be laws and regulations in place to manage those concerns; just not at the federal level.

A true Libertarian would not agree, I think.

sackett

17th May 2005, 08:00 AM

Libertarianism? Pap! Ayn Rand for preschoolers! No wonder the bosses love it.

Goddamm!t, why donâ€™t you libertarianoids grow some bawlz! Up the black flag!

http://www.anarchism.net/
http://www.radio4all.org/aia/
http://www.black-rose.com/articles-liz/intro-@.html
http://www.eskimo.com/~galt/revolt.html
http://www.irational.org/sic/anarchism/malatesta.html

Yes, anarchism! And look who likes it:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html

Anyway I think he does; I couldnâ€™t get very deep into it.

crimresearch

17th May 2005, 08:31 AM

Anarchism?

That's on the left as you go in to Hot Topics isn't it?

:p

CaptainManacles

17th May 2005, 10:12 AM

I would like their Doctor to have a license.

I would too. You can still have that under a libertarian government, it just won't be government issued.

I would like some assurance of the efficacy and safety of the drugs they take.

Me too. Which is why we need to get rid of the current systems we have to approve such things, as it screws up so much we don't even notice it anymore. The only thing more greedy, corrupt, dishonest, and politically motivated then a corporation is a government institution. Not only do they have the same motivations to be dishonest and greedy, their profit motive is not tied to being successful and well trusted as it is in a cooperation. Their profit motive is actually tied to be unsuccessful, the more they screw up, the more they kill people, the more funding they can claim to need. It's why Nasa continues to kill people. It's why the FDA continues to kill people.

I would like pedophiles locked up or their whereabouts known.

I'm pretty sure a libertarian philosophy will allow you do to so.

I would like their teachers to have certain qualifications.

Me too, again, that's why we need to get that out of the hands of the government. Then maybe we'll have some qualified teachers. Then maybe our children will learn critical thinking and analytical skills, things that they rarely teach because they're not skills that will show up on a federal standardized test. I don't know how it works where you live, but around here, things have finally hit the bottom of the barrel, all public education prepares the students for is standardized tests, nothing more.

I would like an environment where the pilot of their plane is not working triple overtime nor is on amphetamines nor is apt to have hallucinations or flashbacks.

Without government aid, I do not think an organization that allowed this would be in business very long.

shanek

17th May 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by crimresearch
> Prostitution legal, OK... as long as it was openly voluntary.

What's "openly voluntary"?

Interesting I'm not so sure that it would have the effect of unringing the drug war bell. Repealing prohibition was a less convoluted issue.

Why?

> Euthenasia by friends and relatives...You mean the people who are the first suspects in a murder should get a pass if they call it euthenasia?

Not a pass, but there does have to be that whole "investigation" thing going on. Me, if I were going to euthanize a loved one I'd make sure to get plenty of proof in writing, on video, etc., notarized and everything else, that that's what they wanted.

shanek

17th May 2005, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
What should the age of consent be?

I'm not sure that there should be an age of consent. If a teen shows the ability to understand and make adult decisions, should he not be treated as an adult?

shanek

17th May 2005, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Ed
I would like their Doctor to have a license. I would like some assurance of the efficacy and safety of the drugs they take.

You hardly need government for that. I'm sure you want your kids' electric toothbrushes, hair dryers, CD players, and other electronics to not electrocute them. It's UL that protects you from that, not the government.

I would like pedophiles locked up or their whereabouts known.

If they're still serving time, sure. Once they've served their time, they should have all of their rights restored, including the right to privacy.

I would like their teachers to have certain qualifications.

Again, you don't need a government for that.

If there is an accident, I would like the other party to be wearing seatbelts so their lifestyle is not ruined thru a lawsuit.

Shouldn't that be their decision?

I would like that their "Happy Time Wagon" is not constructed out of razor blades.

As opposed to, what, SUVs crashing into compact cars?

I would like an environment where the pilot of their plane is not working triple overtime nor is on amphetamines nor is apt to have hallucinations or flashbacks. I'd like for them to be able to eat the fish they catch and not get a turd in the mouth when they go swimming. I'd like to be reasonably assured that they will not catch polio from some anti-vaccination loon.

Do you have anything more to offer than FUD?

shanek

17th May 2005, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Ed
A true Libertarian would not agree, I think.

No, but it would at least be better than it is now if they were handled at the state level.

CFLarsen

17th May 2005, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I'm not sure that there should be an age of consent. If a teen shows the ability to understand and make adult decisions

Who decides that? How?

crimresearch

17th May 2005, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by shanek
What's "openly voluntary"?

The opposite of the 'legal' prostitution in the Czech Republic, where the women are there under threat of death or of harm to their families back home, and the government does nothing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{I'm not so sure that it would have the effect of unringing the drug war bell. Repealing prohibition was a less convoluted issue.}
Why?

Because prohibition criminalized a thriving legal industry, which was able to resume normal operations after a short hiatus.

There is too much money invested for far too long in the current illegal drug trade to expect it to vanish because a law was repealed.
[/B]

shanek

17th May 2005, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by crimresearch
The opposite of the 'legal' prostitution in the Czech Republic, where the women are there under threat of death or of harm to their families back home, and the government does nothing.

I think I see. In that case, I agree. Threats like that have no place in a free market.

Because prohibition criminalized a thriving legal industry, which was able to resume normal operations after a short hiatus.

Other than the length of the "hiatus," what's different about now? Why would companies not be able to start offering what the black market is now?

There is too much money invested for far too long in the current illegal drug trade to expect it to vanish because a law was repealed.

It won't vanish. What'll happen is that either the current players in the black market will form companies in the free market, or free market companies will start taking over. Probably both.

crimresearch

17th May 2005, 11:36 AM

"Other than the length of the "hiatus," what's different about now? Why would companies not be able to start offering what the black market is now?"

Because they would have to start from scratch, and they would be competing with existing major criminal enterprises for both suppliers and customers.

Maybe they could do it, but I'm thinking it won't be as simple as just repealing some laws and reopening a heroin factory.

The 'ideal' solution ( and we all know what an idealist I am), would have been to never criminalize drugs in the first place.

Without that option, decriminalization is probably going to have some unintended negative consequences.

shanek

17th May 2005, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by crimresearch
Because they would have to start from scratch, and they would be competing with existing major criminal enterprises for both suppliers and customers.

Ah, but the criminal enterprises wouldn't be criminal enterprises anymore. They'd either become a free market business or move on to another criminal venture.

Without that option, decriminalization is probably going to have some unintended negative consequences.

Maybe in the short term, but it's hard for me to imagine those "unintended negative consequences" as being worse than turf wars, asset forfeiture, corrupt law enfofcement, etc.

Skeptical Greg

17th May 2005, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who decides that? How? Who decides it now? How ?

crimresearch

17th May 2005, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Ah, but the criminal enterprises wouldn't be criminal enterprises anymore. They'd either become a free market business or move on to another criminal venture.

Maybe in the short term, but it's hard for me to imagine those "unintended negative consequences" as being worse than turf wars, asset forfeiture, corrupt law enfofcement, etc.

On this, I would be happy for events to prove that my pessimistic view had been wrong.

CFLarsen

17th May 2005, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Who decides it now? How ?

I asked shanek. I doubt he can answer.

Solitaire

17th May 2005, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by CaptainManacles
I would too. You can still have that under a libertarian government, it just won't be government issued.

One wonders why people make the government do it then?

Me too. Which is why we need to get rid of the current systems we have to approve such things, as it screws up so much we don't even notice it anymore. The only thing more greedy, corrupt, dishonest, and politically motivated then a corporation is a government institution. Not only do they have the same motivations to be dishonest and greedy, their profit motive is not tied to being successful and well trusted as it is in a cooperation. Their profit motive is actually tied to be unsuccessful, the more they screw up, the more they kill people, the more funding they can claim to need. It's why Nasa continues to kill people. It's why the FDA continues to kill people.

That which you can see you know, that which you do not you do not.
Okay, what about alternative medicine? No reporting, no problems?
Oh I'd like to take you to NASA and have you say that to the workers. :D

Me too, again, that's why we need to get that out of the hands of the government. Then maybe we'll have some qualified teachers. Then maybe our children will learn critical thinking and analytical skills, things that they rarely teach because they're not skills that will show up on a federal standardized test. I don't know how it works where you live, but around here, things have finally hit the bottom of the barrel, all public education prepares the students for is standardized tests, nothing more.

Yep. Out of sight, out of mind.
What about government schools in other nations?

Moliere

17th May 2005, 03:52 PM

From the U.S. perspective, if we're going to have a libertarian fantasy we should discuss abolishing the income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, Department of Education, HUD, Surgeon General, NIH, BATF, Department of Energy...who have I missed?

How will we fund the government?!?!
Ideal: fees and fines
Moderate: consumption tax like the sales tax
Last resort: flat tax

What about the children?!?!
All public schools would be privatized and left up to the States. The steps in the right direction are expanding home schooling/charter schools along with offering school vouchers. When parents can choose where their kid goes to school the schools will have to improve to compete or go out of business.

Who will tell us to wear condoms if we don't have a Surgeon General?!?!
How about the condom companies? :D

crimresearch

17th May 2005, 04:02 PM

"What about the children?!?!All public schools would be privatized and left up to the States. The steps in the right direction are expanding home schooling/charter schools along with offering school vouchers. When parents can choose where their kid goes to school the schools will have to improve to compete or go out of business..."

Well, which is it? Privatized, or run by the States or funded by vouchers?

Would there be taxes ( by any other name) to make me pay for vouchers so some white supremacist can pay to send his kid off to the Minuteman Militia school?

Moliere

17th May 2005, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
Well, which is it? Privatized, or run by the States or funded by vouchers?

Would there be taxes ( by any other name) to make me pay for vouchers so some white supremacist can pay to send his kid off to the Minuteman Militia school?

Ideally, it would be completely privatized and voluntary. The steps towards that ultimate goal are vouchers and charter school deregulation.

CaptainManacles

17th May 2005, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Synchronicity
One wonders why people make the government do it then?

So are you suggesting then that the current system is always the best system?

The reason why government does things it shouldn't are numerous. Sometimes it's the most obvious solution. Maybe not the best solution, but the most expedient, or the one with the most short term benefits. The big picture is often hard for Suzy homemaker to see, all she knows is little Billy is sick, and wants something done now.

Sometimes it's the easiest solution. Capitalism requires individuals to take responsibility for their own actions, and if the minority allows their rights to be violated, then this can be a tempting solution for the majority. Often this is achieved because such repression is seen as "the way things have to be" or because such acts of violence are done passive aggressively. "We're not using violence to stop you, you can do whatever you want. We're asking you nicely to stop, but if you disobey us, then we'll shoot you for disobeying us."

Also, government tends to become it's own creature, striving for it's own survival, doing whatever it can to justify greater powers and better resources.

Okay, what about alternative medicine? No reporting, no problems?

This solves problems with alternative medicine licensing quite well. No more do complaints about repressing freedom of religion, or their beliefs, or whatever, have any degree of validity. It's a private organization and they can feel free to approve whatever they want. Something tells me they're not going to risk losing their share of a multi-trillion dollar market just because some penniless woo feels insulted that they demanded double blind testing. Only government agencies are capable of such monumentally stupid actions. It's likely that alternative medicine will have it's own approval organizations, and I'm sure some people won't even buy products without the say-so of the Holistic FDA. That's their choice, and nature will take it's course.

Oh I'd like to take you to NASA and have you say that to the workers. :D

Let me be very clear by what I mean here. I'm sure the people involved with NASA are fine individuals, compassionate, and I'm sure no one cares more about the lives of their companions then them. I'm sure it is their compassion that gives their companions the degree of safety that they have. It's unfortunate then, that their funding is determined by factors in direct opposition of such compassion. In the first, and rather famous, shuttle disaster, the problem was identified by NASA scientists before the launch. However, the launch went along as planned because of the political concerns of their superiors. It is my wish that such a thing never happen again.

What about government schools in other nations?

I can't say that I'm as familiar with government schools in other nations. I don't see how it's relevant either. We are talking about United States politics, are we not? And anecdotal evidence aside, I think my logic holds up regardless of the location. Start a public school on the moon, it will have the same problems. A public school will never have as much of a motivation to succeed as a private school, in fact, it has motivation to fail so it can justify funding. Besides the moral difficulties of stealing people's money to fund it.

Fundamentally, the only difference between a private organization and a public one is that a public organization can shoot you if you fail to comply. When you see that reality for what it is, the actions of public organizations make a lot more sense, and seeing the inevitable failure of such institutions is easy. There is no motivation to excel when business is done from behind a gun, it is why communism fails, it is why public schools fail, it is why totalitarian dictatorships destroy their otherwise resource rich countries, it is why theocracies end up poor, irrational, and violent.

shanek

17th May 2005, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Synchronicity
One wonders why people make the government do it then?

Because government has gotten people snowed into thinking that only government can solve these problems. If you want evidence, check almost any thread here.

Okay, what about alternative medicine? No reporting, no problems?

Anyone has the right to put whatever they want into their own body. Everyone is responsible for the consequences of what they put into their own body. As long as no fraud has taken place, there's nothing for the government to do.

So many times, though, we do have fraud with alternative medicine. Libertarians are against the initiation of force, and that includes fraud. So the prosecution of quacks (of which there are also many in the field of traditional medicine, I might add) is a legitimate function of government.

Oh I'd like to take you to NASA and have you say that to the workers. :D

I know you did the smiley and everything, but do I really have to go into why the Challenger exploded? Why the Challenger was allowed to launch that day when the engineering team in the private company contracted by NASA agreed unanimously that it was too risky?

shanek

17th May 2005, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Moliere
How will we fund the government?!?!
Ideal: fees and fines
Moderate: consumption tax like the sales tax
Last resort: flat tax

I have one that goes in between Ideal and Moderate: tariffs and excises. Unlike the sales tax, they directly affect the price of goods and so have a very effective limiting factor on the power of government.

crimresearch

17th May 2005, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Moliere
Ideally, it would be completely privatized and voluntary. The steps towards that ultimate goal are vouchers and charter school deregulation.

OK, thanks for making that distinction, I wasn't sure when you proposed that the vouchers start.

billydkid

17th May 2005, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
"8. Eliminate all laws regulating private, consensual, adult sexual behavior."

Which laws would those be?

Many states have laws forbidding certain types of consentual sexual behavior between adults. I don't know the state, but a woman was recently charged with the crime of unmarried cohabitation and lost her job as a result of the charge.

shanek

17th May 2005, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Moliere
Ideally, it would be completely privatized and voluntary. The steps towards that ultimate goal are vouchers and charter school deregulation.

I disagree. I see vouchers a step in the wrong direction, because they will end up giving the government the power to dictate to the private schools how they should be doing things, just as they've done to the private colleges.

Instead of vouchers, educational tax credits are a much better option. They would go to the parents, or to the person or entity paying for the tuition, and so it would be extremely difficult for the government to dictate anything.

shanek

17th May 2005, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by billydkid
Many states have laws forbidding certain types of consentual sexual behavior between adults. I don't know the state, but a woman was recently charged with the crime of unmarried cohabitation and lost her job as a result of the charge.

That was NC. She worked for her local sheriff's office. She's trying to fight it to the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of these laws.

Unless, of course, there's a similar story from another state.

The Central Scrutinizer

17th May 2005, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Ed
I would like pedophiles locked up or their whereabouts known.

In Little Shanek's Libertobia(tm), if a police officer was a member of NAMBLA and thought that the constitution allowed the molesting of children, he could stand and witness a youngster being molested and not do a thing about it. Heck, he might even join in.

Pretty sick, isn't it?

RandFan

17th May 2005, 07:40 PM

I just want to say that I disagree with Shane where is wrong and agree with him where he is right. I ask god to grant me the wisdom to tell the difference. ;)

crimresearch

17th May 2005, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by shanek
That was NC. She worked for her local sheriff's office. She's trying to fight it to the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of these laws.

Unless, of course, there's a similar story from another state.

There is a similar story from North Carolina, but it doesn't say that she was jailed for it.

http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/

It says she lost her job.

And if anyone can tell you that an employer has a right to fire an employee over such behavior, it would be Shanek.
Particularly if the employer is a Constitutional officer like a Sherrif.

Right?
:D

Elind

17th May 2005, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by WWFStern
It's time this country dug down and found some good old fashioned libertarianism within itself.

As such, we should:

1. Legalize adult drug use, including steroids and ephedra.
2. Legalize adult prostitution.
3. Legalize euthanasia, whether by a doctor or a friend/relative.
4. Legalize gay marriage via federal constitutional amendment.
5. Repeal helmet and seatbelt laws.
6. Enact legislation to prevent people from suing tobacco companies, alcohol producers and fast food restaurants.
7. Abolish the FCC.
8. Eliminate all laws regulating private, consensual, adult sexual behavior.
9. Federally amend the Constitution to permit ownership of assault weapons (though background checks and other measures to keep guns from criminals must remain strictly intact and harshly enforced).
10. Repeal obscenity laws with respect to everything except legitimate snuff films and child films.

After those 10 steps are taken, personal liberty in this country would finally be on the rise, and the pathetic "nanny state" would be in decline.

What if one agrees with some of those, but not all? How many are needed to be Libertarian, and how many others have you not listed?

Art Vandelay

17th May 2005, 09:29 PM

WWFStern
The government has no responsibility to protect people from themselves and their bad choices. I do think that the government has a responsibility to make sure that people don't take advantage of bad choices. Civilized society is based on an assumption that other people are generally good, and will not trick people for personal gain. People who abuse that trust should be punished. On the other hand, if someone clearly states "I am out entirely for myself, and I have absolutely no interest in promoting your well being if it conflicts with my profits", then cavaet emptor.

Originally posted by crimresearch
Actually, the US Supreme Court ruling striking down sodomy statutes is only binding on *American* cases.
:rolleyes:
:confused:
Are you saying that the armed forces are not American?
And do you have any answer for the question of whether Lawrence applies to statutes making no distinction based on sex?

Why wasn't it back when drugs were legal? And why was the nightmare of alcohol prohibition ended by simply ending prohibition?
Alcohol prohibition ended; alcohol regulation survives. As for your other question, I would have to know what you mean by "back when drugs were legal" to answer.

What do you mean, "public solicitation"?
Street walking, basically. Public sidewalks are not the proper forum for conducting business in general, and prostitution in particular is considered offensive.

Such as? If you're talking about taxes paying for their medicine, I think Ed took care of that.
For one thing, unsecured cargo, living or otherwise, presents a risk of interfering with proper vehicle operation.

And even if we assume the government involvement, why is the FCC the best way? Why couldn't we make the frequencies like private property and open them up to homesteading?How can you make something private property without government? And what do you mean, "why is the FCC the best way?" If the government is regulating EM, presumably there will a government agency in charge of that regulation. Why does it matter what that agency is called? If you have a problem with current FCC practices, you should criticize those practices. Setting up another agency that does the same thing would be a silly solution.

My view is, with child porn, there's no way to make it without committing abuse on someone incapable of giving consent. Of course, that raises the question of whether voyeurism is a form of "abuse".

Ed
Any references for this that are not dismissable out of hand? I hear stories but nothing real. What constitutes "out of hand"? It took two years to dismiss the charges against Extreme Associates, and the apeals still aren't exhausted.

It is, in fact, government sanctioned slavery. That is ok in Libertopia?

The Central Scrutinizer
In Little Shanek's Libertobia(tm), if a police officer was a member of NAMBLA and thought that the constitution allowed the molesting of children, he could stand and witness a youngster being molested and not do a thing about it.

I propose a corollary to Godwin's Law: as a thread about libertarianism progresses, the probability tends to one that someone will accuse libertarians of supporting slavery, child molestation, plutocracy, murder, and changing lanes without a turn signal.

