To Protect and to Serve II

#1,401
#1,401
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
So if people are our problem, why should we give them the power. Sure you vote, do you really think it matters at the end of the day? They'll do what they want anyway. There is no way two people can understand the needs and wants of a whole district. It's lunacy.
Click to expand...

I think/believe under this system with party affiliation as well as the oligarchy we've become voting becomes far less meaningful. I don't think you'll ever see me argue that point. And whether or not the one or two is meeting the "needs and wants" of a whole district is up to the voters as it should be. But unfortunately, the party affiliation determines whether or not a person will ascend to that position to help or not. And honestly, it's growing worse each and every election cycle.

But I also think all governments throughout time follow the same principles, whether it be the Tyranny Liberty Model:

https://adask.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/the-tyranny-liberty-cycle-of-government/

Or the Tytler Cycle:

The Tytler Cycle Revisited | Common Sense Government

Or maybe even a little bit of anarchy mixed in for good measure:

https://darkfort.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/56/

Big picture here, history is our guide and we're on the precipice of dark times regardless of the model you follow.

DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Your last paragraph suggest it's government that brings order. That's crazy talk.
Click to expand...

Governments do bring order, regardless of your thoughts on the matter, as they unify people under a common purpose and direction. Whether that's An-Cap or a Republic, all systems of government seek to gain order from chaos and implement laws. What level of laws is a matter of choice in the type of government.
 
#1,402
#1,402
T-TownVol said:
don't have to look it up....that is old and tired.....you have the option to move and PLEASE take Ras and Huff with ya......
Click to expand...

Oh, but I don't. I suggest you look up the extortion fees involved with renouncing your citizenship. We are not free to leave. Besides, doesn't that just acknowledge that you cannot argue the facts? As well is it being a short cut to actually thinking?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,403
#1,403
Grand Vol said:
Awww, is poor Ras losing his temper because he keeps moving the goalposts and got caught at it?

Here's your post on the matter:



And another:



Now I will freely admit I got my Amendments mixed up today and it's actually a 4th Amendment issue as the right of the people to be secure in their property.

But what's sad is the fact Ras kept arguing it even though I was wrong on the proper legal basis for search and seizure. And I know he won't admit he's wrong. Or he'll say something silly like "I knew all along and was just making you look stupid."

But anyway, window tinting as described in your posts above Ras, is not a 9th Amendment issue. You imply heavily it is to conceal your property inside from unwanted observation from police. While that isn't a 9th Amendment issue, but rather a 4th Amendment issue of unlawful search and seizure. Hence, you moved the goalposts in order to try to look better and move away from the invalid argument you had stated before when screaming about your right to tint your windows.

But the reasons you wanted to tint your windows was to conceal illegal goods from observation. Which makes it a 4th Amendment issue.

Don't go away mad because I can admit when I was wrong and you won't. Don't get mad you changed the parameters of the situation and got called on it. Don't get mad when I show proof of your original intent.
Click to expand...

It should be none of your business (or the state's business) where I keep my valuables or how I decide to protect my privacy on my property.
Click to expand...

And I repeat, why should I have to be bound by that idea that I'm only expected a certain level of privacy in my trunk or glove box, but not the ENTIRE vehicle?
Click to expand...

In the 2 above quotes, you chose to use the privacy argument. I simply chose to use the 9th Amendment. Either way, it is a violation of my Constitutional rights. Instead of creating deflections and avoiding the issue, why don't you focus on the fundamental violation of our rights that drug laws and tinted window laws do everyday when they are enforced instead of cooking up ways to avoid the issue?
 
#1,404
#1,404
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Oh, but I don't. I suggest you look up the extortion fees involved with renouncing your citizenship. We are not free to leave. Besides, doesn't that just acknowledge that you cannot argue the facts? As well is it being a short cut to actually thinking?
Click to expand...

Truly sad.......I choose not to argue your version of the "facts".....good day......
 
#1,407
#1,407
Rasputin_Vol said:
In the 2 above quotes, you chose to use the privacy argument. I simply chose to use the 9th Amendment. Either way, it is a violation of my Constitutional rights. Instead of creating deflections and avoiding the issue, why don't you focus on the fundamental violation of our rights that drug laws and tinted window laws do everyday when they are enforced instead of cooking up ways to avoid the issue?
Click to expand...

Well, you were the one that decided to voice your opinion on how you wanted to conceal your goods, illegal or not. Which makes it a 4th Amendment issue about being secure in your property as those are all the same words used in the 4th Amendment.

I'm not avoiding the issue of tinting windows, just merely pointing out the fallacy of your argument in that you believe it's a 9th Amendment issue when in reality it's a 4th Amendment issue of the reasonable expectation of privacy. If you want to talk about drugs, just say "I want to discuss the legality of drugs" and be done with it. Stop trying to make an argument nobody has advanced.
 
