To Protect and to Serve II

[MercyPercy]

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.

You're essentially saying it's a valid law because the government says so. Wow, what a deep, thought provoking argument. Something I had surely never considered!

I already know the laws are validated by the government. That doesn't make them right. Slavery used to be legal. I'm asking for the justification. If people can't provide one, then it should not be a law.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Do you think it is unfair to be compelled to follow the rules of the place you voluntarily chose to live?

By the way, I meant "the man" to refer to gubmint....not just any individual man.

As for following the rules of the community or complex, that's fine. Because I would have voluntarily agreed beforehand. Thats is a contract.

As for federal and state law, no. The only true crime the Feds or state should enforce is crimes against persons or property.

 

[RobsPics]

You're essentially saying it's a valid law because the government says so. Wow, what a deep, thought provoking argument. Something I had surely never considered!

I already know the laws are validated by the government. That doesn't make them right. Slavery used to be legal. I'm asking for the justification. If people can't provide one, then it should not be a law.

Yes laws are valid if the SCOTUS says so. And I agree that does not necessarily make any law right. Reasonable people can have differing opinions of what is right. That's why we leave it to a majority of the SCOTUS to decide those questions. Allowing individuals to be the final arbiter of "validity" and "right" of laws is anarchy, because there is no guarantee everyone will agree.

An your last sentence only applies to a pure direct democracy. People is such a system should justify the laws that they themselves write. But that's not the case in this country.

 

[RobsPics]

As for following the rules of the community or complex, that's fine. Because I would have voluntarily agreed beforehand. Thats is a contract.

As for federal and state law, no. The only true crime the Feds or state should enforce is crimes against persons or property.

But the United States is a community. So is the state and city you live in. So people who chose to live in these communities impliedly agree to obey the laws of these communities.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

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.



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.

The constitution is printed on 6 pieces of paper. The criminal code and tax code of this country would take up 800,000 pages. That's insane.
Government cannot bring order, that would imply they are everywhere all the time. (Hello NSA)
Does government bring order when you go grocery shopping? No. It's truly anarchy, it's all around us. Every breath of every day. Just like the police cannot keep us safe, neither can government. Call it organized chaos if you will, people act out of self interest for mutual benefit. That is the very essence of humanity. Unless you believe that Hobbesian bs. That people are naturally viscous animals. Thinking about your usual day, how many violent animals tried to savage you? Yet, how many peaceful exchanges did you make with your fellow man? It's anarchy bro, it's the essence of man. No rulers.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

But the United States is a community. So is the state and city you live in. So people who chose to live in these communities impliedly agree to obey the laws of these communities.

Can you show me a contract where I agreed to these terms?

 

[RobsPics]

Can you show me a contract where I agreed to these terms?

That's why i said impliedly. If you eat at a restaurant, you can't later say "sorry waiter, I never signed a contract agreeing to pay for this food". The fact that you voluntarily sat down and ate the food implies you agreed to pay for the food. Similarly, the fact that you voluntarily live in the US, implies that you agreed to follow the rules of the US.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

That's why i said impliedly. If you eat at a restaurant, you can't later say "sorry waiter, I never signed a contract agreeing to pay for this food". The fact that you voluntarily sat down and ate the food implies you agreed to pay for the food. Similarly, the fact that you voluntarily live in the US, implies that you agreed to follow the rules of the US.

That's quite a leap from obeying federal and state laws. At a restaurant, if you're not happy with the food, you can always send it back or refuse to pay.

 

[RobsPics]

That's quite a leap from obeying federal and state laws. At a restaurant, if you're not happy with the food, you can always send it back or refuse to pay.

You can also leave the restaurant. Likewise, if you don't like the laws in the US, you can always lobby to have it changed. Or leave the country.

By the way, it's up to the restaurant whether or not to honor your refusal to pay. They might honor your refusal just of hospitality. But they are under no obligation to do so after they have provided you with food.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You can also leave the restaurant. Likewise, if you don't like the laws in the US, you can always lobby to have it changed. Or leave the country.

That's the third time today lol

 

[RobsPics]

That's the third time today lol

Well it's true.