The Central Scrutinizer

17th May 2005, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
The Central Scrutinizer

I propose a corollary to Godwin's Law: as a thread about libertarianism progresses, the probability tends to one that someone will accuse libertarians of supporting slavery, child molestation, plutocracy, murder, and changing lanes without a turn signal.

To the contrary - this is Shanek's position. He will not deny it.

crimresearch

17th May 2005, 11:06 PM

Are you saying that the armed forces are not American?And do you have any answer for the question of whether Lawrence applies to statutes making no distinction based on sex?

I'm saying that as always, you act as though are making legal pronouncements based on something you've misunderstood from watching too much TV.

If you have no clue as to how the US Supreme Court rulings work, now would be a good time to quit posting nonsense, and learn something about the matter.

I'm well aware of the US military's duty to follow the Constitution..if you were, why would you make the inane statements that you have?

I'm also well aware of what the Lawrence decision says...if you were, why would you post such irrelevant questions?

Art Vandelay

17th May 2005, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by crimresearch
I'm saying that as always, you act as though [you(?)] are making legal pronouncements based on something you've misunderstood from watching too much TV.
Name one.

If you have no clue as to how the US Supreme Court rulings work, now would be a good time to quit posting nonsense, and learn something about the matter.What the hell is your problem? What made you decide that it is now your life mission to lie about me? Are you experiencing some sort of bizarre hallucination syndrome in which you imagine things I didn't say? I ask a question about Supreme Court decisions, and you say I should learn something about the matter? How am I supposed to learn anything without asking questions? How about you quit posting nonsense, and deal with the personality disorder you clearly have?

I'm well aware of the US military's duty to follow the Constitution..if you were, why would you make the inane statements that you have?So why did you emphasize "American"? Are there or are there not laws against members of the military engaging in sodomy? And what is an example of an "inane statement"?

I'm also well aware of what the Lawrence decision says...if you were, why would you post such irrelevant questions? How is the question of whether Lawrence applies to sex neutral laws "irrelevant"? Isn't that the very issue that we are discussing?

Kerberos

18th May 2005, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

I propose a corollary to Godwin's Law: as a thread about libertarianism progresses, the probability tends to one that someone will accuse libertarians of supporting slavery, child molestation, plutocracy, murder, and changing lanes without a turn signal. Shanek has, IIRC, said that he believes that police officers should be allowed to ignore any law they chose to, fi they considered it unconstitutional without consequences, no matter how inane their objections. I don't think a lot of police officers would ignore child molesting, but they would be allowed to if they so chose.

shanek

18th May 2005, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Shanek has, IIRC, said that he believes that police officers should be allowed to ignore any law they chose to, fi they considered it unconstitutional without consequences, no matter how inane their objections.

Why do they swear an oath under Article VI Clause 3?

davefoc

18th May 2005, 10:55 AM

Art Vandelay asked:
And do you have any answer for the question of whether Lawrence applies to statutes making no distinction based on sex?

Lawrence is the only supreme court decision I have ever spent much time studying and I am very much not an expert even on this decision.

My view, is that technically, the decision only applies to gays. Roughly the decision says that sex is an intrinsic part of life and for gays sodomy is per force the necessary approach and that precluding what is an intrinsic part of life is a violation of due process.

So, I think, states are theorectically free to preclude sodomy in sex between a man and a woman based on lawrence.

One side note is that plodding through Lawrence is tedious because the opinion is wordy and seems to include all sorts of irrelevant stuff. The only part of the thing that was easily readable was the opposing opinion written by Thomas. Apparently the majority opinion is some sort of consensus document where everybody gets to contribute a few words even if those few words are peripheral to the basis for the decision.

Kerberos

18th May 2005, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Why do they swear an oath under Article VI Clause 3?
I'll take that as confirmation, as for your question I'm pretty sure we've been through it before, and I still think that it means they must observe the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme count, or that it might just be a nice piece of ceremony.

davefoc

18th May 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I'm not sure that there should be an age of consent. If a teen shows the ability to understand and make adult decisions, should he not be treated as an adult?

It seems that Shanek envisions an age of consent of somewhere between 11 and 13 (depending on definition of teen ager) with this answer. Presumably he doesn't think that a 40 year old uncle should be allowed to have sex with a seven year old girl no matter how much the girl says she's ok with it.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg of these kind of issues related to sexual freedom and it goes to my general objection to these kind of wide ranging libertarian oriented threads.

I think some libertarians get very wrapped up in the idea that most government regulation is loaded with lots of unintended bad consequences and they extrapolate from there to decide that almost all government regulation is worse than it is good without realizing or at least acknowledging the considerable complexities involved in deciding that a completely unregulated approach is better.

In the case of adult sexual freedom I listed a few of the issues in my post above. In some places in Utah and surrounding states polygamy is practiced fairly openly. There are significant social effects with this including the improper care of the surplus boys and young men, and the difficulties for the young women who opt in to one of these marriages at young ages. Dealing with these kind of issues often involves more than falling back on some simple libertarian principle. One needs to know about how many people are harmed, how many people benefit, what are the effects of different regulations to restrict it, etc. before an informed decision about polygamy can be made.

I see myself as a libertarian because I think many times the harm of the unintended consequences outweighs the benefits of government regulation. I see myself as a moderate libertarian because I see the world as far more complex than as to be amenable to the application of simple libertarian ideas for every problem.

CFLarsen

18th May 2005, 11:45 AM

shanek

18th May 2005, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
My view, is that technically, the decision only applies to gays. Roughly the decision says that sex is an intrinsic part of life and for gays sodomy is per force the necessary approach and that precluding what is an intrinsic part of life is a violation of due process.

So, I think, states are theorectically free to preclude sodomy in sex between a man and a woman based on lawrence.

Wouldn't this violate the 14th amendment's requirement for equal protection? You can't allow one group to do something while restricting another.

shanek

18th May 2005, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
I'll take that as confirmation, as for your question I'm pretty sure we've been through it before, and I still think that it means they must observe the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme count, or that it might just be a nice piece of ceremony.

Where does it say "as interpreted by the Supreme Court"?

And it's far from "a nice piece of ceremony." Our founders were most insistent that this oath be placed in, so that no authority could act in violation of the Constitution. There is nothing permitting them to do so just because the Supreme Court hasn't gotten around to ruling on it yet.

"[A]n unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment...An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it." American Jurisprudence, 2nd Ed., Vol. 16, §177.

shanek

18th May 2005, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
It seems that Shanek envisions an age of consent of somewhere between 11 and 13 (depending on definition of teen ager) with this answer. Presumably he doesn't think that a 40 year old uncle should be allowed to have sex with a seven year old girl no matter how much the girl says she's ok with it.

I would think that most if not all seven-year-olds would not be able to understand the act or its consequences. And certainly three-year-olds wouldn't. So just as I'm unwilling to allow three-year-olds to keep and bear arms, because they're incapable of being responsible for their use, so is the case with sex.

But I don't really think you can point to one particular age and say, "people below this age can't make the decision and people above this age can." I refer to the story I posted here long ago about the 15-year-old who was arrested for posting nude pictures of herself on the internet. She was clearly able to make that decision for herself, since she did.

Note also that I said I wasn't sure about it. I can see having the age of consent as a convenience, as long as people below the age can have themselves declared an adult by demonstrating responsibility. The thing that really burns me up about this is that the government claims the right to do this in order to try a teen as an adult, but that ability only goes one way, for the purposes of taking their rights. If a teen is tried as an adult and acquitted, they don't get the right to vote, drink, or have sex with adults. Yet, if found guilty they could have received an adult sentence.

In some places in Utah and surrounding states polygamy is practiced fairly openly. There are significant social effects with this including the improper care of the surplus boys and young men, and the difficulties for the young women who opt in to one of these marriages at young ages.

But it's their lives, so it's their difficulties to take on. If the only people harmed are the ones involved, how does the government justify stepping in?

TragicMonkey

18th May 2005, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Wouldn't this violate the 14th amendment's requirement for equal protection? You can't allow one group to do something while restricting another.

Tell that to the Preserve Marriage people.

Moliere

18th May 2005, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Elind
What if one agrees with some of those, but not all? How many are needed to be Libertarian, and how many others have you not listed?

Take the test:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

crimresearch

18th May 2005, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Lawrence is the only supreme court decision I have ever spent much time studying and I am very much not an expert even on this decision.

My view, is that technically, the decision only applies to gays. Roughly the decision says that sex is an intrinsic part of life and for gays sodomy is per force the necessary approach and that precluding what is an intrinsic part of life is a violation of due process.

So, I think, states are theorectically free to preclude sodomy in sex between a man and a woman based on lawrence.

One side note is that plodding through Lawrence is tedious because the opinion is wordy and seems to include all sorts of irrelevant stuff. The only part of the thing that was easily readable was the opposing opinion written by Thomas. Apparently the majority opinion is some sort of consensus document where everybody gets to contribute a few words even if those few words are peripheral to the basis for the decision.

Yeah irrelevant stuff like:

"Early American sodomy laws were not directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally, whether between men and women or men and men. Moreover, early sodomy laws seem not to have been enforced against consenting adults acting in private...
...The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral, but this Courtâ€™s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850. The Nationâ€™s laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. "

"Petitionersâ€™ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individualâ€™s personal and private life."

That certainly could never be construed as allowing *hetero*-sexuals any rights under the Due Process clause, could it?
:rolleyes:

davefoc

18th May 2005, 01:45 PM

Crimresearch,
I think it is clear that you disagreed with something I wrote but I wasn't sure exactly what.

This answer goes to the reasons that I thought you disagreed with me and my apologies if they are not exactly what you meant.

1. Davefoc thought that tecnically the decision only applied to sodomy between homosexuals.

I started my previous post with the disclaimer that I was not an expert at interpretting supreme court decisions and this still stands. However, the statement near the beginning of the decision under the section labeled, "held", states:
The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. Pp. 3â€“18.

Perhaps the paragraphs immediately following this in some way could be interpreted to mean that the decision also applies to heterosexual sex. I'm not sure, but those paragraphs deal a great deal with homosexual sex and it is not clear to me that they are meant to cover heterosexual sex also.

2. Davefoc thinks that anti-sodomy laws are a good idea.

I don't think this at all. It was amazing to me that there were still anti-sodomy laws on the books and I think they're stupid, subject to abuse and represent the unnecessary intrusion of the government into people's private lives.

3. davefoc disagrees with the supreme court's decision based on what he perceives as their misinterpreting the constitution.

I am somewhat ambivalent on this. Mostly I think the supreme court can and does interpret the constitution in the way they see fit so as to justify their own notions about what is right and wrong. I have mixed feelings about this. I also don't consider myself remotely informed enough to make a solid judgment about the legal soundness of a supreme court decision, but I do take note of the fact that very well informed people about this can have opposite opinions about supreme court decisions which leads me to believe that a supreme court decision is not based on simple, literal reading of the constitution coupled with a repeatable, rational analysis algorythm.

Even people that think of themselves as constituion literalists must inject their own notions into its interpretation. The fact is the document is far too ambiguous to function without this.

4. davefoc thinks the decision had a lot of irrelevant material in it and you have refuted that by quoting a few sections that you think are relevant.

The opinion went on for more than 50 pages and I think a lot of that material was irrelevant to explaining the basis for the decision. I think also that the opinion was poorly organized and difficult to interpret because of that. I don't think quoting a few paragraphs that may be relevant refutes these ideas.

Suddenly

18th May 2005, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Crimresearch,
I think it is clear that you disagreed with something I wrote but I wasn't sure exactly what.

This answer goes to the reasons that I thought you disagreed with me and my apologies if they are not exactly what you meant.

1. Davefoc thought that tecnically the decision only applied to sodomy between homosexuals.

I started my previous post with the disclaimer that I was not an expert at interpretting supreme court decisions and this still stands. However, the statement near the beginning of the decision under the section labeled, "held", states:

Perhaps the paragraphs immediately following this in some way could be interpreted to mean that the decision also applies to heterosexual sex. I'm not sure, but those paragraphs deal a great deal with homosexual sex and it is not clear to me that they are meant to cover heterosexual sex also.

You are absolutely right in that the decision technically only operates to declare the statutes actually challenged as contrary to the constitution. That would mean the Texas statute (and others if there are companion cases joined into this case... I'm not 100% positive there were not... but lets ignore that for now)

However, the general principle of the case is that, all legalese aside, that people can do what they want behind closed doors unless the state has a really, really good reason otherwise, and that there isn't a good reason given in this case.

As a general principle, this would strongly indicate that any challenge to a heterosexual statute would succeed, but I suppose if in that case the state did come up with a really, really good reason...

So, your original comment that: "My view, is that technically, the decision only applies to gays" is mostly true, but oddly enough maybe too broad a statement in that it only technically applies to gays in Texas... (or any other state w/ companion cases) although this is a piddling point because any identical or near identical statute will be assumed invalid because of that whole precident thing where decisions are to be followed...

The principle used applies to everyone, however, and I laid out that principle more or less... the "don't regulate private sexual activity without a really, really good reason and because it makes you go "ick" doesn't cut it" principle

So, your comment that "So, I think, states are theorectically free to preclude sodomy in sex between a man and a woman based on lawrence" is technically true, although I'd say it is unlikely because they need a really, really good reason beyond bare assertions of public morality....

As to puting irrelevant stuff in the opinion, the Court likes to fully explain everything to absurdity. I guess it gives all the Harvard grads working as clerks something to do, and it is helpful because one can get a pretty full accounting of the history of an area of law from these opinions...

It probably isn't absolutely necessary, and it is a shame that it tends to make it hard for non-lawyers to follow the opinions given that these things tend to influence every day life.

crimresearch

18th May 2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Crimresearch,
I think it is clear that you disagreed with something I wrote but I wasn't sure exactly what.

This answer goes to the reasons that I thought you disagreed with me and my apologies if they are not exactly what you meant.

1. Davefoc thought that tecnically the decision only applied to sodomy between homosexuals.

I started my previous post with the disclaimer that I was not an expert at interpretting supreme court decisions and this still stands. However, the statement near the beginning of the decision under the section labeled, "held", states:

Perhaps the paragraphs immediately following this in some way could be interpreted to mean that the decision also applies to heterosexual sex. I'm not sure, but those paragraphs deal a great deal with homosexual sex and it is not clear to me that they are meant to cover heterosexual sex also.

2. Davefoc thinks that anti-sodomy laws are a good idea.

I don't think this at all. It was amazing to me that there were still anti-sodomy laws on the books and I think they're stupid, subject to abuse and represent the unnecessary intrusion of the government into people's private lives.

3. davefoc disagrees with the supreme court's decision based on what he perceives as their misinterpreting the constitution.

I am somewhat ambivalent on this. Mostly I think the supreme court can and does interpret the constitution in the way they see fit so as to justify their own notions about what is right and wrong. I have mixed feelings about this. I also don't consider myself remotely informed enough to make a solid judgment about the legal soundness of a supreme court decision, but I do take note of the fact that very well informed people about this can have opposite opinions about supreme court decisions which leads me to believe that a supreme court decision is not based on simple, literal reading of the constitution coupled with a repeatable, rational analysis algorythm.

Even people that think of themselves as constituion literalists must inject their own notions into its interpretation. The fact is the document is far too ambiguous to function without this.

4. davefoc thinks the decision had a lot of irrelevant material in it and you have refuted that by quoting a few sections that you think are relevant.

The opinion went on for more than 50 pages and I think a lot of that material was irrelevant to explaining the basis for the decision. I think also that the opinion was poorly organized and difficult to interpret because of that. I don't think quoting a few paragraphs that may be relevant refutes these ideas.

No, I never got the idea that you thought 2,3, or 4.

I thought you were supporting the notion that (like it or not), some statutes forbidding heterosexual sodomy are still perfectly Constitutional.

I further thought that you believed that, on the basis of not being able to find clear or relevant passages in the text of the full ruling.

I'm sorry if I got any of that wrong.

IMHO, it would still be useful for anyone who did think that to read the passages I cited.

The USSC pointed out that while the Texas law linked sodomy to homosexuals, Constitutionally it all boiled down to everyone's right to keep the government out of their bedrooms without a good interest.

As other issues go to trial in the endless ping-pong match that is Constitutional jurisprudence, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Lawrence referred to as the basis for saying that 'everyone' means everyone, and 'private', 'consenting', and 'adult', all mean exactly what they say as well. Even for heterosexuals.

Elind

18th May 2005, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Moliere
Take the test:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

That was worse than the list. Far too simplistic and abreviated to mean anything, unless libertarianism is to be considered simplistic and abreviated.

shanek

18th May 2005, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Elind
That was worse than the list. Far too simplistic and abreviated to mean anything, unless libertarianism is to be considered simplistic and abreviated.

Perhaps you might find this one a little more comprehensive:

http://www.quiz2d.com/

Elind

18th May 2005, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Perhaps you might find this one a little more comprehensive:

http://www.quiz2d.com/

A little better. Of course I can't judge the validity of the analysis, but I scored a bulls-eye, which doesn't mean I am not out in the far field on some issues :).

Art Vandelay

19th May 2005, 01:00 AM

And once again crimresearch refuses to justify his lies.

Originally posted by Kerberos
Shanek has, IIRC, said that he believes that police officers should be allowed to ignore any law they chose to, fi they considered it unconstitutional without consequences, no matter how inane their objections. I don't think a lot of police officers would ignore child molesting, but they would be allowed to if they so chose. If CS had wanted to criticize Shanek's position, he could have done so. Instead he chose to present an distorted version of it. I believe that shanek position is not that people can ignore laws that they think are unconstitutional, but that they can ignore laws that are unconstitutional. I don't see how any reasonable challenge to this principle can be raised.

davefocIn the case of adult sexual freedom I listed a few of the issues in my post above. In some places in Utah and surrounding states polygamy is practiced fairly openly. There are significant social effects with this including the improper care of the surplus boys and young men, and the difficulties for the young women who opt in to one of these marriages at young ages. What do you mean by this?

Dealing with these kind of issues often involves more than falling back on some simple libertarian principle.
Huh? Libertarianism isn't about how to deal with social issues. It's about what are legitimate functions of government.

One needs to know about how many people are harmed, how many people benefit, what are the effects of different regulations to restrict it, etc. before an informed decision about polygamy can be made.Basic liberties aren't open to cost benefit analysis. You don't have the right to take away other people's rights to make your life better.

LegalPenguinHowever, the general principle of the case is that, all legalese aside, that people can do what they want behind closed doors unless the state has a really, really good reason otherwise, and that there isn't a good reason given in this case.
There must be more to the court's reasoning than that. Do you seriously think that, were the court to hear a case involving adults smoking marijuana behind closed doors, they would demand to hear what really, really good reason there is to outlaw it?

Darat

19th May 2005, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Perhaps you might find this one a little more comprehensive:

http://www.quiz2d.com/

You're joking aren't you? The first question is totally and utterly nonsensical and the answer choices aren't much better.

Spending
Government at all levels takes in between 1/3 and 1/2 the national income. Much of this money is given right back to the taxpayers as services that could be purchased on the open market.
Should the size of government be significantly reduced (over a period of time)?
NO! Government is too small. There are vital programs that are under-funded.
No. Government is about the right size.
Yes. Cut by 10-20% (eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse...).
Yes! Cut significantly, 30-40%.
Yes! Cut spending roughly in half.
YES! Cut 70% or more. (The rightful function of government is to protect our borders and enforce laws protecting life, liberty and property.)
YES!! Taxation is theft! Government should be run from voluntary contributions and user fees only

And the second one, well I just fell about laughing at some of the answers to

â€œ Should the FCC regulate the content of broadcast television?â€

Yes! The government should own the air waves. We need a system like the BBC.

:D

richardm

19th May 2005, 02:33 AM

YES! Complete separation of education and state. (Let churches and other charities educate the poor.)

Yes. America sounds like it needs more church-educated people.

The Central Scrutinizer

19th May 2005, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
If CS had wanted to criticize Shanek's position, he could have done so. Instead he chose to present an distorted version of it. I believe that shanek position is not that people can ignore laws that they think are unconstitutional, but that they can ignore laws that are unconstitutional. I don't see how any reasonable challenge to this principle can be raised.

