To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#8,101
#8,101
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yours is the system we are already living in, and are well acquainted with. I've answered your questions many times in tbe last as we've had this discussion many times. How many times do you want an answer?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. What we have now is a perversion of the almost perfect system we were given. We allowed this to happen. In reality the fix isn't all that hard and here are a few of my suggestions posted earlier in response to another ancap discussion you were in.

What the founding fathers gave us was probably the most near perfect system of government ever conceived. We the citizens have allowed that system to be bastardized, it's not the fault of the few who have taken advantage of it, that's just human nature. It's our great great grandparents, great grandparents, parents and yes our fault we have allowed it to take place.

We do not need to scrap our system, you'll never get anywhere with that thinking. We need to tweak it, eliminate some amendments and change a couple more to really fix things.

Just a few of my suggestions:

1. Repeal the 17th amendment and return to the framers original method of selecting senators.

2. Amend section 1 article 3 to express no more than a 10 year per life appointment to any one federal judgeship.

3. Change the electoral college from winner takes all in most every state to the winner of each congressional district gets that vote and the state popular vote winner gets the 2 from the senate.

3. Restrict congress to only one 4 month session per fiscal year outside of times of national emergency. Restrict their pay and per diem to that 4 months and within that 4 month period a budget must be passed before recess. If no budget is passed congress will stay in session without pay and per diem until one is passed.

4. Limit birthright citizenship to children born to at least 1 citizen.

5. Move election day to the first Tuesday after April 15th.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,102
#8,102
TNsnyper20 said:
Until those laws get changed its their job to enforce them. And until they are not laws it's the public job to abide by them.
Click to expand...

Their job is to uphold and defend the Constitution... that is the supreme law of the land. And it doesn't limit people, it limits government.

Therefore, any cop that enforces a law that limits the rights of an individual or detains someone for breaking a law that didnt result in damage or loss of property, life or limb, then that cop is violating his oath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,103
#8,103
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
A victimless crime is when there is no victim around to accuse.
It's my belief and a few others here that a crime is commited only when persons and property are damaged/stolen.

So yeah, if a drunk driver wrecks and hurts no one, he's only liable for the property damaged.
Also a victimless crime is possession of drugs.
In order to have a crime, you first must have a victim.
Click to expand...

So.. Let's go with this then. You let that driver continuing to drive serving through the lanes of you are a LEO or privatized protection? Serious question here. And I have a point to this. Keep in mind he hasn't injured anyone or wrecked at this point.
 
#8,104
#8,104
hog88 said:
No, it isn't. What we have now is a perversion of the almost perfect system we were given. We allowed this to happen. In reality the fix isn't all that hard and here are a few of my suggestions posted earlier in response to another ancap discussion you were in.
Click to expand...

I would give this two likes if I could.
 
#8,105
#8,105
TNsnyper20 said:
So.. Let's go with this then. You let that driver continuing to drive serving through the lanes of you are a LEO or privatized protection? Serious question here. And I have a point to this. Keep in mind he hasn't injured anyone or wrecked at this point.
Click to expand...

If they were swerving they were breaking the law, reckless driving. Doesn't matter why they were reckless.
 
#8,107
#8,107
hog88 said:
No, it isn't. What we have now is a perversion of the almost perfect system we were given. We allowed this to happen. In reality the fix isn't all that hard and here are a few of my suggestions posted earlier in response to another ancap discussion you were in.
Click to expand...

I can agree with some of that and have in the past when you've posted it. The problem is, when you place all the guns and decision making power in the hands of a few and tell them to "limit themselves" it never does. Government only grows, it never shrinks.

And, it's still a system of violence that relies on threats of violence to maintain compliance. You cannot start with immoral means and achieve a moral result hog.

In my opinion, we'd been much better off if we'd stayed with the articles of confederation.
 
#8,110
#8,110
TNsnyper20 said:
So.. Let's go with this then. You let that driver continuing to drive serving through the lanes of you are a LEO or privatized protection? Serious question here. And I have a point to this. Keep in mind he hasn't injured anyone or wrecked at this point.
Click to expand...

The driver only commits a crime when property or persons are damaged. Should he be detained if he's obviously intoxicated to the point of being a danger. Sure.
But, he shouldn't have his life ruined in the process.
 
#8,112
#8,112
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The driver only commits a crime when property or persons are damaged. Should he be detained if he's obviously intoxicated to the point of being a danger. Sure.
But, he shouldn't have his life ruined in the process.
Click to expand...

There is no victim. Why should he be detained? And under who's authority should he be detained?

And what's to say he doesn't do this action again. Do you Just continue to detain him until a victim is inserted into the equation? How many times are to many? And again under who's authority?
 
Last edited:
#8,113
#8,113
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I can agree with some of that and have in the past when you've posted it. The problem is, when you place all the guns and decision making power in the hands of a few and tell them to "limit themselves" it never does. Government only grows, it never shrinks.

And, it's still a system of violence that relies on threats of violence to maintain compliance. You cannot start with immoral means and achieve a moral result hog.

In my opinion, we'd been much better off if we'd stayed with the articles of confederation.
Click to expand...