The fact that you never explicitly agreed to follow any law is irrelevant. The fact that you voluntarily choose to live in the US implies you agree to follow the law.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You can also leave the restaurant. Likewise, if you don't like the laws in the US, you can always lobby to have it changed. Or leave the country.

That's the third time today lol

About your edit. The restaurant is subjected to market forces, the government isn't.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Well it's true.

The fact that you never explicitly agreed to follow any law is irrelevant. The fact that you voluntarily choose to live in the US implies you agree to follow the law.

So the government owns everything?

 

[RobsPics]

That's the third time today lol

About your edit. The restaurant is subjected to market forces, the government isn't.

That has nothing to do with your assertion that you never agreed to follow the laws. Market forces or government forces, it is implied you will pay for the food you ordered...just like it is implied you will follow the laws of where you live.

 

[RobsPics]

So the government owns everything?

The government regulates areas within it's borders. The fact you live within government borders implies that you agree to follow the rules within government borders.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

That has nothing to do with your assertion that you never agreed to follow the laws. Market forces or government forces, it is implied you will pay for the food you ordered...just like it is implied you will follow the laws of where you live.

I'm afraid you don't understand what I meant. If a restaurant serves bad food and people complain, the restaurant will change of go out of business.
If you have issue with the government, there is no alternative. Only forced compliance.

 

[RobsPics]

I'm afraid you don't understand what I meant. If a restaurant serves bad food and people complain, the restaurant will change of go out of business.
If you have issue with the government, there is no alternative. Only forced compliance.

Yes there is an alternative, if people don't like their government, they can vote in new reps. If people don't like the laws, they can appeal to the court system. Those are alternatives.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

The government regulates areas within it's borders. The fact you live within government borders implies that you agree to follow the rules within government borders.

How so? Just because you choose to follow some completely arbitrary set of laws places no moral obligation upon anyone else to obey. The only thing the government has is threats of violence as a claim to its "legitimacy."

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Yes there is an alternative, if people don't like their government, they can vote in new reps. If people don't like the laws, they can appeal to the court system. Those are alternatives.

We're 230 years into this experiment, and its only getting worse. Nice choices.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over the same way expecting different results.

 

[RobsPics]

How so? Just because you choose to follow some completely arbitrary set of laws places no moral obligation upon anyone else to obey. The only thing the government has is threats of violence as a claim to its "legitimacy."

Just because a patron agrees to pay an arbitrary price at a restaurant, doesn't mean you as a patron have obligation to pay the same price at the same restaurant? You agreed to pay the price when you agreed to be served in the restaurant. Just like you agreed to follow the laws when you agreed to live in the US.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Just because a patron agrees to pay an arbitrary price at a restaurant, doesn't mean you as a patron have obligation to pay the same price at the same restaurant? You agreed to pay the price when you agreed to be served in the restaurant. Just like you agreed to follow the laws when you agreed to live in the US.

Again, that's the Grand Canyon as far as leaps of logic goes.

 

[RobsPics]

We're 230 years into this experiment, and its only getting worse. Nice choices.

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over the same way expecting different results.

Except different results have been achieved. Slavery abolished, jim crow abolished, racial segregation abolished. Those are examples of different results.

 

[RobsPics]

Again, that's the Grand Canyon as far as leaps of logic goes.

It's the same logic. Implied agreement through voluntary acts. If you voluntarily eat restaurant food, you impliedly agree to pay for it. Likewise, if you voluntarily live in the US, you impliedly agree to follow its laws.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Except different results have been achieved. Slavery abolished, jim crow abolished, racial segregation abolished. Those are examples of different results.

Lol ok. I take it you also think the civil rights act of 1964 accomplished something? Let me clue you in on something, a business should have the right to refuse service to any one they choose regardless of reason. The government force involved in making people comply is immoral on its face.

 

[RobsPics]

Lol ok. I take it you also think the civil rights act of 1964 accomplished something? Let me clue you in on something, a business should have the right to refuse service to any one they choose regardless of reason. The government force involved in making people comply is immoral on its face.

You suggested that nothing has changed. I provided you with examples of change. Now you are switching the subject to FCRA validity. I never even referenced the issue of FRCA validity. I just referenced change, which you suggested has not occurred.