No, Shanek's position is that police can (and should) refuse to enforce laws that they think are unconstitutional. This is absolutely his position, and the scenario I presented is entirely possible in Libertobia, and Shanek is a-ok with that.

CFLarsen

19th May 2005, 07:17 AM

Ian Osborne

19th May 2005, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm not kidding.

No, but you're exaggerating. No police officer would claim laws outlawing child rape are unconstitutional, though they'd be free to pick and choose which laws to enforce regarding drugs, firearms and prostitution...

Elind

19th May 2005, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Darat
You're joking aren't you? The first question is totally and utterly nonsensical and the answer choices aren't much better.

I agree, but also wonder if ANY brief survey of this kind can ever be considered a rational basis for any argument, because they are always constructed from a biased perspective and will incorporate that bias somehow.

CFLarsen

19th May 2005, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
No, but you're exaggerating. No police officer would claim laws outlawing child rape are unconstitutional, though they'd be free to pick and choose which laws to enforce regarding drugs, firearms and prostitution...

I am not exaggerating.

A law is either constitutional or not. Regardless of what the law is about.

CFLarsen

19th May 2005, 07:55 AM

Ian Osborne,

Originally posted by shanek
The point is: if you're a cop, no one can force you to execute a law that you feel in your conscience violates your oath.
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53631&perpage=40&highlight=police%20and%20unconstitutional&pagenumber=6)

Was I exaggerating?

Ian Osborne

19th May 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian Osborne,
Was I exaggerating?

Yes, unless you can find a cop who's of the attitude that the constitution guarantee's an adult's right to rape a child.

Shane's arguments were loony, but not that loony...

CFLarsen

19th May 2005, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Yes, unless you can find a cop who's of the attitude that the constitution guarantee's an adult's right to rape a child.

Shane's arguments were loony, but not that loony...

I don't have to find any such cop. Shanek was very clear (for once) on this.

You also seemed to agree with me... ;)

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
By whom and for what? Remember, in La-La-Libertopia, all police officers are allowed to ignore laws they consider unconstitutional. Who's in a position to tell them they were wrong, the law in question was fine and their interpretation of the Constitution was incorrect?
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53631&perpage=40&highlight=police%20and%20unconstitutional&pagenumber=7)

Ian Osborne

19th May 2005, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't have to find any such cop. Shanek was very clear (for once) on this.

You also seemed to agree with me... ;)

I did, and still do, agree that Shane's assertion that police officers should refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional is ridiculous. I just feel your illustrative example is a little over-hyped. Even the kookiest American cop wouldn't consider child-rape laws unconstitutional. The abortion-clinic example you drew in that other thread is much better.

Now we've just got to wait for Shane to appear and throw an upper-case hissy fit about how we're misrepresenting him... :)

19th May 2005, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
I believe that shanek position is not that people can ignore laws that they think are unconstitutional, but that they can ignore laws that are unconstitutional.

Do you have some nice decision procedure that allows a cop to decide between the following two alternatives:

1) the cop thinks that the law is unconstitutional and it really is.

2) the cop thinks that the law is unconstitutional but it really isn't.

Moliere

19th May 2005, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, no, no: Shanek is of the opinion that...

You're all wrong. Shanek thinks that...ummm, well I don't know. How about we wait for Shanek?

Kerberos

19th May 2005, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
And once again crimresearch refuses to justify his lies.

If CS had wanted to criticize Shanek's position, he could have done so. Instead he chose to present an distorted version of it. I believe that shanek position is not that people can ignore laws that they think are unconstitutional, but that they can ignore laws that are unconstitutional. I don't see how any reasonable challenge to this principle can be raised.
Well CFL posted a quote from Shanek that pretty much shows that CS's description is in fact accurate. You'll also notice how Shanek defended his position as I descried it, rather than claim he hadn't said that. As for cops not enforcing laws that are unconstitutional, you will always need somebody to determine whether any given law is unconstitutional. If that authority is the cop, then it is just his opinion and if not then he doesn't really have the power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws.

Kerberos

19th May 2005, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Moliere
You're all wrong. Shanek thinks that...ummm, well I don't know. How about we wait for Shanek?
Shanek has already posted, and as I said he didn't dispute my reading of his opinion, nor did he chalenge me when I said I'd take his reply as confirmation that I'd read him correctly.

Suddenly

19th May 2005, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I did, and still do, agree that Shane's assertion that police officers should refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional is ridiculous. I just feel your illustrative example is a little over-hyped. Even the kookiest American cop wouldn't consider child-rape laws unconstitutional. The abortion-clinic example you drew in that other thread is much better.

Now we've just got to wait for Shane to appear and throw an upper-case hissy fit about how we're misrepresenting him... :)

I don't know about misrepresentation, but I do think that those slamming shanek on this are taking a rather narrow view of the situation and ignoring the political backdrop to the legal issues...

In the end these all become political questions. An officer should refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law, and I'd submit that to be beyond dispute... Say Congress passes a law that all white people under 6' are to be shot on sight. Should the officer brainlessly start shooting until the court tells him to stop or maybe not enforce what appears to be an unconstitutional law?

Where there is a dispute is whether an officer is bound to follow available precident regarding constitutionality. Is an officer constitutionally bound to respect the court's prior decisions? I'd say, oddly enough, no. I agree with shanek on that, as shocking as it may seem...

HOWEVER... as a practical political matter that officer better darn well follow the courts because the courts are generally accepted as the final authority on the subject. The people tend to accept their rulings, and the executive branch has as well.

This tradition of deference to the judicary has done nothing but result in arguably the greatest large scale government in the history of man, all things (size, disparate ethnic population, level of personal freedom and so on) considered...

I may have posted before at some point that the authority of the judicary to speak to these matters is largely a moral one. Rather than have the legislature and executive use their inherent powers to squabble over the constitutionality of every little thing, these branches allow the one branch with no inherent power... no significant enforcement capablility or purse power or impeachment power... to decide.

Which is why the recent episondes of certain politicians threatening this tradition is distressing. Congress could start harming the courts by various means, including impeachment for decisions that declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional on the rationale that the courts are overstepping their bounds as Marbury v. Madison is a load of bull . The executive could start refusing to enforce particular decisions, more or less saying that they will not be forced to enforce illegal laws...

nobody is going to stop them... except the voters... and as long as they can be distracted with wild tales of evil activist judges roaming the land sucking the blood out of nice Christian white people...

In the end it really does come down to the people. However, we have centuries of political tradition in this country that gives the surface appearance otherwise...

Kerberos

19th May 2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Where does it say "as interpreted by the Supreme Court"? Where does it say, "as interpreted by yourself"?. SC is given explicitly given authority to intepret the constitution cops are not.

Originally posted by shanek
And it's far from "a nice piece of ceremony." Our founders were most insistent that this oath be placed in, so that no authority could act in violation of the Constitution. There is nothing permitting them to do so just because the Supreme Court hasn't gotten around to ruling on it yet.
I supose they could exercise their judgement, in situations where there was no ruling (or where they didn't know the ruling), but they could be reprimanded fired or punished if their interpretation didn't match that of a court.

davefoc

19th May 2005, 10:05 AM

Art Vandelay wrote:Basic liberties aren't open to cost benefit analysis. You don't have the right to take away other people's rights to make your life better.

Art wrote this in response to my mention of polygamy as an issue that can't be decided by simple libertarian principles. Art, I think, has made the standard libertarian true believer type response. i.e. the government policy that promotes the greatest personal liberty is almost always the correct one and analysis of the situation much beyond that is not necessary.

And perhaps, Art is right that in net society would be better off if government made no attempt to regulate polygamy. I don't know. But as a moderate libertarian I am open to the idea that there might be societal benefits from the restriction of polygamy that outweigh the benefits of a purely libertarian approach.

In polygamous marriages as I understand it, the children are often home schooled and have very little outside influences which often results in the daughters marriage into the polygamous group. What about the daughter's personal liberty? How much right did the parents have to isolate them from the outside? What is the age at which their entrance into a polygamous marriage can be seen as consensual? What of the boys who have been isolated in these polygamous marriages and then abandoned? What role should the government have in dealing with large numbers of children from a single father who are without resources when the father becomes unable to provide? What role should the government have in forcing an individual to provide for the children he has? Does the government have any legitimate right to restrict an individual from procreating when he is already completely without adequate resources to provide for the children he already has?

Suddenly

19th May 2005, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

LegalPenguinThere must be more to the court's reasoning than that. Do you seriously think that, were the court to hear a case involving adults smoking marijuana behind closed doors, they would demand to hear what really, really good reason there is to outlaw it?

That is the simple version, and more or less accurate, however maybe I should add that the nature of the activity is also at issue in that the more central to privacy the conduct at issue, the greater the scrutiny... I was refering to sexual conduct in my initial statements..

But yes, the court could apply such an analysis to what you suggest, but smoking pot isn't quite as essential to human privacy as is sexual activity, so the good reason doesn't have to be as good as when dealing with sexual activity... so the court could look towards any connection to public danger... people leaving the house under the influence and committing crimes, for example....

Bjorn

19th May 2005, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
In polygamous marriages as I understand it, the children are often home schooled and have very little outside influences which often results in the daughters marriage into the polygamous group. What about the daughter's personal liberty? How much right did the parents have to isolate them from the outside? What is the age at which their entrance into a polygamous marriage can be seen as consensual? What of the boys who have been isolated in these polygamous marriages and then abandoned? What role should the government have in dealing with large numbers of children from a single father who are without resources when the father becomes unable to provide? What role should the government have in forcing an individual to provide for the children he has? Does the government have any legitimate right to restrict an individual from procreating when he is already completely without adequate resources to provide for the children he already has? Aren't you jumping from the issue of polygamy to issues about how people take care of their children? Couldn't all the questions you ask in the quoted paragraph have been asked about some parents in monogamy?

Doesn't monogamy also see "children from a single father who are without resources when the father becomes unable to provide" or "an individual procreating when he is already completely without adequate resources to provide for the children he already has"?

By the way, even more off topic, you seem to assume that fathers are providing, not mothers. Is that something special to polygamy, or is it a general viewpoint?

Further, would the fact that (if) there were "societal benefits from the restriction of polygamy" - or something else that the society would benefit from restrictions on - necessarily make it right for the society to make laws prohibiting it?

Moliere

19th May 2005, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Shanek has already psoted, and as I said he didn't dispute my reading of his opinion, nor did he chalenge me when I said I'd take his reply as confirmation that I'd read him correctly.

I don't know if this is true or not. I just found it amusing to have multiple people say they knew what Shanek really meant.

Darat

19th May 2005, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Moliere
I don't know if this is true or not. I just found it amusing to have multiple people say they knew what Shanek really meant.

He has been posting here for quite a long time and has been rather prolific during that time. It would be a shame (for Shanek) if people didn't know what he meant by now! :)

Kerberos

19th May 2005, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Moliere
I don't know if this is true or not. I just found it amusing to have multiple people say they knew what Shanek really meant.
What darat said. Besides Shanek is dreadfully predictabel, most of the time you can tell what he thinks of an issue long before he posts on it. As a matter of fact, you'd have a fair chance of guessing what he thought about an issue, even without knowing what the issue was :p

shanek

19th May 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by richardm
Yes. America sounds like it needs more church-educated people.

The churches are doing a lot better than the government.

shanek

19th May 2005, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Yes, unless you can find a cop who's of the attitude that the constitution guarantee's an adult's right to rape a child.

Oh, geez, is Claus back to his LIE that child-rape laws are against the Constitution?

Rape is a common law crime that is enforced by the states. It would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to enforce laws on rape, murder, etc., because they aren't given that power by the Constitution, but that limitation doesn't apply to the states. There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the state governments from enforcing rape laws.

Furthermore, Claus knows this. Just another example of his rampant dishonesty, and why I think everyone should just put him on ignore. He contributes nothing of value to this forum.

shanek

19th May 2005, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Moliere
You're all wrong. Shanek thinks that...ummm, well I don't know. How about we wait for Shanek?

Shanek says that the Constitution requires police officers to support the Constitution. Shanek says that this forbids them from enforcing any law that their conscience tells them is a violation of the Constitution.

And if Shanek's view is nutty, then so is that of American Jurisprudence, 2nd ed., vol. 16, §177:

An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but wholly null and ineffective for any purpose. It imposes no duty, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional statute, and no courts are bound to enforce it.

shanek

19th May 2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Where there is a dispute is whether an officer is bound to follow available precident regarding constitutionality. Is an officer constitutionally bound to respect the court's prior decisions? I'd say, oddly enough, no. I agree with shanek on that, as shocking as it may seem...

HOWEVER... as a practical political matter that officer better darn well follow the courts because the courts are generally accepted as the final authority on the subject. The people tend to accept their rulings, and the executive branch has as well.

Well, if we're going to talk practically, DAs are going to want to enforce the law and get convictions. If a cop is refusing to arrest drug dealers on the grounds that the drug laws are unconstitutional, then the DA will start giving drug offences to other cops to enforce. That cop might even lose his job after awhile. It really has a practical effect if a lot of cops start refusing to enforce this.

And I said this in the thread, too. It's amazing how much people tend to leave out when trying to "prove" how much of a "nutjob" I am...

In the end it really does come down to the people. However, we have centuries of political tradition in this country that gives the surface appearance otherwise...

Hence the need for education that I mentioned.

shanek

19th May 2005, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
SC is given explicitly given authority to intepret the constitution

Where?

cops are not.

Then why the oath?

davefoc

19th May 2005, 11:51 AM

bjorn,
Yes, i agree that many of the things that i brought up about polygamy also apply to monogamous relationships.

My point here was that if one believes that personal liberty is such an important goal that the practical consequences of no government regulation are unimportant as long as greater personal freedom is obtained, then the practical consequences of the elimination of government restrictions aren't important in the formation of a view on a specific issue. However, if the maximization of personal freedom is seen as a way of promoting the common good then it is reasonable and necessary to examine specific situations to see if some government involvement is, in net, more beneficial than harmful.

I, more or less randomly, chose polygamy as an example of a practice which has problems with it that often result in significant damages to individuals. Some of the issues, like the age of consent, aren't amenable at all to simple, libertarian ideas like every adult should be able to do what he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anybody. At some point even a total libertarian must define what an adult is. Further there are significant social problems with the practice including the disposition of the excess male population that may not be easily dealt with.

There is also the potential for the rapid spread of venerial disease with some kinds of polygamous arrangements. One of the theories as to why AIDS is much more prevalent in the heterosexual population in Africa is because of the more common practice of having several sexual partners concurrently in one's life. If this became a factor in communities where polygamy was widely practiced what, if any, steps should the government take to promote practices that limit the spread of AIDS?

Bjorn wrote:

Further, would the fact that (if) there were "societal benefits from the restriction of polygamy" - or something else that the society would benefit from restrictions on - necessarily make it right for the society to make laws prohibiting it?

I more or less answered this with my comments above. I think the answer comes down to how much importance is placed on personal freedom and how one makes decision about how much freedom a parent is allowed with respect to the raising of his children. I do not think that personal freedom is a goal in itself. I see personal freedom as a means of promoting the general welfare and when personal freedom conflicts with the general welfare I am willing to consider restrictions on personal freedom as a means of promoting the general welfare. Others, IMHO, have an almost religious belief that personal freedom is the highest goal possible and that any restricitons on it except where absolutely necessary are, per force, bad.

I am aware of the slippery slope possibilities with my view. I am amongst those that think that the ideas of socialism when carried to extremes, have been responsible for more death and misery than any other ideas in the history of the world, even including religion. However, it seems that democratic societies have shown considerable resistance to the implementation of extreme socialistic ideas and as long as a society retains some democratic aspects I don't think the rise of extreme socialism is much of a risk and if a society descends into totalitarian dictatorship things are going to be pretty bad no matter what.

shanek

19th May 2005, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
And perhaps, Art is right that in net society would be better off if government made no attempt to regulate polygamy. I don't know. But as a moderate libertarian I am open to the idea that there might be societal benefits from the restriction of polygamy that outweigh the benefits of a purely libertarian approach.

Why should the benefits of "society" be given at the expense of the rights of the individuals who make up that society? Isn't that a bit like Calley saying, "We had to save the village by destroying it"?

shanek

19th May 2005, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
What darat said. Besides Shanek is dreadfully predictabel, most of the time you can tell what he thinks of an issue long before he posts on it. As a matter of fact, you'd have a fair chance of guessing what he thought about an issue, even without knowing what the issue was :p

Yeah; that's called "principle."

CFLarsen

19th May 2005, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Shanek says that the Constitution requires police officers to support the Constitution. Shanek says that this forbids them from enforcing any law that their conscience tells them is a violation of the Constitution.

There you go: You think it is A-OK for a cop to leave a man about to rape a child alone, if said cop's conscience tells him it is a violation of the Constitution.

shanek

19th May 2005, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
I, more or less randomly, chose polygamy as an example of a practice which has problems with it that often result in significant damages to individuals.

But you reached beyond mere polygamy to get to those damages. You have only said that, in certain cases where X, Y, and Z happens, there is damage. The problem is not inherent to polygamy. You have provided no evidence that most polygamous relationships take the form you have decribed, and even if you had, you have no justification for taking away the rights of plolygamous families who do not fit that description.

Suddenly

19th May 2005, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
There you go: You think it is A-OK for a cop to leave a man about to rape a child alone, if said cop's conscience tells him it is a violation of the Constitution.

Sigh... What a silly cheap shot.

Perhaps you could face the "Nuremburg Defense" problem you create when one declares that an officer is wholly bound by the policy directives of his superiors... "Just Following Orders"

Say Congress passes a law making it a requirement for officers to rape every child they see unattended to "teach them and their parents a lesson." The Court (full of new Bush appointees no doubt" signs off on it as legit....

Whoops... now it is you (and everyone else saying the officer lacks discretion) that is advocating not only the allowing of children to be raped, but the actual rape of children by law enforcement officers if Congress and the Court say it is OK...

Both shanek's position and anyone else's position can be made to look absurd when a hypothetical is constructed strictly to that end... It is a game for fools...

Bjorn

19th May 2005, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
bjorn,
Yes, i agree that many of the things that i brought up about polygamy also apply to monogamous relationships.

My point here was that if one believes that personal liberty is such an important goal that the practical consequences of no government regulation are unimportant as long as greater personal freedom is obtained,Dave,

I don't believe that. However, I think it should be shown to be seriously negative to the society as a whole before one prohibits individuals from practicing whatever they believe is right for them. Especially so if the harm to society is not physical.

However, if the maximization of personal freedom is seen as a way of promoting the common good then it is reasonable and necessary to examine specific situations to see if some government involvement is, in net, more beneficial than harmful.And here is the problem. Those who are deciding if it is 'in net more beneficial' tend to be the majority, sometimes a moral majority with no more reasons for the prohibition of certain behaviours than "immoral" or "disgusting" or "simply not right".

To me, this is not just about the common good, it is also about who defines that common good.

I, more or less randomly, chose polygamy as an example of a practice which has problems with it that often result in significant damages to individuals. Some of the issues, like the age of consent, aren't amenable at all to simple, libertarian ideas like every adult should be able to do what he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anybody. At some point even a total libertarian must define what an adult is. Which is really not an issue in polygamy more than in monogamy.

Further there are significant social problems with the practice including the disposition of the excess male population that may not be easily dealt with.That implies that a majority would live in polygamy if they could - I gotta ask my wife about that one (and by the way, both the catholic church and the armed forces have an excess male population right now, yet nobody is discussing how to dispose of them).