#1,408
#1,408
So, now that's out of the way...

Does anyone else think kleptomania is a valid form of mental illness? And does anyone feel like this might be a condition the subject in the OP could be suffering from?
 
#1,410
#1,410
Grand Vol said:
So, now that's out of the way...

Does anyone else think kleptomania is a valid form of mental illness? And does anyone feel like this might be a condition the subject in the OP could be suffering from?
Click to expand...

I believe so. I am also sure that people who just like stealing **** hide behind the guise of the mental illness. But there are legitimate cases. Some people are compelled to do anything from eating their beds to shouting profanities uncontrollably, feeling compelled to steal isn't a stretch.
 
#1,412
#1,412
Grand Vol said:
So, now that's out of the way...

Does anyone else think kleptomania is a valid form of mental illness? And does anyone feel like this might be a condition the subject in the OP could be suffering from?
Click to expand...

Wait.....I was hoping he meant me.....

My adopted 17 year old son seems to have the illness of just wanting to steal stuff......he does not think it should be against the law to do so, so he keeps doing it.....the military academies that he keeps getting kicked out of (3) do not agree with him......
 
#1,413
#1,413
MercyPercy said:
I believe so. I am also sure that people who just like stealing **** hide behind the guise of the mental illness. But there are legitimate cases. Some people are compelled to do anything from eating their beds to shouting profanities uncontrollably, feeling compelled to steal isn't a stretch.
Click to expand...

I could see a huge difference in something like a "Goodfellas" situation (Jimmy the Gent that just loves to steal) and someone who is taking such trivial items it baffles the mind. I'm sure some do try to hide under the guise of a mental disorder, but for something like candy?

I'd be all about getting this person some help and/or determining if it was indeed a mental disorder before tossing him in jail for 20 years.
 
#1,414
#1,414
RobsPics said:
Are you going how to define "validity" if you do not want people to do it?
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is no man has the right to rule over another man. Only you as a free sentient human being can decide what is best for you. By that same token, you are free to live with the consequences.
 
#1,416
#1,416
When one can only justify the existence of a law with "it's the law", you begin to see problem. Things that are obvious should not be so difficult to justify. Murder: don't harm anyone. Stealing: don't take another's property. There are clear reasons. There are clear victims.

Possessing/selling drugs: uhhh. It's the law!
Gambling: uhhhhh. It's the law!
Rolling stops at 2 AM with no one around: uhhh. It's the law!

In absence of a clear victim, the fallback is always "it's the law."
 
#1,418
#1,418
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The fact of the matter is no man has the right to rule over another man. Only you as a free sentient human being can decide what is best for you. By that same token, you are free to live with the consequences.
Click to expand...

Yes the man does have the right to rule over other men if those other men choose to live where the man lives.
 
#1,419
#1,419
Grand Vol said:
I could see a huge difference in something like a "Goodfellas" situation (Jimmy the Gent that just loves to steal) and someone who is taking such trivial items it baffles the mind. I'm sure some do try to hide under the guise of a mental disorder, but for something like candy?

I'd be all about getting this person some help and/or determining if it was indeed a mental disorder before tossing him in jail for 20 years.
Click to expand...

Yep. This appears to be a real case of mental illness. It's absurd to think that 20 years is a just punishment for even a sane person in this case, much less a mentally ill one.
 
#1,420
#1,420
MercyPercy said:
When one can only justify the existence of a law with "it's the law", you begin to see problem. Things that are obvious should not be so difficult to justify. Murder: don't harm anyone. Stealing: don't take another's property. There are clear reasons. There are clear victims.

Possessing/selling drugs: uhhh. It's the law!
Gambling: uhhhhh. It's the law!
Rolling stops at 2 AM with no one around: uhhh. It's the law!

In absence of a clear victim, the fallback is always "it's the law."
Click to expand...


The response "it's the law" includes the idea that people support the law....since the people voted in their reps who wrote the law.
 
#1,421
#1,421
RobsPics said:
The response "it's the law" includes the idea that people support the law....since the people voted in their reps who wrote the law.
Click to expand...

You completely missed the point. I want people who want those laws to justify them. To explain their reasoning. You're just saying that people want them. No ****, rob.
 
Last edited:
#1,423
#1,423
MercyPercy said:
You completly missed the point. I want people who want those laws to justify them. To explain their reasoning. You're just saying that people want them. No ****, rob.
Click to expand...

You might want people to justify laws, but just because they don't (or are unable to), has no affect on the validity of any particular law. That the job of the legislative body to establish and the court system to review.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top