All of the guns are not in the hands of a few, under ancap they would be.

Under ancap compliance would only be achieved by threat of violence, so what's the difference? If your arbitrator rules against me and I refuse to comply wouldn't your protection agency be dispatched? Other than threat of violence, how would they make me comply?

What does morality have to do with anything? Do you think people will be more moral under ancap?
 
#8,114
#8,114
TNsnyper20 said:
There is no victim. Why should he be detained? And under who's authority should he be detained?
Click to expand...

If he's an obvious danger to be on the road. It's kinda obvious don't you think?

When I say detained, I mean perhaps a drunk tank so he can sleep it off. Perhaps he'd be charged a nominal fee for the boarding for the night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,115
#8,115
TNsnyper20 said:
His anarchist handbook says no victim, no crime, let it go. Just doesn't want to say it.
Click to expand...

Just curious since I don't have a dog in the anarchy fight. But lets say that he does say that the person swerving in traffic would be dealt with, does that nullify anarchy completely in your mind?

I guess I'm wondering if this hypothetical situation is enough to make you say checkmate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,116
#8,116
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The driver only commits a crime when property or persons are damaged. Should he be detained if he's obviously intoxicated to the point of being a danger. Sure.
But, he shouldn't have his life ruined in the process.
Click to expand...

What if he refuses to be detained? He wouldn't have committed a crime? Or under ancap would the protection agencies have the power to detain for public safety?
 
#8,117
#8,117
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
If he's an obvious danger to be on the road. It's kinda obvious don't you think?

When I say detained, I mean perhaps a drunk tank so he can sleep it off. Perhaps he'd be charged a nominal fee for the boarding for the night.
Click to expand...

This doesn't follow your rules though. No victim, no crime. And how many times do you detain him before you take more action?
 
#8,119
#8,119
hog88 said:
All of the guns are not in the hands of a few, under ancap they would be.

Under ancap compliance would only be achieved by threat of violence, so what's the difference? If your arbitrator rules against me and I refuse to comply wouldn't your protection agency be dispatched? Other than threat of violence, how would they make me comply?

What does morality have to do with anything? Do you think people will be more moral under ancap?
Click to expand...

The point you miss is we'd have agreed beforehand to use an arbitrator and you'd have freely entered into the contract. So..... Refusing to pay, you'd be breaking the contract. And you would be dealt with until the contract is met.

What does morality have to do with anything? Ask your government, they hold themselves up as the moral authority of the land. Yet, use theft as a means of survival.
 
#8,120
#8,120
Rasputin_Vol said:
Just curious since I don't have a dog in the anarchy fight. But lets say that he does say that the person swerving in traffic would be dealt with, does that nullify anarchy completely in your mind?

I guess I'm wondering if this hypothetical situation is enough to make you say checkmate?
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of our DUI laws, there shouldn't be a penalty for drunk driving, only drunk crashing. If you are swerving or driving erratically that is it's own crime, reckless or improper driving. The why you are driving reckless or improper shouldn't matter.
 
#8,121
#8,121
TNsnyper20 said:
This doesn't follow your rules though. No victim, no crime. And how many times do you detain him before you take more action?
Click to expand...

It doesn't and I realize that. But, my thinking is, you're dealing with someone not in their right mind while they're drunk. Allowing them to sleep it off and charging them a nominal fee would be much preferable to having their life ruined by our current methods of enforcement.
 
#8,122
#8,122
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It doesn't and I realize that. But, my thinking is, you're dealing with someone not in their right mind while they're drunk. Allowing them to sleep it off and charging them a nominal fee would be much preferable to having their life ruined by our current methods of enforcement.
Click to expand...

So how many times do you allow them to pay a fine and move on?

Our current methods of enforcement don't ruin crap for drunk or impaired drivers.
 
#8,123
#8,123
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The point you miss is we'd have agreed beforehand to use an arbitrator and you'd have freely entered into the contract. So..... Refusing to pay, you'd be breaking the contract. And you would be dealt with until the contract is met.

What does morality have to do with anything? Ask your government, they hold themselves up as the moral authority of the land. Yet, use theft as a means of survival.
Click to expand...

1. But the only recourse available is the same as our governments, threat of violence because I wouldn't go peacefully.

2. Our government claims no moral authority of the land. It has legal authority.

You also need to remember you hold some responsibility for everything our government does either through your actions or inaction.
 
#8,124
#8,124
TNsnyper20 said:
So how many times do you allow them to pay a fine and move on?

Our current methods of enforcement don't ruin crap for drunk or impaired drivers.
Click to expand...
Under AnCap, there wouldn't be any records being kept. So, as many times as it takes I guess.

The actual penalties depends on the state. Some places you lose your license for a year, and have to pay a very hefty fine. In some cases upwards of 10k. As well as losing your job and many other things that come with being out of work.
Meanwhile, he hurt no one. Where does this money go?
 
#8,125
#8,125
hog88 said:
1. But the only recourse available is the same as our governments, threat of violence because I wouldn't go peacefully.

2. Our government claims no moral authority of the land. It has legal authority.

You also need to remember you hold some responsibility for everything our government does either through your actions or inaction.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is a good time for the questions.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    60.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top