There is also the potential for the rapid spread of venerial disease with some kinds of polygamous arrangements. One of the theories as to why AIDS is much more prevalent in the heterosexual population in Africa is because of the more common practice of having several sexual partners concurrently in one's life. If this became a factor in communities where polygamy was widely practiced what, if any, steps should the government take to promote practices that limit the spread of AIDS?AIDS has also been more prevalent in the homosexual population in the US than in the heterosexual. What steps should the government take to stop it? I'm sure you don't think homosexual practices should be prohibited.

I do not think that personal freedom is a goal in itself. I see personal freedom as a means of promoting the general welfare and when personal freedom conflicts with the general welfare I am willing to consider restrictions on personal freedom as a means of promoting the general welfare.I don't think we disagree that much, my limits as to where and when something should be prohibited for the sake of the general welfare might be a bit different. Again, the majority tends to define what's good for the majority (and the society) and we should be careful about the power to prohibit.

Others, IMHO, have an almost religious belief that personal freedom is the highest goal possible and that any restricitons on it except where absolutely necessary are, per force, bad.I'm not there. I'm just a leftie with a strong belief in individual freedoms. :)

CFLarsen

19th May 2005, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Sigh... What a silly cheap shot.

It's the reality.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Perhaps you could face the "Nuremburg Defense" problem you create when one declares that an officer is wholly bound by the policy directives of his superiors... "Just Following Orders"

Say Congress passes a law making it a requirement for officers to rape every child they see unattended to "teach them and their parents a lesson." The Court (full of new Bush appointees no doubt" signs off on it as legit....

Whoops... now it is you (and everyone else saying the officer lacks discretion) that is advocating not only the allowing of children to be raped, but the actual rape of children by law enforcement officers if Congress and the Court say it is OK...

Both shanek's position and anyone else's position can be made to look absurd when a hypothetical is constructed strictly to that end... It is a game for fools...

I was kinda waiting for that one. You are wrong.

It takes time to pass new laws - the wheels of lawmaking turn slooowly. There are a lot of eyes on the laws, especially crime laws. Heck, it seems as if any new crime law is scutinized by every media there is. So, by the time the laws are passed, they have been scrutinized not only by the politicians, but also the lawyers and particularly the press.

"Checks and balances".

Sure, a law can be declared unconstitutional later on - it happens. But I have yet to see any cop being charged, because he followed such a law, before it was declared unconstitutional.

The "Nuremberg Defense" is invalid, because there were no such checks and balances in NaziGermany. We are not talking about law-decreeing, but law-making, with lots of checks and balances.

Shanek thinks it is A-OK if a cop lets a man about to rape a child go, if said cop thinks the law against it is unconstitutional.

Suddenly

19th May 2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I was kinda waiting for that one. You are wrong.

It takes time to pass new laws - the wheels of lawmaking turn slooowly. There are a lot of eyes on the laws, especially crime laws. Heck, it seems as if any new crime law is scutinized by every media there is. So, by the time the laws are passed, they have been scrutinized not only by the politicians, but also the lawyers and particularly the press.

In my hypo this is passed. The Congress has passed the law and the Court has upheld it. Whether this took 5 minutes or 50 years or recieved little or great scrutiny, it happened according to my hypo.

So all of this has no relevence... Plus tell me about how the law moves slowly w/r/t the Patriot Act... or that whole Florida feeding tube mess...

Sure, a law can be declared unconstitutional later on - it happens. But I have yet to see any cop being charged, because he followed such a law, before it was declared unconstitutional.

So? Who cares what happens later or what you see?

Is it OK in your book for the officer to refuse to rape the child if the law passed by Congress says he must and the Court up to that point says the law is constitutional? Should he be sanctioned for failing to follow the law? Fired? Charged with a criminal offense? Be made fun of?

Simple question...

The "Nuremberg Defense" is invalid, because there were no such checks and balances in NaziGermany. We are not talking about law-decreeing, but law-making, with lots of checks and balances.

Actually, one of those checks and balances is that in the U.S. an executive can, and in fact must, refuse what he sees in good faith to be an illegal order. That is a check and balance, not some hazy sense that making laws take a long time and attracts attention of the media...

If one removes that check, then one legitimizes the Nurenberg Defense. Simple as that. The officer lacks discretion to not perform what he in good faith believes is illegal.

Shanek thinks it is A-OK if a cop lets a man about to rape a child go, if said cop thinks the law against it is unconstitutional.

...and you think it is OK for an officer to rape a child if Congress passes a law directing him to and the Court signs off on it.

Both equally valid. I say that because I believe they are both silly cheapshots derived from tortured hypothetical that manipulate the context of the actions in order to paint a claim in bad light... So they are both equally valid in that they have nearly zero validity...

But if one accepts one of these, the other follows...

Kerberos

19th May 2005, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Where?

Then why the oath?
I've answered both questions before, the latter on this very thread.

Kerberos

19th May 2005, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by LegalPenguin

Is it OK in your book for the officer to refuse to rape the child if the law passed by Congress says he must and the Court up to that point says the law is constitutional? Should he be sanctioned for failing to follow the law? Fired? Charged with a criminal offense? Be made fun of?

No, but that has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the law. If ones answer to that question is rooted in the cops power to ignore unconstitutional laws, then one would have to accept that he should follow the law, if the constitution was amended appropriately.

Suddenly

19th May 2005, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
No, but that has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of the law. If ones answer to that question is rooted in the cops power to ignore unconstitutional laws, then one would have to accept that he should follow the law, if the constitution was amended appropriately.

Then why does the cop not have to follow the law passed by Congress that stood up to judical review?

What is the higher law that allows him to flaunt his sworn responsibility to uphold the law?

Perhaps clearer to the point and a mite more realistic is a case where Congress passes a law that directly contradicts the plain text of the constiution... like a law stating that anyone suspected of child molestation will recieve neither due process or trial by jury and simply be shot on the spot.

The Court, majority opinion by Robert Bork, finds this law constitutional....

Same problems... Should the officer shoot even though this law clearly, in fact purposefully and specifically violates the constitution?

CFLarsen

19th May 2005, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
In my hypo this is passed. The Congress has passed the law and the Court has upheld it. Whether this took 5 minutes or 50 years or recieved little or great scrutiny, it happened according to my hypo.

So all of this has no relevence... Plus tell me about how the law moves slowly w/r/t the Patriot Act... or that whole Florida feeding tube mess...

It is hardly irrelevant to point to checks and balances.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
So? Who cares what happens later or what you see?

Is it OK in your book for the officer to refuse to rape the child if the law passed by Congress says he must and the Court up to that point says the law is constitutional? Should he be sanctioned for failing to follow the law? Fired? Charged with a criminal offense? Be made fun of?

No, it is not OK in my book. The point is, when you choose to be a cop, you choose to uphold the laws of the land. But that doesn't mean you can arbitrarily enforce the law the way you see fit.

A cop is not judge and jury.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Actually, one of those checks and balances is that in the U.S. an executive can, and in fact must, refuse what he sees in good faith to be an illegal order. That is a check and balance, not some hazy sense that making laws take a long time and attracts attention of the media...

Sure he can: By leaving his job as a cop. What he can't do is act as judge and jury.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
If one removes that check, then one legitimizes the Nurenberg Defense. Simple as that. The officer lacks discretion to not perform what he in good faith believes is illegal.

The cop is not acting in "good faith" - he has to know what the law is, and act accordingly, regardless of what he thinks of it himself. If he doesn't like a specific law, he can leave his job.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
...and you think it is OK for an officer to rape a child if Congress passes a law directing him to and the Court signs off on it.

Absolutely not.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Both equally valid. I say that because I believe they are both silly cheapshots derived from tortured hypothetical that manipulate the context of the actions in order to paint a claim in bad light... So they are both equally valid in that they have nearly zero validity...

But if one accepts one of these, the other follows...

Very wrong. You are just very uncomfortable with what shanek argues. I can understand why.

Do you think a cop should act as judge and jury?

Kerberos

19th May 2005, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Then why does the cop not have to follow the law passed by Congress that stood up to judical review?

What is the higher law that allows him to flaunt his sworn responsibility to uphold the law?
It isn't a higher law, it's simply my opinion. I tend to believe in rule of law through the proper channels, but if these channels produced sufficiently outrageous results, then I'd have to reconsider. If the higher law you appeal to is the Constitution, does that mean that you think he should be obligated to obey if the Constitution was amended? I rather doubt that, so your question really applies to you as much as to me.
Perhaps clearer to the point and a mite more realistic is a case where Congress passes a law that directly contradicts the plain text of the constiution... like a law stating that anyone suspected of child molestation will recieve neither due process or trial by jury and simply be shot on the spot.

The Court, majority opinion by Robert Bork, finds this law constitutional....

Same problems... Should the officer shoot even though this law clearly, in fact purposefully and specifically violates the constitution?
And I will answer the same thing I did to the last, I don't think he should, but I wouldn't think so even if they amended the Constitution.

Kerberos

19th May 2005, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Yeah; that's called "principle."
Sure, you've got principles coming out of both ears, the problem is that your principles function independently of the facts of any particular case, that's why you're predictable. I don't need to research the specifics of a case to figure out you opinion because they're normally not a factor.

Suddenly

19th May 2005, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is hardly irrelevant to point to checks and balances.

It is in this situation seeing that the law passed etc...

If someone starts a math problem with "a truck traveling the speed of light leaves Chicago..."

It is quite irrelevant to point out that this is impossible due to the laws of physics.... it's a math problem, a hypothetical and the whole point is to assume certain facts in order to examine other facts...

In this case, passage is assumed, so points about the process are irrelevant..

Sure he can: By leaving his job as a cop. What he can't do is act as judge and jury.Ahh... run away and let someone else rape the children. Good solution...

The cop is not acting in "good faith" - he has to know what the law is, and act accordingly, regardless of what he thinks of it himself. If he doesn't like a specific law, he can leave his job.
Are you kidding? This is quite nonsensical as to good faith.... If anyone tells you that they full understand all aspects of U.S. criminal law as applied in every situation... well... that person is lying. Even judges argue about it.

Claiming that an officer must have certain knowledge about all law in all applications is.... well... naive to a profound extreme...

1) He enforces the law to the best of his understanding.
2) The constitution is the supreme law.

He would be well served to follow the lead of the courts when determining #1, but given the uncertainties in the continually evolving American law, sometimes he has to do what he can.

Very wrong. You are just very uncomfortable with what shanek argues. I can understand why.

Please explain why I am uncomfortable?

It all boils down to shanek's tendancy towards "natural law theory" and you and a few others leaning towards "Legal Positivism." There isn't an angle to this debate I haven't seen a million times.

Mainly, I'm just amused at the abuse towards shanek when the position staked out by those abusing him is equally if not more absurd...

Natural Law Theory has problems with certain situations, mainly that it makes law hard to define and is, ironically, hard to objectively base in that "law" is said to inherently exist, and thus there can be some debate as to details. Usually, this can be illustrated without assuming a cop that thinks laws against rape are unconstitutional, but so it goes...

Legal Positivism, simply put the idea that law is what we say it is and no more, is receptive to absurd injustice via proceedure, such as the absurd result of otherwise decent people recognizing rape of children as law because some assembly said so.

Shanek is a natural law guy. Y'all aren't. Problem is that neither point of view avoids absurd results, but for some reason people enjoy torturing shanek over what is not much more than a "Ginger or Mary Ann" question.

Some believe that political law, like the laws of nature exist in an absolute and the point of politics is to uncover them, or you believe that law is what we say it is and no more. The U.S. was founded on the prior, but is adopting more of the latter on a daily basis.

Shanek doesn't like that, and I dig that about him... but he's got a few communications issues and a bunch of people (me in the past included) that would rather rip him and engage in petty rhetorical games than think about what he has to say...

Do you think a cop should act as judge and jury?

He should be a cop. However to some extent his duties as such coincide with those other duties. An officer must often decide whether the facts and law indicate that he has the legal right to search. In that case he is making a determination of law (as a judge would) and fact (as would a jury) to decide to act.

As to questioning the validity of a statute I think a cop should give near total deference to the opinions of the legislative and judicial branches as to whether a statute is constitutional, and only apply his own opinion in extreme circumstances.

Suddenly

19th May 2005, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
It isn't a higher law, it's simply my opinion. I tend to believe in rule of law through the proper channels, but if these channels produced sufficiently outrageous results, then I'd have to reconsider. If the higher law you appeal to is the Constitution, does that mean that you think he should be obligated to obey if the Constitution was amended? I rather doubt that, so your question really applies to you as much as to me.

It very well might apply both ways. In fact I agree it does... and in fact I think you are with shanek and I on this as far as basic principle.

Shanek is saying that a cop can refuse to enforce a law based on his opinion as to the constitution.

Meanwhile, you say that the cop can refuse based on his opinion that something is outrageous, unless I miss something... I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth here...

Where it gets weird for me is why can't I, shanek, or shanek's cop just believe that anything contrary to the constitution be outrageous? If you can't cite an objective criteria aren't we all doing the same thing, using our opinion as a guide to establish an external criteria used to decide if a "law" is acceptable?

Once we accept that the law as stated by the legislature can properly be rejected as wrong based on a personal opinion that it violates some external standard, then we all seem to more or less agree as to the big point and are quibbling over illusory details...

shanek

19th May 2005, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen (piggybacking)
It takes time to pass new laws - the wheels of lawmaking turn slooowly. There are a lot of eyes on the laws, especially crime laws. Heck, it seems as if any new crime law is scutinized by every media there is. So, by the time the laws are passed, they have been scrutinized not only by the politicians, but also the lawyers and particularly the press.

Once again, Claus's freedom-hating government-worship is the result of his own bias and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

The reality is that bills are routinely rushed through, and Congressmen and Senators regularly vote on a bill without even reading it. According to a thomas.loc.gov search, the number of bills voted on by the House in the 108th Congress was 1,431. They were in session 133 days in 2003 and 110 days in 2004, for a total of 243 days. I'll be generous and given them 8 hours a day to sleep, and one hour apiece for three meals, leaving 13 hours a day on the floor. That's 3,159 hours. That means that they had, on average, two hours and twelve minutes for each bill they voted on, total—to introduce the bill, debate it, amend it, vote on it, everything. TWO HOURS. And that's just the ones they ended up voting on.

Does anyone honestly think our politicians even read the bills they pass?

Two hours...wheels turn slowly my gleamy white butt.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
So all of this has no relevence... Plus tell me about how the law moves slowly w/r/t the Patriot Act... or that whole Florida feeding tube mess...

The horribly unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act (HR 3162) was introduced into the House on 10/23/2001 and signed into law by the President on 10/26/2001, again according to thomas.loc.gov.*

But Claus never lets the facts get in the way of his rose-colored-glasses view of government.

*EDITED TO ADD: How much of that time do you think was spent coming up with the acronym Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism for USA PATRIOT?

shanek

19th May 2005, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
I've answered both questions before, the latter on this very thread.

No, you haven't. You avoided the questions.

Quote the Constitution saying that the Supreme Court is the one and only entity that gets to determine what the Constitution means. Anything else is an evasion.

shanek

19th May 2005, 10:37 PM

shanek

19th May 2005, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Sure, you've got principles coming out of both ears, the problem is that your principles function independently of the facts of any particular case, that's why you're predictable. I don't need to research the specifics of a case to figure out you opinion because they're normally not a factor.

Given how much you have distorted my views on this board, I'd say that the above is either patently false or you just admitted to being a liar. Which is it?

shanek

19th May 2005, 11:16 PM

Want another example of how well Claus's version of "checks and balances" works? Take the Real ID Act, which just passed the Senate 100-0 as a rider to an $82 billion spending bill. Remember as you read this that every single Senator voted for it. None of them even made a motion to have it removed as a rider.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4996681,00.html

New driver's license rules tucked in a military spending bill will create national identification cards for Americans and stick state governments with the bill, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander said Tuesday.

Alexander, R-Tenn., joined Democrats and state officials in railing against the White House-backed driver's license rules and other immigration measures before the Senate approved the $82 billion spending bill 100-0.

Alexander and other lawmakers said the rules established in the REAL ID Act will have unintended consequences. Driver's license examiners trained to decide whether a person can parallel park will have to determine whether an applicant is an al-Qaida terrorist, he said.

``It's possible that some governor may look at this and say, 'Wait a minute. Who are these people in Washington telling us what to do with our driver's licenses and making us pay for them, too?''' Alexander said.

Alexander railed against it...and then he voted for it.

``If you think a trip to the division of motor vehicle is a bad experience today, wait until the REAL ID takes effect,'' Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said.

Durbin said it was a terrible thing...and then he voted for it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/12/124534.shtml

"I am outraged that the Republican leadership in both the House and Senate decided to ... put this seriously flawed act into a bill to fund our troops," the top Democrat [Hillary Clinton] said.

Hillary said it was seriously flawed...and then she voted for it.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/58B2A22A1E32DDA586256FFF00131D81?OpenDocument

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said the license measures became part of a bill that had to be rushed through, which is why it won unanimous approval.

"I wanted to debate this," he said, but no hearings were held.

Durbin called the requirements "burdensome" for some people, especially legal immigrants from countries where birth certificates aren't issued, or from places such as Yugoslavia that no longer exist. He predicted that long lines will result and that states will have to cough up millions of dollars.

He says it's burdensome and that it should at least have been debated before being passed...and then he voted for it.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/11569862.htm

Sen. Richard Lugar is so opposed to Sensenbrennerâ€™s end-run with the Real ID Act that he signed a bipartisan sponsored letter to Senate Majority Leader William Frist, R-Tenn., urging that the â€œSenate follows normal parliamentary procedures when it takes up the Real ID Act.â€

â€œThe Real ID Act would make major shifts in immigration and asylum policy, and therefore should be considered carefully and deliberately,â€ the letter states. â€œLegislating in such a complex area without benefit of hearings and expert testimony is a dubious exercise and one that subverts the Senateâ€™s deliberative process.â€

But he still voted for it.

No matter what they say, no matter how much opposition they appear to have, they're all just a bunch of lying, hypocritical thugs who may talk the talk when it comes to liberty, but when they walk the walk it's all over us and the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold. And this, by Claus, is being sufficiently scrutinized. Even the ones who are complaining that they aren't being property scrutinized still vote for them.

Kerberos

19th May 2005, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
It very well might apply both ways. In fact I agree it does... and in fact I think you are with shanek and I on this as far as basic principle.

Shanek is saying that a cop can refuse to enforce a law based on his opinion as to the constitution.

Meanwhile, you say that the cop can refuse based on his opinion that something is outrageous, unless I miss something... I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth here...

Where it gets weird for me is why can't I, shanek, or shanek's cop just believe that anything contrary to the constitution be outrageous? If you can't cite an objective criteria aren't we all doing the same thing, using our opinion as a guide to establish an external criteria used to decide if a "law" is acceptable?

Once we accept that the law as stated by the legislature can properly be rejected as wrong based on a personal opinion that it violates some external standard, then we all seem to more or less agree as to the big point and are quibbling over illusory details... [/B]
There is a very fundamental difference, shanek thinks that the cop should have a general right to refuse to follow laws. I simply recognize that he could, and that I would in some cases agree with him. A cop that refused to follow some bizarre law could be prosecuted, no matter what I thought about it. He could perhaps mobilize public opinion on his side, but if all of Congress, the President, two thirds of the judiciary, and most of the American population went collectively insane, then he'd probably fail and be convicted. I just don't think that's very likely. For a single cop to behave bizarrely strikes me as much more likely. The cop wouldnâ€™t even have to actually believe that the law was unconstitutional, he could fx let a criminal he knew go and not report it in without facing any penalty, because he said he was protecting the criminals constitutional â€œright to privacyâ€ or some such nonsense.. Hell I cop could just sit on his ass all day and refuse to do anything at all because it would be unconstitutional.

Art Vandelay

20th May 2005, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
No, Shanek's position is that police can (and should) refuse to enforce laws that they think are unconstitutional. This is absolutely his position, and the scenario I presented is entirely possible in Libertobia, and Shanek is a-ok with that. Whether it is theoretically possible, and whether it is a fair representation, are two completely different issues. I'm sure that if you were to describe your political beliefs, I would be able to twist them into something that doesn't represent your views, as Legal Penguin has shown.

LW
Do you have some nice decision procedure that allows a cop to decide between the following two alternatives:
Do you think that such is necessary? Are we required to either blindly follow the government, or deliniate precisely every single situation in which we would dissent?

Kerberos
Well CFL posted a quote from Shanek that pretty much shows that CS's description is in fact accurate. I didn't see anything in that quote about joining in. It also qasn't clear what he means by "can't" and "force". Would firing a cop for not doing his job be "forcing"? It appears that shanek's answer would be "no".

If that authority is the cop, then it is just his opinion and if not then he doesn't really have the power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws.And if he thinks that killing Jews is wrong, is that "just his opinion"?

If ones answer to that question is rooted in the cops power to ignore unconstitutional laws, then one would have to accept that he should follow the law, if the constitution was amended appropriately.My answer to that is that the people cannot give to the government what they do not have themselves. The people do not have the right to rape children, so they cannot give government agents the right to rape children. Therefore, any law which says that cops must rape kids (or murder citizens, etc.) is unconstitutional regardless of the process used to pass it.

davefocAnd perhaps, Art is right that in net society would be better off if government made no attempt to regulate polygamy. I don't know. But as a moderate libertarian I am open to the idea that there might be societal benefits from the restriction of polygamy that outweigh the benefits of a purely libertarian approach.
And you have made the standard misunderstanding of libertarianism. I am not claiming that allowing polygamy results in the highest nety utility. I, too, am open to the idea that there are societal benefits from its retriction. I simply reject that as a justification for violating someone's rights.

My point here was that if one believes that personal liberty is such an important goal that the practical consequences of no government regulation are unimportant as long as greater personal freedom is obtained, then the practical consequences of the elimination of government restrictions aren't important in the formation of a view on a specific issue.There is a difference between a right and a freedom. If I take your car for a spin while you're at work, I've gained significant freedom (I drove wherever I wanted for several hours), and you have lost little (you wouldn't have used the cars during that time anyway). So one could argue that allowing people to drive any car they want, as long its owner isn't using it, would lead to net increase in freedom. But in doing so, you have been deprived of a right, yet I have not gained one (driving where I want is not a right).

LegalPenguinBoth equally valid. I say that because I believe they are both silly cheapshots derived from tortured hypothetical that manipulate the context of the actions in order to paint a claim in bad light... So they are both equally valid in that they have nearly zero validity...
Well, actually, the government declaring that certain people can be killed actually has happened, yet I have never heard of a cop declaring child molestation laws to be unconstitutional, so they're not exactly equally valid...

shanekQuote the Constitution saying that the Supreme Court is the one and only entity that gets to determine what the Constitution means. Anything else is an evasionOf course, threre's no way anyone can answer that. Suppose that there is a section of the Constitution that says "The Supreme Court is the final, and only, authority in deciding what the Constitution means. No one else is allowed to make any declarations as to what the Constitution means." Well, what does that mean? The obvious answer is that the USSC is the final authority. But stating that would mean that one is making a declaration as to what the Constitution means, which is not allowed (only the USSC is allowed to do that). No one can claim that the Constitution says that only the USSC can interpret it without contradicting themselves.

Art Vandelay

20th May 2005, 12:12 AM

Pop quiz, guys.

1. Suppose that a man breaks into a woman's home. The woman calls the police, the police drive over to her house, but decide not to do anything else. The woman sees the cops come by, think they got the guy, so comes out of her hiding place, and ends up getting raped.

A. In Libertopia, the cops can simply claim that they think that laws against rape are "unconstitutional", and no action can be taken against them.

B. In our present system, the cops can simply claim to have had no "affirmative duty" and get off scott free.

C. Both of the above.

D. None of the above.

2. Suppose that a cop thinks that someone has a gun, so he shoots him.

A. Cops aren't allowed to make determinations as to whether someone has a gun; they need a court order to shoot someone.

B. If someone has a gun, the cops are allowed to shoot them. However, if it turns out that the person did not have a gun, the cop will certainly be charged with murder, since what matters is whether the person has a gun, not what the cop believes.

C. Cops are allowed to shoot people that they think have a gun regardless of whether that person actually has one or not.

CFLarsen

20th May 2005, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
It is quite irrelevant to point out that this is impossible due to the laws of physics.... it's a math problem, a hypothetical and the whole point is to assume certain facts in order to examine other facts...

If you don't agree, then you disagree.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
In this case, passage is assumed, so points about the process are irrelevant.. Ahh... run away and let someone else rape the children. Good solution...

No, that's not what I meant. A cop has to follow as well as enforce the law. He cannot just walk away for any reason. If he finds that he can't do it in the first place, then he can quit.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Are you kidding? This is quite nonsensical as to good faith.... If anyone tells you that they full understand all aspects of U.S. criminal law as applied in every situation... well... that person is lying. Even judges argue about it.

Claiming that an officer must have certain knowledge about all law in all applications is.... well... naive to a profound extreme...

1) He enforces the law to the best of his understanding.
2) The constitution is the supreme law.

He would be well served to follow the lead of the courts when determining #1, but given the uncertainties in the continually evolving American law, sometimes he has to do what he can.

Of course he must enforce the law to the best of his understanding. That's what I have been trying to say. What he can't do is back down from enforcing a law, regardless of what he thinks of it.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Please explain why I am uncomfortable?

Because he gives Libertarians a bad name?

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
It all boils down to shanek's tendancy towards "natural law theory" and you and a few others leaning towards "Legal Positivism." There isn't an angle to this debate I haven't seen a million times.

Mainly, I'm just amused at the abuse towards shanek when the position staked out by those abusing him is equally if not more absurd...

That's exactly the same defense shanek uses: If there is valid criticism of his points, then it is "abuse". It's a cheap trick to avoid addressing the points.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Natural Law Theory has problems with certain situations, mainly that it makes law hard to define and is, ironically, hard to objectively base in that "law" is said to inherently exist, and thus there can be some debate as to details. Usually, this can be illustrated without assuming a cop that thinks laws against rape are unconstitutional, but so it goes...

What's interesting is that in science, natural laws are relatively easy to define, simple because we can make observations. Calling a political agenda "natural law" is a blatant attempt of appealing to authority. I mean...how can you argue with a "natural law"?

Incidentally, the Natural Law Party (http://www.natural-law.org/) is probably not what either you or shanek has in mind. So, which party is not based on "natural law", and why?

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Legal Positivism, simply put the idea that law is what we say it is and no more, is receptive to absurd injustice via proceedure, such as the absurd result of otherwise decent people recognizing rape of children as law because some assembly said so.

There is that risk, yes. But that's how laws are made: By people, and people are not infallible. However, it is far better than to rely on some fuzzy idea that nobody can express clearly enough to make a clear law.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Shanek is a natural law guy. Y'all aren't. Problem is that neither point of view avoids absurd results, but for some reason people enjoy torturing shanek over what is not much more than a "Ginger or Mary Ann" question.

I don't think anyone "enjoys torturing" shanek, but you cannot possibly object to people dissecting his political ideas, especially when he promotes them so heavily here. You want us to merely accept them, and stop questioning him? Think again.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Some believe that political law, like the laws of nature exist in an absolute and the point of politics is to uncover them, or you believe that law is what we say it is and no more. The U.S. was founded on the prior, but is adopting more of the latter on a daily basis.

Which is a good thing, mostly because the prior doesn't work. It's a slow process, especially because there are people like shanek who slows the process of realization down by promoting his wacko ideas as if they were natural laws.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Shanek doesn't like that, and I dig that about him... but he's got a few communications issues

Understatement of the year!

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
and a bunch of people (me in the past included) that would rather rip him and engage in petty rhetorical games than think about what he has to say...

But we have listened, we have listened for years. As Kerberos says, he is predictable in extremis. He is a one trick pony. He never surprises anyone, because he is playing the same broken record.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
He should be a cop.

He would be a cop for less than a nano-second, if he thinks he can single-handedly be the sole arbiter of what laws are constitutional or not.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
However to some extent his duties as such coincide with those other duties. An officer must often decide whether the facts and law indicate that he has the legal right to search. In that case he is making a determination of law (as a judge would) and fact (as would a jury) to decide to act.

No, it's not the same. A cop must know the law, especially those that protect minors. But when he lets a child rapist go, because he thinks the laws against child rape are unconstitutional, then he has seriously transgressed any border.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
As to questioning the validity of a statute I think a cop should give near total deference to the opinions of the legislative and judicial branches as to whether a statute is constitutional, and only apply his own opinion in extreme circumstances.

No, never. He can never be judge and jury. He is most certainly not the Supreme Court.

CFLarsen

20th May 2005, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Once again, Claus's freedom-hating government-worship is the result of his own bias and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

I'm right here, shanek. If you want to address my points, at least have the decency to hear what I have to say about your arguments.

When you piggyback, you are cowardly avoiding that. It is plain dishonest. You simply don't have the guts to engage in debate with me.

You don't want to debate, you want to preach.

Feh.

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

I didn't see anything in that quote about joining in. It also qasn't clear what he means by "can't" and "force". Would firing a cop for not doing his job be "forcing"? It appears that shanek's answer would be "no".
Did SC say anything about joining in? If so then yes he would be misrepresenting shanek's stance. As for firing a cop it I asked him and he confirmed that he doesn't "see any cops getting fired just for that. " right here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870811141&highlight=cops+getting+fired#post1870811141).

Edited because I found shaneks answer.
Originally posted by Art Vandelay
And if he thinks that killing Jews is wrong, is that "just his opinion"?
Yes.

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
My answer to that is that the people cannot give to the government what they do not have themselves. The people do not have the right to rape children, so they cannot give government agents the right to rape children. Therefore, any law which says that cops must rape kids (or murder citizens, etc.) is unconstitutional regardless of the process used to pass it.
Sorry, but that doesn't wash, if you wish to root you arguments in natural law, you'll have to prove such a thing exists. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for such a thing, whether theoretical or empirical.

ETA: I supose that certain norms will tend to be developed under certain conditions, but that's hardly the same as true natural law.

richardm

20th May 2005, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by shanek
The churches are doing a lot better than the government.

Worrying, isn't it?

shanek

20th May 2005, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
There is a very fundamental difference, shanek thinks that the cop should have a general right to refuse to follow laws.

No, you are, in effect, saying he is prohibited from following the Supreme Law of the Land.

For a single cop to behave bizarrely strikes me as much more likely.

All the more reason for the requirement that they uphold the Constitution.

shanek

20th May 2005, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Of course, threre's no way anyone can answer that.

Then they don't have the power. Our Federal government is created by the Constitution, and is a system of enumerated powers. If they power's not enumerated, they don't have it. The judicial branch is given the power to decide controversies, and that certainly includes the power to decide those controversies based on what the Constitution says. But that's quite different from them being able to set policy for the other two branches.

shanek

20th May 2005, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Pop quiz, guys.

1. Suppose that a man breaks into a woman's home. The woman calls the police, the police drive over to her house, but decide not to do anything else. The woman sees the cops come by, think they got the guy, so comes out of her hiding place, and ends up getting raped.

A. In Libertopia, the cops can simply claim that they think that laws against rape are "unconstitutional", and no action can be taken against them.

B. In our present system, the cops can simply claim to have had no "affirmative duty" and get off scott free.

C. Both of the above.

D. None of the above.

"B" only. In our present system, the police have no duty to protect us. That's been confirmed by the Supreme Court. However, in "A," it is not true that they should get off scot-free. They have superiors to answer to. Those superiors also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and can act on it based on their conscience.

2. Suppose that a cop thinks that someone has a gun, so he shoots him.

A. Cops aren't allowed to make determinations as to whether someone has a gun; they need a court order to shoot someone.

B. If someone has a gun, the cops are allowed to shoot them. However, if it turns out that the person did not have a gun, the cop will certainly be charged with murder, since what matters is whether the person has a gun, not what the cop believes.

C. Cops are allowed to shoot people that they think have a gun regardless of whether that person actually has one or not.

D. None of the above. Cops are not allowed to shoot someone just because he has a gun. He has to be posing a direct threat to them or others.

shanek

20th May 2005, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Sorry, but that doesn't wash, if you wish to root you arguments in natural law, you'll have to prove such a thing exists. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for such a thing, whether theoretical or empirical.

It doesn't matter. Our Constitution is based on the assumption that this is true. Therefore, the government must act as if it's true, since their only power comes from the Constitution.

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by shanek
No, you are, in effect, saying he is prohibited from following the Supreme Law of the Land.
Not unless you're going to claim that the Supreme Courts understanding of the Constitution is by definition wrong.

All the more reason for the requirement that they uphold the Constitution.
So because a single cop is more likely to behave bizarrely than the entire system, we should place the decision in the hands of a each individual cop? The mind boggles.

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by shanek
It doesn't matter. Our Constitution is based on the assumption that this is true. Therefore, the government must act as if it's true, since their only power comes from the Constitution.
No shanek it doesn't. The Consstitution is a piece of paper, it's dreadfully hard to compel people to do anything with a piece of paper.

Suddenly

20th May 2005, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
There is a very fundamental difference, shanek thinks that the cop should have a general right to refuse to follow laws.
Only if they are unconstitutional...

I simply recognize that he could, and that I would in some cases agree with him. A cop that refused to follow some bizarre law could be prosecuted, no matter what I thought about it. Sure... the other cops have to do their jobs after all...

He could perhaps mobilize public opinion on his side, but if all of Congress, the President, two thirds of the judiciary, and most of the American population went collectively insane, then he'd probably fail and be convicted. I just don't think that's very likely.
For a single cop to behave bizarrely strikes me as much more likely. The cop wouldnâ€™t even have to actually believe that the law was unconstitutional, he could fx let a criminal he knew go and not report it in without facing any penalty, because he said he was protecting the criminals constitutional â€œright to privacyâ€ or some such nonsense.. Hell I cop could just sit on his ass all day and refuse to do anything at all because it would be unconstitutional.

Not really. The idea would be that in a proceeding against the officer for failing to enforce the law, his maintaining a belief that the law was unconstitutional (or beyond human decency) would be a defense. He would have to show evidence and argument that he held such a belief in good faith, and the other side could present evidence that he's really lazy or just covering for a cousin or something. Then the jury (or other finder of fact) gets to decide.

It isn't a matter of the cop making a declaration that exempts him from any sanction for his failure to uphold the law as written...

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by shanek
No, you haven't. You avoided the questions.

Quote the Constitution saying that the Supreme Court is the one and only entity that gets to determine what the Constitution means. Anything else is an evasion.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution". Where does it say that a polive officer can ignore his duties simply by claiming that it's unconstitutional, no matter how bizare the assertion might be?

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Given how much you have distorted my views on this board, I'd say that the above is either patently false or you just admitted to being a liar. Which is it?
It's the simple truth. You maintain that there is no excuse for initiating "force", and you're almost never swayed by the facts of the case, except in truly extreme cases like WW2, where you will squirm around, and try your best to avoid answering whether it was the right thing to do.

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Only if they are unconstitutional... [/B]
No if he said he considered it unconstitutional, whether it actually is, is irrelevant.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Not really. The idea would be that in a proceeding against the officer for failing to enforce the law, his maintaining a belief that the law was unconstitutional (or beyond human decency) would be a defense. He would have to show evidence and argument that he held such a belief in good faith, and the other side could present evidence that he's really lazy or just covering for a cousin or something. Then the jury (or other finder of fact) gets to decide.

It isn't a matter of the cop making a declaration that exempts him from any sanction for his failure to uphold the law as written...
Sorry but you're reading things into Shaneks possition. Shanek has never indicated that he thinks there should be any way whatsoever to dicipline a cop for something like that, and he's had plenty of oportunities to say so.

shanek

20th May 2005, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Not unless you're going to claim that the Supreme Courts understanding of the Constitution is by definition wrong.

Once again, the Supreme Court is not the sole authority on what the Constitution means. They don't get to set poilicy for the other branches.

So because a single cop is more likely to behave bizarrely than the entire system, we should place the decision in the hands of a each individual cop? The mind boggles.

You know what I'm really saying. Stop the dishonesty, for once.

shanek

20th May 2005, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
No shanek it doesn't. The Consstitution is a piece of paper, it's dreadfully hard to compel people to do anything with a piece of paper.

I'm sorry that the rule of law and republican government by the people means nothing to you.

shanek

20th May 2005, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".

That has nothing to do with police, who are members of the executive branch.

Where does it say that a polive officer can ignore his duties simply by claiming that it's unconstitutional, no matter how bizare the assertion might be?

Again, Article VI Clause 3.

shanek

20th May 2005, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
It's the simple truth. You maintain that there is no excuse for initiating "force", and you're almost never swayed by the facts of the case, except in truly extreme cases like WW2, where you will squirm around, and try your best to avoid answering whether it was the right thing to do.

I answered that, you liar! Several times! You just don't like the answer, but since you can't refute it, you, just like that lying pseudo-skeptic Claus, chooses instead to pretend I didn't answer. Well, I did, and everyone reading the thread knows it.

shanek

20th May 2005, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Sorry but you're reading things into Shaneks possition.

No, he's not. He's got it precisely.

Shanek has never indicated that he thinks there should be any way whatsoever to dicipline a cop for something like that, and he's had plenty of oportunities to say so.

I have done it! In this very thread! I said, "[I]t is not true that they should get off scot-free. They have superiors to answer to. Those superiors also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and can act on it based on their conscience." I've said that every other time we've discussed the issue. Either your bigotry is making you blind to my arguments, or you're just lying again.

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by shanek
No, he's not. He's got it precisely.

I have done it! In this very thread! I said, "[I]t is not true that they should get off scot-free. They have superiors to answer to. Those superiors also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and can act on it based on their conscience." I've said that every other time we've discussed the issue. Either your bigotry is making you blind to my arguments, or you're just lying again.
OK I missed that, my bad. I certainly don't remember you saying so on any other threads though. Has it occurred to you to state you opinion clearly and unambiguously? Recent studies show that this is the single most effective method of communication. like when I ask:

"And at what point do you think a police officer could be fired, or perhaps even prosecuted for letting a criminal walk away, based on some bizarre interpretation of the Constitution?"

You could reply

"at the point where a jury decides that his interpretation was indefensible/that he didn't act in good faith (I don't know which applies)"

Instead of replying that:

"Nice loading of the question with the word "bizarre." But no, I don't see any cops getting fired just for that. "

Course when you reply the latter there is a certain risk that I'll believe that's what you mean.

Suddenly

20th May 2005, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, that's not what I meant. A cop has to follow as well as enforce the law. He cannot just walk away for any reason. If he finds that he can't do it in the first place, then he can quit.

Sorry... my use of colloqualism seems to have caused a problem. I am equating quitting with walking away.

If quitting is the only option aside from enforcing such a law:

1) all laws go unenforced as nobody takes your place, which is bad

or

2) Someone takes your place and enforces the law

And that is my problem. I find neither acceptable.

Of course he must enforce the law to the best of his understanding. That's what I have been trying to say. What he can't do is back down from enforcing a law, regardless of what he thinks of it.

What if he thinks to the best of his understanding that it is not the law as it conflicts with a higher law, the constitution? If he still enforces the unconstitutional law is he not refusing to enforce the constitution, and since that is a higher law is this not the worse offense?

Because he gives Libertarians a bad name?

Even if true, why would that make me uncomfortable?

I've been scornful of the LP for years. (I'm assuming the capitalization was intentional) I've spent many posts pointing out how and why I don't like it. My level of scorn for Badnarik was well documented at SC....

The fact is that upon closer review of that party during the past election, shanek is IMO one of more positive members by any yardstick...Whether you decide to take that as a compliment to shanek or a rather dramtic negative statement as to the nature of those in the party is your decision....

That's exactly the same defense shanek uses: If there is valid criticism of his points, then it is "abuse". It's a cheap trick to avoid addressing the points. You may want to look for that log in your eye before you worry about the one in shanek's... Your styles of argument seem very similar to me, although I have come to find that in the area of avoidence and cheap rhetorical tricks you put him to shame...

What's interesting is that in science, natural laws are relatively easy to define, simple because we can make observations. Calling a political agenda "natural law" is a blatant attempt of appealing to authority. I mean...how can you argue with a "natural law"?

By understanding what it is and attacking it for what it is. It isn't a political agenda. It is a theory of jurisprudence upon which the whole Anglo-American legal system was originally based.

I have presented many criticisms of natural law theory. I've written more than one paper on the subject while attending law school. It has rather large problems when taken to the extreme.

Incidentally, the Natural Law Party (http://www.natural-law.org/) is probably not what either you or shanek has in mind. So, which party is not based on "natural law", and why?

The Natural Law party is not what I am refering to.

I don't think any party stands more for natural law. It is a theory of jurisprudence, and not the only one. Modern parties tend to appeal to the concepts upon which these theories are based when useful to them, not as statements of principle. The only principle in mainstream American politics is naked pragmatism...

There is that risk, yes. But that's how laws are made: By people, and people are not infallible. However, it is far better than to rely on some fuzzy idea that nobody can express clearly enough to make a clear law.

See!!! You just in simple terms laid out the main argument against hard core use of natural law theory.

Good job!! And to think you said it couldn't be done...

Plus you identified the main problem with Legal Positivism, but expressed a willingness to accept the risks associated with that.

The next step is realizing that shanek finds the risk you accept to be worse than the the problem with natural law theory you lay out above, accept that difference, and understand that at the core you might as well be arguing "Ginger or Mary Ann..."

I don't think anyone "enjoys torturing" shanek, but you cannot possibly object to people dissecting his political ideas, especially when he promotes them so heavily here. You want us to merely accept them, and stop questioning him? Think again.

Heck... I enjoyed it when I used to torture him... but I tend to just enjoy life in general...

The rest of your statement is a very nice destruction of a strawman...

Which is a good thing, mostly because the prior doesn't work. It's a slow process, especially because there are people like shanek who slows the process of realization down by promoting his wacko ideas as if they were natural laws.

Huh? What is a slow process? How do "people like shanek" slow down the process when half the time "people like you" tend to enjoy screaming "that people like shanek" have no political power whatsoever?

I don't get it....

But we have listened, we have listened for years. As Kerberos says, he is predictable in extremis. He is a one trick pony. He never surprises anyone, because he is playing the same broken record. The responses have been another broken record. I've been part of it. You are not covering any ground that I and others who are veterans of the "shanek wars" havent plowed over a million times. In fact, I'll be arrogant and say that you can't carry my jockstrap when it comes to twisting shanek into knots over his positons. The Badnarik threads over at SC are legends in the genre... When I gave up working shanek over I left some big shoes to fill...

I'll allow that shanek does not present these ideas very effectively given the present audience conditions as shanek's style has invited antagonism rather than even-handed debate over issues. However, there is blame to go around about that. I accept that I'm partially at fault here.

Some of the ideas have merit and are not completely, as you put it "whacko." I'm just trying to shift the focus back to these ideas rather than the style of a particular poster...

No, it's not the same. A cop must know the law, especially those that protect minors. But when he lets a child rapist go, because he thinks the laws against child rape are unconstitutional, then he has seriously transgressed any border. I see we are continuing to embrace the absurdity.

A cop that rapes children because the law tells him to is equally absurd and has transgressed any border.

It is the same. A cop makes determinations of law and fact as a daily matter, and often these decisions are in a grey area. Cops are not machines untinkingly carrying out the will of their superiors, as you apparently think they should be.

The constitution is part of that law. Why do you want them to ignore part of the law?

Suddenly

20th May 2005, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
No if he said he considered it unconstitutional, whether it actually is, is irrelevant.

Well.. when it comes to whether a law is unconstitutional all we have is opinion.

We tend to defer to the opinion of the courts, but that is not the same thing as taking those opinions as gospel truth and the end of the matter time to go home. Even the courts change their opinions as to these matters...

In the end, all branches get to speak as to the matter.

The Legislative can (should) refuse to pass an unconstitutional law.

The Judicial can interpret a law as contrary to the constitution.

The Executive can refuse to enforce.

Where shanek and I tend to disagree is the following:

My reading is that, as the first two branches are more directly concerned with the issue while the Executive's powers (aside from the veto) are more as a safety valve, that the Executive can and should afford total deference to the decisions of the other branches, only using his own discretion in the most extreme circumstances, very rarely considering a statute passed by the legislature as unconstitutional, and almost never when that statute is considered constitutional by the courts....

In the end they are all opinions though. There is no such thing as what "is" constitutional. Just opinions that are held in higher regard than others...

shanek

20th May 2005, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
OHas it occurred to you to state you opinion clearly and unambiguously?

LegalPenguin didn't seem to have any trouble understanding it. And he's hardly someone who falls in lockstep with whatever I say.

Your comment (which I won't bother quoting) was just on a single hypothetical: whether or not I thought one single instance of a cop doing this would likely result in losing his job. I replied that it wouldn't. I answered your question. Now, you're trying to twist that into me evading a point that you didn't even ask.

shanek

20th May 2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen (piggybacking again)
No, that's not what I meant. A cop has to follow as well as enforce the law.

Except, of course, for the Supreme Law of the Land, because Claus doesn't like that.

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
What if he thinks to the best of his understanding that it is not the law as it conflicts with a higher law, the constitution? If he still enforces the unconstitutional law is he not refusing to enforce the constitution, and since that is a higher law is this not the worse offense?

And what's more, why does he get to "interpret" the lesser law but not the Constitution?

The fact is that upon closer review of that party during the past election, shanek is IMO one of more positive members by any yardstick...Whether you decide to take that as a compliment to shanek or a rather dramtic negative statement as to the nature of those in the party is your decision....

As most of the Libertarians I know are people of honesty and integrity, I'll choose to take that as a compliment, personally.

I have presented many criticisms of natural law theory.

By the way, I've never said that this concept is perfect. It's just a lot better than any other political theory I've come across, especially Socialism.

I've written more than one paper on the subject while attending law school. It has rather large problems when taken to the extreme.

Doesn't everything?

What I think is most telling is that people here pretty much have to take the idea to an extreme to find something wrong with it, when I can find problems with Socialism and other forms of government just by looking at what happens every day.

I'm not too worried about the extremes. They happen very rarely, they happen with any system, and no one seems to be better or worse than the others in this regard. I'm worried about what works at least 99.999% of the time, in normal everyday life.

The rest of your statement is a very nice destruction of a strawman... Huh? What is a slow process? How do "people like shanek" slow down the process when half the time "people like you" tend to enjoy screaming "that people like shanek" have no political power whatsoever?[/b]

Because Claus is trying to eat his cake and have it, too.

The responses have been another broken record. I've been part of it. You are not covering any ground that I and others who are veterans of the "shanek wars" havent plowed over a million times. In fact, I'll be arrogant and say that you can't carry my jockstrap when it comes to twisting shanek into knots over his positons.

Probably true. On the other hand, I don't recall you ever being anywhere near as dishonest as Claus, and you certainly never accused me of a crime openly on the forum.

varwoche

20th May 2005, 10:45 AM

Instead of the child rape example, how about a state cop who refuses to enforce previously upheld (by scotus) state laws pertaining to gun control?

The cop may not do this and should be fired. Right?

shanek

20th May 2005, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by LegalPenguin

Where shanek and I tend to disagree is the following:

My reading is that, as the first two branches are more directly concerned with the issue while the Executive's powers (aside from the veto) are more as a safety valve, that the Executive can and should afford total deference to the decisions of the other branches, only using his own discretion in the most extreme circumstances, very rarely considering a statute passed by the legislature as unconstitutional, and almost never when that statute is considered constitutional by the courts....

Is this a quote of something?

I, personally, like with what Joseph Story had to say on the matter:

"The officers of each of these departments [legislative, judicial, and executive] are equally bound by their oaths of office to support the constitution of the United States, and are therefore conscientiously bound to abstain from all acts, which are inconsistent with it...If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, he is not only authorized, but required, to decide for himself, whether, consistently with his constitutional duties, he can do the act." —Commentaries on the Constitution, §374

And Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #33 came right out and said that states could and should do so as well.

Jefferson actively did this with the Alien & Sedition laws upon taking office.

So, if I'm a nutcase, so are those guys.

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by shanek
LegalPenguin didn't seem to have any trouble understanding it. And he's hardly someone who falls in lockstep with whatever I say.
Perhaps he noticed what you said in you post to Rob, which I, as I've said, missed.

Originally posted by shanek
Your comment (which I won't bother quoting) was just on a single hypothetical: whether or not I thought one single instance of a cop doing this would likely result in losing his job. I replied that it wouldn't. I answered your question. Now, you're trying to twist that into me evading a point that you didn't even ask.
No shanek, my question was not whether a single instance would likely result in the cop losing his job. My question (which I will bother quoting) was "And at what point do you think a police officer could be fired, or perhaps even prosecuted for letting a criminal walk away, based on some bizarre interpretation of the Constitution?"

I will repeat "at what point" not â€œwould he likely" if you misread that that's you fault not mine, it's a mistake that everybody makes once in a while, but that doesn't change the fact.

Also on this thread I quite clearly states how I read you position, I said:

"Shanek has, IIRC, said that he believes that police officers should be allowed to ignore any law they chose to, fi they considered it unconstitutional [B]without consequences[/B[, no matter how inane their objections. I don't think a lot of police officers would ignore child molesting, but they would be allowed to if they so chose." [emphasis added]

You even replied to this post. Why on Earth did you not correct my reading of your position, when it was quite clear what I thought you thought?

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I'm sorry that the rule of law and republican government by the people means nothing to you.
And I'm sorry you have trouble telling the difference between facts and ideal. I totally support the rule of law and democracy (what you call a republic), but that doesn't change the facts. A piece of paper by itself gives no one any power. If you can convince people that you reading of said piece of paper is correct, and that the paper should be obeyed, then it might give you power, but it is the people's reading and acceptance of the document that gives you power, not the document itself. The "actual" or "original" meaning of the document, even when it can be proven, matters only insofar that you can convince people of it. Legal positivism is not necessarily my opinion of how things should be, it's simply how they are.

shanek

20th May 2005, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
My question (which I will bother quoting) was "And at what point do you think a police officer could be fired, or perhaps even prosecuted for letting a criminal walk away, based on some bizarre interpretation of the Constitution?"

Yet, you cut off my reply: "Nice loading of the question with the word "bizarre." But no, I don't see any cops getting fired just for that. Hey, if they don't get fired for sodomizing a guy with a broom handle..."

You cut off that last part, which makes it clear that I was NOT saying what you were attributing to me.

Why on Earth did you not correct my reading of your position, when it was quite clear what I thought you thought?

Because your dishonest behavior in the past has shown th futility of trying to do that. And that's the very behavior you're repeating here.

Suddenly

20th May 2005, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Is this a quote of something?

Nope.... just my opinion on the matter.

I, personally, like with what Joseph Story had to say on the matter:

"The officers of each of these departments [legislative, judicial, and executive] are equally bound by their oaths of office to support the constitution of the United States, and are therefore conscientiously bound to abstain from all acts, which are inconsistent with it...If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, he is not only authorized, but required, to decide for himself, whether, consistently with his constitutional duties, he can do the act." —Commentaries on the Constitution, §374

And Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #33 came right out and said that states could and should do so as well.

Jefferson actively did this with the Alien & Sedition laws upon taking office.

So, if I'm a nutcase, so are those guys.

Nah... the worst thing I can call you in that regard is a "throwback."

Story's been dead for 150 years, and our understanding of how things work has developed in that time. I agree with him that all branches have that duty (are equally bound), and that the executive must decide for himself...

I just go further to imply what appears to be the appropriate method of reasoning, derived from the idea that the Legislative and Judicial branches are by nature more involved with policy and legal decisions, so the Executive should give them the benefit of the doubt within the gray areas.

Plus, the danger of uncertainty as to law may prove to be a bigger danger to liberty than anything else. I've always seen the defining characteristic of tyranny as a state where the law is uncertain to the point where those in power can bend it to their will... the system of deference I suggest attempts to reduce that uncertainty, although, ironically it can't eliminate it as to do so also removes flexibility, and an inflexable law is also quite unjust. These concepts are always at odds with one another...

The executive should decide for himself, but should also realize that unless the injustice is major, not giving the other branches the benefit of the doubt may cause far more harm than good as to the realization of the principles the constitution was drafted to achieve in the first place...

shanek

20th May 2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Nah... the worst thing I can call you in that regard is a "throwback."

Well, considering that none of the Constitutional amendments made since that time change that, I don't see that as much of a criticism.

I just go further to imply what appears to be the appropriate method of reasoning, derived from the idea that the Legislative and Judicial branches are by nature more involved with policy and legal decisions, so the Executive should give them the benefit of the doubt within the gray areas.

However good an idea that may be on a practical everyday basis, that doesn't mean the executive is beholden to them. And if they have read and have an understanding of the Constitution, they should be able to tell when a law violates it. I don't mean the grey areas; I mean things like the USA PATRIOT Act or the DMCA.

I've always seen the defining characteristic of tyranny as a state where the law is uncertain to the point where those in power can bend it to their will...

Well, again, I would say that's all the more reason to insist on a constructionist reading of the Constitution. If you get to make "interpretations" and consider "implied amendments," you get exactly what you're talking about.

RandFan

20th May 2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
I totally support the rule of law and democracy (what you call a republic)... Yes, a Republic that is democratic (Not a Democratic Republic which is decidedly not Democratic). There is good reason for Republics. A democracy is a good idea but pure democracy without elected leaders who make laws and decisions without the direct input from the people is subject to the fickle nature of public opinion. Leadership is good but leadership without input and support of the people is tyranny.

The two work remarkably well together.

shanek

20th May 2005, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
And I'm sorry you have trouble telling the difference between facts and ideal.

The FACT is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The FACT is that the ideals of human liberty that it strives to accomplish, plus the FACT that it grants very real powers to the government, makes it much more than just words on paper.

A piece of paper by itself gives no one any power.

But the Constitution is not a piece of paper by itself. It is the duly constructed powers of our government as ratified by the representatives of the people who created that government.

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Yet, you cut off my reply: "Nice loading of the question with the word "bizarre." But no, I don't see any cops getting fired just for that. Hey, if they don't get fired for sodomizing a guy with a broom handle..."

You cut off that last part, which makes it clear that I was NOT saying what you were attributing to me.

I can see you still live by the principle that if standards are good double standards must be twice as good. You complain that I don't quote all your answer yet you systematically quote out of context, misrepresent and often even cuts of quotes in mid-sentence. Besides I don't see how your second paragraph changes what you said. I asked you at what point you thought a cop should be fired or prosecuted, you complaints about the current state of affairs are and were irrelevant

Originally posted by shanek
Because your dishonest behavior in the past has shown th futility of trying to do that. And that's the very behavior you're repeating here.
Suuuree. :rolleyes:

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by RandFan
Yes, a Republic that is democratic (Not a Democratic Republic which is decidedly not Democratic). There is good reason for Republics. A democracy is a good idea but pure democracy without elected leaders who make laws and decisions without the direct input from the people is subject to the fickle nature of public opinion. Leadership is good but leadership without input and support of the people is tyranny.

The two work remarkably well together.
I'm not really sure that the fickle nature of public opinion is the greatest problem, though it is a real one. The greatest would probably be the impracticality of applying it to such large groups as modern states. And I did of course mean a representative democracy.

Kerberos

20th May 2005, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by shanek
The FACT is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The FACT is that the ideals of human liberty that it strives to accomplish, plus the FACT that it grants very real powers to the government, makes it much more than just words on paper.

But the Constitution is not a piece of paper by itself. It is the duly constructed powers of our government as ratified by the representatives of the people who created that government.
And it has significancy solely through the meaning people attach to it. Also I'm happy to see you keep your skills at quoting out of context sharp.

Art Vandelay

3rd June 2005, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Did SC say anything about joining in? If so then yes he would be misrepresenting shanek's stance.

On 05-18-2005 02:35 AM, The Central Scrutinizer posted:
In Little Shanek's Libertobia(tm), if a police officer was a member of NAMBLA and thought that the constitution allowed the molesting of children, he could stand and witness a youngster being molested and not do a thing about it. Heck, he might even join in.

Pretty sick, isn't it?

Sorry, but that doesn't wash, if you wish to root you arguments in natural law, you'll have to prove such a thing exists. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence for such a thing, whether theoretical or empirical.I don't think that "natural law" is an accurate term for my views. Furthermore, I reject the idea that the burden of proof falls on me. It seems to me that if you think people have the right to rape children, then if anyone has the burden of proof, it is you. I personally see no need for "proof" that raping kids is not okay.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution". Where does it say that a polive officer can ignore his duties simply by claiming that it's unconstitutional, no matter how bizare the assertion might be?Do you have the authority to speak as to what that means?

A piece of paper by itself gives no one any power. If you can convince people that you reading of said piece of paper is correct, and that the paper should be obeyed, then it might give you power, but it is the people's reading and acceptance of the document that gives you power, not the document itself. The "actual" or "original" meaning of the document, even when it can be proven, matters only insofar that you can convince people of it. Legal positivism is not necessarily my opinion of how things should be, it's simply how they are.It's weird how you just posted an argument that is very close to how I would explain my position, yet claim that it supports a view which has been presented as being in opposition to my own. If it is possible to convince people of the legitimancy of a piece of paper by appealing to principles beyond that paper itself, does that not suggest that there are universal principles that are not up for popular vote? If you agree that the power of the government lies only in people agreeing to follow it, how can you criticize someone for not following it? If following it is an arbirtrary decision, isn't not following it a valid choice? If the power of the constitution lies with public perception, isn't it ignoring reality to insist that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter? You haven't been very clear what your position is, but you seem to be criticizing shanek's position that one's judgement takes precedence over others', yet you also seem to be agreeing that this is reality.

Kerberos

4th June 2005, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

I don't think that "natural law" is an accurate term for my views. Furthermore, I reject the idea that the burden of proof falls on me. It seems to me that if you think people have the right to rape children, then if anyone has the burden of proof, it is you. I personally see no need for "proof" that raping kids is not okay.
Sorry but you're making a positive claim of objective morality - that puts the burden of proof squarely on you by. If I claimed that people have to right to rape children then I'd be making a positive claim, and I could be said to have burden of proof, but I don't so I haven't. Since I'm claiming that all rights are socially constructed, there is clearly no â€œrightâ€ to rape children, since no such right has been constructed, and no natural right to it either. So we're back to you making a claim, me contesting it, and you having burden of proof.

Do you have the authority to speak as to what that means?
No, but those who do seems to agree with me.

It's weird how you just posted an argument that is very close to how I would explain my position, yet claim that it supports a view which has been presented as being in opposition to my own. If it is possible to convince people of the legitimancy of a piece of paper by appealing to principles beyond that paper itself, does that not suggest that there are universal principles that are not up for popular vote?
If these principles had been the same regardless of time and place then it would - that is however not the case, and it therefore clearly speaks against universal principles. Convincing people of the legitimacy of such a paper works best, by appealing to principles they already believe in. You could try to convince OBL and co. that the Constitution was a wonderful piece of paper, by appealing to his respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I don't think it would work very well.

If you agree that the power of the government lies only in people agreeing to follow it, how can you criticize someone for not following it? If following it is an arbirtrary decision, isn't not following it a valid choice?
You're making the mistake of attributing a position to me (which is very common with moral relativists)- of believing that since there is no absolute morality we shouldn't pass any judgements. Yet this is actually a moral judgement to. I'm not saying that we shouldn't make moral judgements, simply that our moral codes are not representing any universal or objective moral law.

If the power of the constitution lies with public perception, isn't it ignoring reality to insist that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter? You haven't been very clear what your position is, but you seem to be criticizing shanek's position that one's judgement takes precedence over others', yet you also seem to be agreeing that this is reality.
SCOTUS is ultimate arbiter because people believe that, if Shanek manages to convince everybody that they shouldnâ€™t be, then he might change the system, but until then SCOTUS has that power.

Art Vandelay

4th June 2005, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Sorry but you're making a positive claim of objective morality - that puts the burden of proof squarely on you by.
Well, technically I'm making a negative claim: people don't have the right to rape children. But even if I were making a positive claim, that wouldn't mean that the burden of proof is on me, because there is no proof with which to be burdened. Morality is not something that is open to proof.

Since I'm claiming that all rights are socially constructed, there is clearly no â€œrightâ€ to rape children, since no such right has been constructed, and no natural right to it either. So we're back to you making a claim, me contesting it, and you having burden of proof. I don't understand why it is that we both agree that people do not have the right to rape children, yet only I have the burden of proof.

If these principles had been the same regardless of time and place then it would - that is however not the case, and it therefore clearly speaks against universal principles. The principles have been the same. What people think they are has changed, but what they are has remained constant.

You're making the mistake of attributing a position to me (which is very common with moral relativists)- of believing that since there is no absolute morality we shouldn't pass any judgements. I don't see where you get that. As I said, you haven't made it clear what your position is, but you seem to believe that cops should not ignore laws just because they think they are unconstitutional. Which would mean that you pass judgement against cops that do so.

SCOTUS is ultimate arbiter because people believe that, if Shanek manages to convince everybody that they shouldnâ€™t be, then he might change the system, but until then SCOTUS has that power. You're contradicting yourself. If the people have the power to overrule SCOTUS, then SCOTUS is not the ultimate arbiter.

Darat

4th June 2005, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
...snip...

I don't understand why it is that we both agree that people do not have the right to rape children, yet only I have the burden of proof.

....snip...

I think the point Kerberos is making is that you claim that at least some rights are "natural" rights, i.e. they exist independent of any person or social construct. If that is the case then I think he is right in saying if you make that claim then there is a burden of proof on you to provide evidence for that type of right.

shanek

4th June 2005, 07:12 PM

CFLarsen

4th June 2005, 11:39 PM

Kerberos

5th June 2005, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Well, technically I'm making a negative claim: people don't have the right to rape children. But even if I were making a positive claim, that wouldn't mean that the burden of proof is on me, because there is no proof with which to be burdened. Morality is not something that is open to proof.

I don't understand why it is that we both agree that people do not have the right to rape children, yet only I have the burden of proof.
I can prove my contention easily. Using a social constructionist concept of rights, I can look to the bill of rights, human rights declarations, current legal practises, public opinion etc. and observe that there is neither a right to rape children, nor any significant call for such a right anywhere in the western world. Since you claim that rights or lack of rights exists independently of our conceptions of them, you have to prove that, something that you cannot do, because no such evidence exists. For you to claim that you don't need proof because it's not subject to proof, is no different from theists making the same claim about god.

The principles have been the same. What people think they are has changed, but what they are has remained constant.
Evidence?

I don't see where you get that. As I said, you haven't made it clear what your position is, but you seem to believe that cops should not ignore laws just because they think they are unconstitutional. Which would mean that you pass judgement against cops that do so.
Sure, but I don't claim my judgement represents some constant universal truth. It is simply my judgement, and in sufficiently extreme situations it might be different.

You're contradicting yourself. If the people have the power to overrule SCOTUS, then SCOTUS is not the ultimate arbiter.
You're nitpicking, yes SCOTUS aren't the truly ultimate arbiters, but as long as they're accepted as such, they are functionally the ultimate arbiter. People accept SCOTUSâ€™s decisions, even though they donâ€™t agree with them, sufficiently bizarre/outrageous decisions would of course be ignored though.

Kerberos

5th June 2005, 12:57 AM

Darat

5th June 2005, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Even if the founding document of his country, which also happens to be the country in question here, is based on that very principle?

Yes, if you want to have a meaningful discussion about rights.

shanek

5th June 2005, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
I can prove my contention easily. Using a social constructionist concept of rights, I can look to the bill of rights, human rights declarations, current legal practises, public opinion etc. and observe that there is neither a right to rape children, nor any significant call for such a right anywhere in the western world.

You're wrong, at least in the case of the Bill of Rights. It is not an exclusive list enumerating all of our rights. The Ninth Amendment makes that plain.

Not that there is a right to rape children, but you don't have to look to some document written by politicians to see that. Logic itself shows the absurdity of such a case. If you have a right to rape someone, then that means that you have more rights than the person you're raping. So logic itself rejects that as a part of any system of equal rights.

You're nitpicking, yes SCOTUS aren't the truly ultimate arbiters, but as long as they're accepted as such, they are functionally the ultimate arbiter. People accept SCOTUSâ€™s decisions, even though they donâ€™t agree with them, sufficiently bizarre/outrageous decisions would of course be ignored though.

As long as they realize they're free to accept or reject their decision, I don't really have a problem with that. I just reject the lack of critical thinking; for example, when people say the draft doesn't violate the 13th Amendment because the Supreme Court said so, when the Supreme Court's "judgement" was nothing more than an argument from incredulity based on obvious historical ignorance.

I want to make one more point about the "ultimate arbiter" thing: People usually use the word "ultimate" in this context in line with definition #2 in The American Heritage Dictionary: "Fundamental; elemental: an ultimate truth." This is the meaning in which I reject the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution.

However, definition #1 is actually "Being last in a series, process, or progression: â€œAs the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court occupies a central place in our scheme of governmentâ€ (Richard A. Epstein)." Since the American Heritage linguists used this very example for definition #1, I think it has a lot of merit. So, what does it mean?

It's as I've said before: there's a process for doing things in this country, and at any point along the way the particular authority can decide that the law is unconstitutional and put a stop to it. Congress can refuse to pass the law or repeal the existing law, the President can veto it or refuse to execute it, cops can refuse to arrest, prosecutors can refuse to prosecute, judges can dismiss it, juries can nullify it, and the last possible step in this entire process is the Supreme Court. If every other entity along the way has allowed the law to be in force and effect, the Supreme Court is the last entity that can stop it.

That, I think, is a perfectly valid claim for the Supreme Court being the "ultimate arbiter," and apparently, it's how those who coined that expression meant it. But that clearly isn't how it's being used today.

Kerberos

5th June 2005, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by shanek
You're wrong, at least in the case of the Bill of Rights. It is not an exclusive list enumerating all of our rights. The Ninth Amendment makes that plain.

Not that there is a right to rape children, but you don't have to look to some document written by politicians to see that. Logic itself shows the absurdity of such a case. If you have a right to rape someone, then that means that you have more rights than the person you're raping. So logic itself rejects that as a part of any system of equal rights.
That's not actually true, Hobsian rights are equal. You could of course argue that Hobsian rights aren't actually rights at all, but you could construct a system of rights that were equal and yet allowed you to rape children, it would be pretty bizarre, but you could. Besides you point out the hole in you own logic. â€œLogic rejects that as part of any system of equal rightsâ€. Equal rights are not given by nature, as a matter of fact no system exists or have ever existed that granted everybody equal rights, though the modern west comes closer than most.

Earthborn

5th June 2005, 10:24 AM

If you have a right to rape someone, then that means that you have more rights than the person you're raping.Not necessarily. That person might also have the right to rape someone. In that case there can be equal rights. A right to rape would of course contradict a right not to be raped, which would not exist in a world where people have the right to rape others.

Also remember that it is already widely accepted that children have less rights than adults, so you cannot say that one has no right to rape children because it would contradict equal rights. There are no equal rights in this case anyway.So logic itself rejects that as a part of any system of equal rights.Logic does not tell us that there should be a system of equal rights. It is widely accepted that some people have less rights than others: children, criminals or the insane. So there is no system of equal rights, so your logic doesn't tell us whether someone has a right to rape children or not.

shanek

5th June 2005, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
That's not actually true, Hobsian rights are equal.

Hobsian (shouldn't that be Hobbesian?) rights allow for someone raping children?

You could of course argue that Hobsian rights aren't actually rights at all, but you could construct a system of rights that were equal and yet allowed you to rape children, it would be pretty bizarre, but you could.

I'd like to see an example. How do you give person A a right to rape person B without giving person A rights over person B, elevating him above the other?

shanek

5th June 2005, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Not necessarily. That person might also have the right to rape someone. In that case there can be equal rights. A right to rape would of course contradict a right not to be raped, which would not exist in a world where people have the right to rape others.

How, then, could it in any way be considered a "right" by any reasonable definition? You might as well say that a system of medicine could allow for the banning of TV shows about computers; all you'd be doing is stretching the word "medicine" beyond all recognizable meaning.

Also remember that it is already widely accepted that children have less rights than adults, so you cannot say that one has no right to rape children because it would contradict equal rights.

Children have less rights of action because they have a lesser ability to comprehend the consequences of those actions. That doesn't apply here. Same thing with the insane. Those are just red herrings. Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand.

Kerberos

5th June 2005, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Hobsian (shouldn't that be Hobbesian?) rights allow for someone raping children?
Well Google recognizes â€œHobbesian rightsâ€, but not â€œHobsian rightsâ€ so you're probably right. And yes of course they allow you to rape children. In the Hobbesian state of nature you have the right to do anything that you're strong enough to do, but as I said you could reasonably say that that isn't really "rights" as we understand the word.

Originally posted by shanek
I'd like to see an example. How do you give person A a right to rape person B without giving person A rights over person B, elevating him above the other?
Earthborn gave a good example. And despite what you say it doesn't really stretch the meaning of rights. It's simply a rather bizarre system of rights. Also as I said, the concept of equal rights is not universal.

shanek

5th June 2005, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Well Google recognizes â€œHobbesian rightsâ€, but not â€œHobsian rightsâ€ so you're probably right.

Just checking; I wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

And yes of course they allow you to rape children. In the Hobbesian state of nature you have the right to do anything that you're strong enough to do, but as I said you could reasonably say that that isn't really "rights" as we understand the word.

It may be "rights," but those rights certainly aren't "equal" as they allow the stronger to do things the weaker cannot. Might makes right.

Earthborn gave a good example. And despite what you say it doesn't really stretch the meaning of rights. It's simply a rather bizarre system of rights.

But not equal. And I'd actually say it does stretch the meaning of "rights" by removing responsibility from the equation.

Kerberos

5th June 2005, 12:50 PM

It may be "rights," but those rights certainly aren't "equal" as they allow the stronger to do things the weaker cannot. Might makes right.
While Hobbesian rights are indeed pure â€œmight makes rightâ€ the fact is that all systems of rights (except for communist ones and even then only in theory) allows the strong to do more than the weak. Property rights, for example, gives more rights to those who have much property than to those who have little or none.

But not equal. And I'd actually say it does stretch the meaning of "rights" by removing responsibility from the equation.
It is equal, anybody can rape anybody. As for responsibility there is not necessarily any relation between rights and responsibilities.

Earthborn

5th June 2005, 12:54 PM

How, then, could it in any way be considered a "right" by any reasonable definition?I don't know. You used the "right to rape" in your own argument, so you can fault me for thinking your argument through.

The definition of a 'right' or what right we are talking about is not important to your argument. What is important for the logic you use is your claim that if someone has X, someone else has less X. This is not a logical assumption.

If person A has the right to do X to person B, it does not mean person B has fewer rights than person A. Person B might also have the right to do X to person A, giving them equal rights.

Your logic fails, because you don't tell explicitly that one of those persons has the right to be free of X. They only have unequal rights if one of them has the right to be free of X while having the right to do X to the other.Children have less rights of actionYour argument made no distinction between 'rights of action' and other rights. I only point to the logical error in the argument as you presented it. You claimed that it was a logical argument, so I treated it as one. I only used the assumptions presented in the argument itself and I didn't make up any other assumptions to make the argument work. The argument talks only about how 'having more/less rights' is incompatible with 'equal rights'.

If you can't handle a logical argument, you shouldn't claim to present one. You certainly shouldn't expect people to make up additional assumptions. In a logical argument the conclusion should follow from the assumptions you have presented, not the ones you consider reasonable.Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand.Apperently that is only true of 'rights of action', whatever they are.

shanek

5th June 2005, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Property rights, for example, gives more rights to those who have much property than to those who have little or none.

That depends on how easily those without property can obtain it.

It is equal, anybody can rape anybody.

No; only if they're strong enough to. The weakest person isn't able to rape anyone else and the strongest person doesn't have to worry about anyone else raping him.

As for responsibility there is not necessarily any relation between rights and responsibilities.

I strongly disagree. How can you exercise a right without being responsible for the consequences?

shanek

5th June 2005, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Your logic fails, because you don't tell explicitly that one of those persons has the right to be free of X. They only have unequal rights if one of them has the right to be free of X while having the right to do X to the other.

See above; that is precisely the case here.

Your argument made no distinction between 'rights of action' and other rights.

Yes, it did. I specifically said that even newborns have a right to life, to not be murdered or abused, etc. The only limitation of the rights of children as I explained it dealt with the inability to face the consequences of their own actions.

Kerberos

5th June 2005, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by shanek
That depends on how easily those without property can obtain it.
Not really, there will always be some who have more than others, and those people can do more.

Originally posted by shanek
No; only if they're strong enough to. The weakest person isn't able to rape anyone else and the strongest person doesn't have to worry about anyone else raping him.
We could outlaw resisting the rape. :p

Originally posted by shanek
I strongly disagree. How can you exercise a right without being responsible for the consequences?
I don't really see where you're going. It's a lot easier to exercise a right if you're not responsible for the consequences.

Earthborn

5th June 2005, 01:42 PM

See above; that is precisely the case here.You didn't say so in your logical argument.I specifically said that even newborns have a right to life, to not be murdered or abused, etc.Here is your logical argument again:

"Logic itself shows the absurdity of such a case. If you have a right to rape someone, then that means that you have more rights than the person you're raping. So logic itself rejects that as a part of any system of equal rights."

Please tell me where in that argument you said that about the rights of newborns.

I also find it fascinating that for the rights of newborns you suddenly use the concept of positive rights. Usually you claim that the only real rights are negative rights, that is: the limitations on the government. Now you argue for the opposite concept and apperently believe that newborns must actively be protected.It may be "rights," but those rights certainly aren't "equal" as they allow the stronger to do things the weaker cannot.This is the first time you claim that something like that means that the rights are not equal. You have claimed that an employer should be able to discriminate against an employee and an employee should be able to discriminate against an employer and claimed that this constitutes equal rights. You also have said that rich people have equal rights to poor people, and the fact that one is 'stronger' in a way than the other doesn't change that.

Why turn around now? Why not say that it is just a fact of nature that one is stronger than the other and has no effect on one's rights at all?

Darat

5th June 2005, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by shanek
That depends on how easily those without property can obtain it.

Out of curiosity - where do people initially get their property from?

5th June 2005, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Darat
Out of curiosity - where do people initially get their property from?

By committing an initiation of force and then waiting for a century or two until one day their ill-gotten gains have become respectable property of modern-day libertarians.

shanek

5th June 2005, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Not really, there will always be some who have more than others, and those people can do more.

Not necessarily. Can a man plow a field of 40 acres? Or does he have to pay other people to come and help him? Do his employees not benefit from him having property by the jobs that are provided to them?

We could outlaw resisting the rape. :p

Who's gonna enforce it?

I don't really see where you're going. It's a lot easier to exercise a right if you're not responsible for the consequences.

Really? Because I figure it would be damn near impossible without some kind of authority absolving and compensating you. "You struck a screwdriver in your eye? Here, have $1 million, which we took from the tool manufacturer."

shanek

5th June 2005, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
I also find it fascinating that for the rights of newborns you suddenly use the concept of positive rights. Usually you claim that the only real rights are negative rights, that is: the limitations on the government. Now you argue for the opposite concept and apperently believe that newborns must actively be protected.

Come on; we've had the newborn discussion before. I'm not saying anything now that I didn't say then.

This is the first time you claim that something like that means that the rights are not equal.

If one person can force another, but that person can't force the one, it's unequal.

You have claimed that an employer should be able to discriminate against an employee and an employee should be able to discriminate against an employer and claimed that this constitutes equal rights.

Of course. Because each is using the property of the other, and the relationship only exists because of a voluntary agreement by the two parties.

You also have said that rich people have equal rights to poor people, and the fact that one is 'stronger' in a way than the other doesn't change that.

Of course, because the only way the rich person can get money or anything else from the poor person is by convincing them to part with it of their own free will.

shanek

5th June 2005, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Darat
Out of curiosity - where do people initially get their property from?

The very first claim to property is by "homesteading," whereupon someone makes use of land that isn't currently being used by anyone else for anything.

The Central Scrutinizer

5th June 2005, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Even if the founding document of his country, which also happens to be the country in question here, is based on that very principle?

You know, I don't know what these "natural rights" are. Can you provide a list?

Didn't think so....

Earthborn

5th June 2005, 10:30 PM

If one person can force another, but that person can't force the one, it's unequal.In the world where people have a right to rape, it is an equal right then. One person can force the other, and the other can force the one.

One may be stronger than another, but the other can use a weapon or ask a strong friend to help. Both can use whatever they need to subdue the other and rape them. No difference. Completely equal.

Kerberos

6th June 2005, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Not necessarily. Can a man plow a field of 40 acres? Or does he have to pay other people to come and help him? Do his employees not benefit from him having property by the jobs that are provided to them?
Youâ€™re avoiding the issue; people with property have more rights under a system of property rights than those without. Period. End of story. Whether having property rights is a good system or benefits everybody is beside the point.

Originally posted by shanek
Who's gonna enforce it?
The evil nasty guns of government of course

Originally posted by shanek
Really? Because I figure it would be damn near impossible without some kind of authority absolving and compensating you. "You struck a screwdriver in your eye? Here, have $1 million, which we took from the tool manufacturer."
Except of course that that's not what weâ€™re talking about; there is a huge difference between the effects of you actions on yourself and their effect on others.

Darat

6th June 2005, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by shanek
The very first claim to property is by "homesteading," whereupon someone makes use of land that isn't currently being used by anyone else for anything.

"makes use of" - Can you define that?

Leif Roar

6th June 2005, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Darat
"makes use of" - Can you define that?

Well, judging from history it would seem to be defined something along the line of "Has the ability to defend."

shanek

6th June 2005, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Kerberos
Youâ€™re avoiding the issue;

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

people with property have more rights under a system of property rights than those without. Period. End of story.

Thank you for admitting to being a closed-minded bigot.

The TRUTH, for those who aren't willing to say "period, end of story" and actually be a skeptic and think that there might be something else to learn about it, is that having property doesn't mean being able to make use of it. As I pointed out, having property almost always means depending on others to help you out with it. More property does not equal more rights. The more property you have, the more you are dependent on others to help you make use of it.

The evil nasty guns of government of course

Then you've just changed the parameters of what you're talking about. Quite dishonest of you.

Except of course that that's not what weâ€™re talking about;

That is exactly what we're talking about: people being responsible for their own actions. You just don't want to consider it because it means you're wrong.

there is a huge difference between the effects of you actions on yourself and their effect on others.

You're responsible for the effect you have on others, too. If you stick a screwdriver in someone else's eye, even accidentally, you owe them restitution, because they would not have suffered had it not been for your actions.

shanek

6th June 2005, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Darat
"makes use of" - Can you define that?

That's the basis of homesteading. I suggest you go and read up on it if you're that curious. Let's at least try to keep this thread down to several derails...

Darat

6th June 2005, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by shanek
That's the basis of homesteading. I suggest you go and read up on it if you're that curious. Let's at least try to keep this thread down to several derails...

I disagree it is a derail, I think it is very important point to any discussion about the legitimacy of rights, especially if your â€œpoliticalâ€ stance is that there are such things as property rights.

So it is just an arbitrary statement of â€œthis is mineâ€ according to an arbitrary decision of what "makes use of" by the people who can enforce their definition of "makes use of"?

shanek

6th June 2005, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Darat
I disagree it is a derail, I think it is very important point to any discussion about the legitimacy of rights, especially if your â€œpoliticalâ€ stance is that there are such things as property rights.

So it is just an arbitrary statement of â€œthis is mineâ€ according to an arbitrary decision of what "makes use of" by the people who can enforce their definition of "makes use of"?

No, it's basically goes something like this:

You have a bunch of land. Someone stakes out a claim. No one contradicts the claim after a certain amount of time. The land is his.

If someone does contradict the claim, and no other resolution is available, it is taken into a court of equity. Generally, the one who can show the prior claim wins, but there can be arguments for an "abandoned claim," which basically involves showing that the person hasn't exerted any claim to the land in a certain amount of time. The subject in question is how the person can show that he has an effective prior claim to the land. Even if he hasn't stuck up a sign that says "Mine!", if he has lived on the land, or harvested crops, etc. then this can be an effective tool in winning his defense.

That's the super-simplified version. Good enough?

Darat

6th June 2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's basically goes something like this:

You have a bunch of land. Someone stakes out a claim. No one contradicts the claim after a certain amount of time. The land is his.

If someone does contradict the claim, and no other resolution is available, it is taken into a court of equity. Generally, the one who can show the prior claim wins, but there can be arguments for an "abandoned claim," which basically involves showing that the person hasn't exerted any claim to the land in a certain amount of time. The subject in question is how the person can show that he has an effective prior claim to the land. Even if he hasn't stuck up a sign that says "Mine!", if he has lived on the land, or harvested crops, etc. then this can be an effective tool in winning his defense.

That's the super-simplified version. Good enough?

I'm not too sure what you are disagreeing with since that is what I described, but in essence leaving out the assumptions, I'll restate my version again and if you still think there is a disagreement between the two could you point it out?

Property rights are an arbitrary statement of â€œthis is mineâ€ according to an arbitrary decision of what "makes use of" by the people who can enforce their definition of "makes use of".

shanek

6th June 2005, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Darat
I'm not too sure what you are disagreeing with

I'm not disagreeing with anything. I'm answering your question.

Darat

6th June 2005, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by shanek
I'm not disagreeing with anything. I'm answering your question.

I had posted

"So it is just an arbitrary statement of â€œthis is mineâ€ according to an arbitrary decision of what "makes use of" by the people who can enforce their definition of "makes use of"?"

To which you answered:

"No, it's basically goes something like this: .... "

And then apparently went on to pretty much repeat what I had posted (but a bit more long winded), so itâ€™s left me with a bit of confusion i.e. what did the "no" refer to?

shanek

6th June 2005, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Darat
And then apparently went on to pretty much repeat what I had posted (but a bit more long winded), so itâ€™s left me with a bit of confusion i.e. what did the "no" refer to?

The fact that there was a process behind it, not just a simple declaration as you implied.

Art Vandelay

6th June 2005, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Darat
I think the point Kerberos is making is that you claim that at least some rights are "natural" rights, i.e. they exist independent of any person or social construct. If that is the case then I think he is right in saying if you make that claim then there is a burden of proof on you to provide evidence for that type of right. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "independent of any person", after all, the entire concept of human rights is rather meaningless if no humans exist. Anyway, I view my position as explaining what a right is, rather than making a falsifiable claim. If you're going to insist that you have a right to demand that I prove my claims, then I'm going to insist that you prove that you have that right. Seems to me that the very act of insisting that I have the budern of proof constitutes an implicit acceptance of my position, as the idea that the person making a claim has the burden of proof is itself an example of a "natural" right.

PS: You look different. New haircut? :)

Kerberos
I can prove my contention easily. Using a social constructionist concept of rights, I can look to the bill of rights, human rights declarations, current legal practises, public opinion etc. and observe that there is neither a right to rape children, nor any significant call for such a right anywhere in the western world. But that proves nothing. First off, there's the fact that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. But more importantly, the mere fact that no one recognizes a right does not mean that it does not exist. If you disagree with this principle, you must recognize that such a position is both inconsistent with the common meaning of "right", and misses the question anyway. The issue was not a specific right, but the basis of rights in general. So why do I have the burden of proof, while you can simply take the constructionist concept of rights as a basic premise? And even if people could change what rights are, wouldn't that be a universal right?

Since you claim that rights or lack of rights exists independently of our conceptions of them, you have to prove that, something that you cannot do, because no such evidence exists. For you to claim that you don't need proof because it's not subject to proof, is no different from theists making the same claim about god.Why are you sinlging out rights? Do you consider the question of whether, say, chairs exist independently of our belief in them to be similarly questionable? If you were to look at the bill of rights, human rights declarations, current legal practises, public opinion etc. and observe that there are no mention of chairs, would you conclude that they do not exist? Surely you don't dispute that there are some claims that require no proof?

Evidence [of princples being constant]?
It's simply self-evident. How can the principles change? What mechanisms could there be for chaning them?

Sure, but I don't claim my judgement represents some constant universal truth. It is simply my judgement, and in sufficiently extreme situations it might be different.
It is your judgement of what? Against what standards do you judge? Is this anything more than an arbitrary decision?

You're nitpicking, yes SCOTUS aren't the truly ultimate arbiters, but as long as they're accepted as such, they are functionally the ultimate arbiter.I don't think it's a nitpick. There's a big difference between saying that SCOTUS has the greatest authority, and saying that the constitution means whatever they say it does.

Kerberos

7th June 2005, 12:20 AM

ETA you comments to Darat
Originally posted by Art Vandelay
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "independent of any person", after all, the entire concept of human rights is rather meaningless if no humans exist. Anyway, I view my position as explaining what a right is, rather than making a falsifiable claim. If you're going to insist that you have a right to demand that I prove my claims, then I'm going to insist that you prove that you have that right. Seems to me that the very act of insisting that I have the budern of proof constitutes an implicit acceptance of my position, as the idea that the person making a claim has the burden of proof is itself an example of a "natural" right.
Sorry but this is getting a bit bizare, we're talking about who logically has the BOP. Whether I do or do not have the right to ask you anything is besides the point, You position is equally illogical whether I have the right to chalenge it or not.

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

Kerberos
But that proves nothing. First off, there's the fact that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. But more importantly, the mere fact that no one recognizes a right does not mean that it does not exist.
Sure but Occam's razor cuts my way. I can't rpove that there aren't universal rights any more than I can prove there is no god or invisiple pink unicorns, it's the exact same thing.
If you disagree with this principle, you must recognize that such a position is both inconsistent with the common meaning of "right", and misses the question anyway. The issue was not a specific right, but the basis of rights in general.
Inconsistent how? Also I'm harldy the only person in the world to adhere to a social constructionist view of rights. I don't see how it misses the question either. The same logic can be used for any rights.

So why do I have the burden of proof, while you can simply take the constructionist concept of rights as a basic premise?
Because it's a fact; It's like the difference between god and religion. We can observe the existence of conceptions of rights and conceptions of god (religion) that is not disputable. Claiming that gods or rights actually exist independently of human perception is however an additional claim that requires evidence. You have the burden of proof, because you make the additional unnecessary claim and in accordance with Occams Razor the position that makes the least unproven assumptions is usually the correct one.
And even if people could change what rights are, wouldn't that be a universal right?
Not in the slightest, you have no guarantee that attempts to construct rights won't be met with resistance, even violent resistance.

Why are you sinlging out rights? Do you consider the question of whether, say, chairs exist independently of our belief in them to be similarly questionable? If you were to look at the bill of rights, human rights declarations, current legal practises, public opinion etc. and observe that there are no mention of chairs, would you conclude that they do not exist?
Certainly I would. Of course I'd include looking at pictures and living rooms under etc. Show me a picture of a right and I'll be happy to believe they exist independently.
Surely you don't dispute that there are some claims that require no proof?
I can't think of any; either a claim is factual, in which case it requires some sort of evidence, empirical or logical, or it's ideological in which case it doesn't exist independently of our conceptions of it.

It's simply self-evident. How can the principles change? What mechanisms could there be for chaning them?
saying â€œIt is simply self-evidentâ€ is a rather poor substitute for an argument. As for your question it displays circular logic, you assume a priori that principles exist independently. You do not however have any basis for that belief, the principles of humans and groups of humans change all the time.

It is your judgement of what? Against what standards do you judge? Is this anything more than an arbitrary decision?
I'll tend to judge by the standards that was imprinted in me by my surroundings, particularly when I was a child. Those standards aren't entirely arbitrary, since they're influenced by various sorts of selections mechanisms (a standard that says eating is a sin probably won't survive long), but they're not in any sense "natural".

I don't think it's a nitpick. There's a big difference between saying that SCOTUS has the greatest authority, and saying that the constitution means whatever they say it does.
I though my position was obvious, but as long as it's clear now.

Darat

7th June 2005, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by shanek
The fact that there was a process behind it, not just a simple declaration as you implied.

But your explanation just attempts to dress up an arbitrary system that is based on someone else being able to impose their decision on me. In its simplest terms this is what you say make my ownership of property "mine":

I use land.
The land is mine.

In the case of a conflict you say:

I use land.
You say it is your land.
Someone who can impose their decision on me makes a decision.
The land is whoever the decision maker decides.

Which is exactly what I said e.g. "... it is just an arbitrary statement of â€œthis is mineâ€ according to an arbitrary decision of what "makes use of" by the people who can enforce their definition of 'makes use of'..."

shanek

7th June 2005, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Darat
But your explanation just attempts to dress up an arbitrary system that is based on someone else being able to impose their decision on me.

Wait; who is this "me" the decision is being imposed on?

Darat

8th June 2005, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Wait; who is this "me" the decision is being imposed on?

From this bit, I've underlined the "me" person.

I use land.
You say it is your land.
Someone who can impose their decision on me makes a decision.
The land is whoever the decision maker decides.

shanek

8th June 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Darat
From this bit, I've underlined the "me" person.

I use land.
You say it is your land.
Someone who can impose their decision on me makes a decision.
The land is whoever the decision maker decides.

Except that in this case the "decision maker" is someone mutually agreed upon by both of us. We've both agreed to abide by whatever is agreed upon there. The reason why it needs to be a court of equity is that the decision needs to be enforceable if one of us renigs on it.

And anyway, as you're the current user of the land, the burden of proof would be on me.

8th June 2005, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Except that in this case the "decision maker" is someone mutually agreed upon by both of us. We've both agreed to abide by whatever is agreed upon there.

One problem with that defnition of homesteading is that there just isn't any inhabitable unoccupied landmasses anymore and those that are now occupied were not allocated using a "mutually agree upon decision maker" but by force.

So, the whole discussion about homesteading is purely theoretical and without any practical merits until the day the first humans start to colonize other planets.

Orwell

8th June 2005, 10:28 AM

Q. How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

A. None, the market will take care of it.

shanek

8th June 2005, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by LW
One problem with that defnition of homesteading is that there just isn't any inhabitable unoccupied landmasses anymore and those that are now occupied were not allocated using a "mutually agree upon decision maker" but by force.

So, the whole discussion about homesteading is purely theoretical and without any practical merits until the day the first humans start to colonize other planets.

Again, he asked a question, I answered it.

shanek

8th June 2005, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Orwell
Q. How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

A. None, the market will take care of it.

Cute. Still not as funny as "a gun-toting economist on drugs," though. Someone's gonna have to work to beat that one...

AWPrime

8th June 2005, 12:34 PM

From what I am gettign the libertarian system would be very sensitive to corruption.

Darat

8th June 2005, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Except that in this case the "decision maker" is someone mutually agreed upon by both of us. We've both agreed to abide by whatever is agreed upon there. The reason why it needs to be a court of equity is that the decision needs to be enforceable if one of us renigs on it.

And anyway, as you're the current user of the land, the burden of proof would be on me.

But what happens if there is no one we can mutually agree on to arbitrate the situation?

CFLarsen

8th June 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Darat
But what happens if there is no one we can mutually agree on to arbitrate the situation?

Then, the resident Libertarian dog-catcher steps in and decrees what is constitutional.

Everyone who disagrees will be taken out back and shot.

The body will be left to the dogs that aren't caught, because they have rights, too. God-given, no less.

Then, the Libertarian will walk away from a child being raped, because the Libertarian will believe that the laws against that are unconstitutional.

Whatever happens, the child will be screwed. Literally.

CFLarsen

29th June 2005, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Darat
But what happens if there is no one we can mutually agree on to arbitrate the situation?

Shanek, got an answer?

The Central Scrutinizer

29th June 2005, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Shanek, got an answer?

No.

Random

29th June 2005, 08:32 AM

I can see that this thread is already on the â€œzillion page flame war based on a typoâ€ stage, but I just wanted to respond to a few things on the original list.
2. Legalize adult prostitution.
3. Legalize euthanasia, whether by a doctor or a friend/relative.
Legalize but regulate.
4. Legalize gay marriage via federal constitutional amendment.
Homosexual couples already have the constitutional right to marry, itâ€™s just that politicians have been successful so far in denying them that right.
1.Legalize adult drug use, including steroids and ephedra.
5. Repeal helmet and seatbelt laws.
Since I am a firm believer in single-payer universal healthcare, I find that passing certain basic laws to protect the health of individuals is necessary.
6. Enact legislation to prevent people from suing tobacco companies, alcohol producers and fast food restaurants.
I believe that anyone should be allowed to sue anybody for anything. Let the parties make their case in court. You can eliminate frivolous lawsuits with a â€œloser paysâ€ system, where the loser of the case must pay the court costs of the other.
7. Abolish the FCC.
I would reduce the power of the FCC, but eliminating it outright is silly. Bare minimum, we need someone to assign frequency bandwidth or else stations would jam each other either by neglect or design. Then there are issues of protecting intellectual property rights and content (I donâ€™t mind hardcore pornography on broadcast TV after 11:00pm, but I find it objectionable on Saturday mornings).

shanek

29th June 2005, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Random
Legalize but regulate.

Regulate in what way, and why?

Homosexual couples already have the constitutional right to marry, itâ€™s just that politicians have been successful so far in denying them that right.

All the more reason to get the government out of marriage and go back to common law marriages.

Since I am a firm believer in single-payer universal healthcare, I find that passing certain basic laws to protect the health of individuals is necessary.

The problem is, this keeps going: you then have to restrict immigration to keep people coming here for a "free ride," then you have problems with the illegal immigrants, then you have to pass laws restricting smoking, then fast food, etc. and you're right back into this mess all over again.

I believe that anyone should be allowed to sue anybody for anything. Let the parties make their case in court. You can eliminate frivolous lawsuits with a â€œloser paysâ€ system, where the loser of the case must pay the court costs of the other.

I agree.

I would reduce the power of the FCC, but eliminating it outright is silly. Bare minimum, we need someone to assign frequency bandwidth or else stations would jam each other either by neglect or design.

Why not use the current system of homesteading and property rights to manage it? Jamming of someone's signal would then be considered trespassing.

Then there are issues of protecting intellectual property rights and content (I donâ€™t mind hardcore pornography on broadcast TV after 11:00pm, but I find it objectionable on Saturday mornings).

Then don't watch it. And get a blocker if you're worried about your kids watching it.

Checkmite

29th June 2005, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by WWFStern
That's exactly my point: The government has no responsibility to protect people from themselves and their bad choices. The government is not in the business of enacting laws for peoples' own good. The government is there to protect me from you, and protect this country from other countries. Period. If you want to flush your life down the toilet, the government shouldn't be clogging the pipes trying to stop you.

Well that's OK - just increase my workload, I don't mind. After all, it's much more fun to drive dead bodies to the ER rather than live ones - they don't scream as much on the way. Don't have to waste dressings and saline on a dead body, either.

But of course I'm being hyperbolic. My workload wouldn't be increased at all; it would actually be eliminated altogether, because "saving people from themselves" is really the fundamental basis of the whole EMS system, which would be dissolved because people dying is not the government's problem. It doesn't matter what the issue is, either - a heart attack is very likely brought on by a person's own lifestyle and choices. And if it isn't, it's brought on by heredity, which of course isn't the government's problem either. Diabetics should know better than to not eat after using a lot of energy, and when somebody is trapped in a car that has rolled over twice after being t-boned at an intersection, she was probably fated to die today anyway. So, now that my trade is obsolete and I have nothing else to do, I'll go steal a cardboard box for shade while I legally get addicted to heroin, and subsequently rob and kill my neighbors for money so that I can continue to support my new habit from which there is absolutely no way to extricate myself now.

Originally posted by WWFStern
That, and other things. The Justice Department is cracking down on pornography that it considers to be obscene. I think it is ludicrous. As I wrote, the only things that are obscene, in my view, are child porn and snuff films. That isn't what the DOJ is cracking down on, and so, in my view, they are currently aiming to curtail protected liberty.

I submit that the only form of "pornography" that the DOJ is "cracking down on" is child pornography, and regularly - from the news it seems like there's a new major bust once every year or so - so I don't know where you've been living, but you need to turn on the news now and then.

Random

29th June 2005, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Regulate in what way, and why?
Prostitutes should be licensed, especially if they specialize in potentially dangerous practices (asphyxiation, masochism, etc.). They should also have regular blood tests in the interests of the public health. Individuals or families requesting euthanasia should have to fill out forms in front of impartial witnesses at a minimum. Otherwise you get â€œMy wife wanted to die, so I put poison in her tea. No I donâ€™t have any documentation.â€
Why not use the current system of homesteading and property rights to manage it? Jamming of someone's signal would then be considered trespassing.
At the very least, you would have to have some way of determining who owned what property. Usually, there is a copy of the property deeds at your local hall of records. Otherwise, if you had a radio station, I could set up one on the same frequency and when you came around to complain I could just swear the frequency was mine and you couldnâ€™t prove otherwise. The FCC is in charge of keeping track of who owns what frequency. I suppose you could eliminate the FCC and move those records to another government office, but that doesnâ€™t get the government out of it.
Then don't watch it. And get a blocker if you're worried about your kids watching it.
If I have an 11 year old girl, I can control what she watches on Saturday mornings. I have far less control over what the next door neighborâ€™s 13 year old boy watches on Saturday mornings and what ideas might pop up in his head.

shanek

29th June 2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
But of course I'm being hyperbolic. My workload wouldn't be increased at all; it would actually be eliminated altogether, because "saving people from themselves" is really the fundamental basis of the whole EMS system, which would be dissolved because people dying is not the government's problem.

I don't know about where you are, but around here emergency services are privately run. In fact, there are different services working in competition with each other to provide this service.

Checkmite

29th June 2005, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I don't know about where you are, but around here emergency services are privately run. In fact, there are different services working in competition with each other to provide this service.

Most ambulance companies are privately-run. However, they don't just drive around like injury lawyers, looking for trouble. The companies all make money through contracts with local governments to provide services in particular locations. This is necessary, because 911 and advanced 911 systems (yes, you still summon even the private ambulaces by calling 911) need to know which company to call for a specific location. 911 also happens to be government run - and without it, you can have 20 ambulance companies in a single city that would never get a particular emergency call because nobody would know the correct number.

In addition, EMT's are certified through both the state and federal governments, to ensure competence and skill sufficient to act properly. There's also the DOT which makes EMS policy and scope-of-practice decisions, and there's the FDA to ensure that ambulance companies run sterile, hospital-grade squads. There's the federal act in place to allow EMS employees to trump right-to-privacy when they've been potentially exposed, through a particular patient, to life-threatening illnesses such as HIV or Hep B.

And let's not even go into the dispatching of local fire departments, even volunteer ones, to accident scenes involving out-of-town victims who have no idea what the local numbers are. You might need them in addition to the ambulance. Or local police, needed during emergencies to help keep violent scenes secure. Or local and federal EMAs, without which EMS, fire, and police would have extreme difficulty coordinating properly in a large multiple-casualty incident.