To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#8,127
#8,127
hog88 said:
The 5 questions are BS. Why you ask? They keep referencing "moral right", what is a moral right? How about make it relevant and change the questions to legal right?
Click to expand...

Is taxation moral? Is murder moral? Is coercion moral? Is torture moral? All practices of the U.S. GOVERNMENT.

To respond to your assertion that I hold some of the blame for what this criminal enterprise called government does. I say no, because of the very reasons listed above.

The questions are what they are.
 
#8,128
#8,128
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Is taxation moral? Is murder moral? Is coercion moral? Is torture moral? All practices of the U.S. GOVERNMENT.

To respond to your assertion that I hold some of the blame for what this criminal enterprise called government does. I say no, because of the very reasons listed above.

The questions are what they are.
Click to expand...

Yes you do, the same as me and every other citizen. Responsibility lies with your vote and your political activity or inactivity.

Work for a change if you despise it so much.
 
#8,129
#8,129
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
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?
Click to expand...

So under AnCap there really isn't a reason to stop doing it. Especially if you have money since no records are being kept. Meaning if you have money you can get away with anything as long as it doesn't involve a victim.

On the second part. I agree there needs to be a fund of some sort that it goes directly into. Road repairs, just to name one. No argument from me there. However... Victim or no victim the person should pay.. Both monetary and socially. Lost your job over it? Then you should have been more responsible.

So there is a reason I went this route obviously. There was a guy that hit my father in law several years ago. He was intoxicated and had some pills on his person. Had been stopped multiple times before for similar things. Now after a short probation he's apparently changed his life around and active in the church. And I'm truly thankful that he's changed, I am. But had something more strict had happened before hand on his "victimless" crimes maybe it could have been avoided. My point is.... Victimless crimes will lead to crimes that involve victims if you allow them a pass.


Here is a picture of this past December of me showing my father in law our newest son that he will never be able to hold.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20150111_144112229.jpg
    IMG_20150111_144112229.jpg
    37.4 KB · Views: 1
#8,130
#8,130
I am sorry for what happened to him first off. Secondly, I'm sure you realize driving is by far the most dangerous thing we do everyday. Bad things happen to good people everyday, you can have all the laws you want, it won't change anything. There are something like 180,000 pages of laws in this country, what changes? People are going to do what they will do. Making the laws stricter may deter some, not all.
Then you get the casual guy that just had a beer or two with his friends at the bar ensnared in this stricter law and standards. It's a slippery slope.
Again, I'm sorry for what happened to your father in law. I don't drink and drive for those very reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,131
#8,131
hog88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this....u shouldn't drive drunk period
 
#8,133
#8,133
volbeast33 said:
I completely disagree with this....u shouldn't drive drunk period
Click to expand...

Shouldn't drive reckless regardless of reason, period! You should be in favor of applying the same penalties for DUI (non-crash) to texting, eating, putting on makeup or anything else that impairs your ability to drive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,134
#8,134
hog88 said:
Yes you do, the same as me and every other citizen. Responsibility lies with your vote and your political activity or inactivity.

Work for a change if you despise it so much.
Click to expand...

I do a lot hog. I talk to everyone who will listen, and explain how government is immoral. I donate to places I feel have the message of liberty and self governance as well as education in the forefront of the message. I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk as well.
 
#8,135
#8,135
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I do a lot hog. I talk to everyone who will listen, and explain how government is immoral. I donate to places I feel have the message of liberty and self governance as well as education in the forefront of the message. I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk as well.
Click to expand...

Then my hat is off to you. We may be on opposite sides of the spectrum but I respect anyone who actually takes action.
 
#8,136
#8,136
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I am sorry for what happened to him first off. Secondly, I'm sure you realize driving is by far the most dangerous thing we do everyday. Bad things happen to good people everyday, you can have all the laws you want, it won't change anything. There are something like 180,000 pages of laws in this country, what changes? People are going to do what they will do. Making the laws stricter may deter some, not all.
Then you get the casual guy that just had a beer or two with his friends at the bar ensnared in this stricter law and standards. It's a slippery slope.
Again, I'm sorry for what happened to your father in law. I don't drink and drive for those very reasons.
Click to expand...

No apology needed. You weren't involved in it.

Even if those laws deter the some then it's worth it imo. It is a slippery slope, however it was the casual persons choice to drive if he had to many to drink. That falls on personally responsibility. And the results of the actions they took is what they get and deserved.

My point was a little personal, but you can see how a victimless crime can lead to crimes that involve victims.
 
#8,137
#8,137
hog88 said:
Shouldn't drive reckless regardless of reason, period! You should be in favor of applying the same penalties for DUI (non-crash) to texting, eating, putting on makeup or anything else that impairs your ability to drive.
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of that actually.
 
#8,138
#8,138
TNsnyper20 said:
No apology needed. You weren't involved in it.

Even if those laws deter the some then it's worth it imo. It is a slippery slope, however it was the casual persons choice to drive if he had to many to drink. That falls on personally responsibility. And the results of the actions they took is what they get and deserved.

My point was a little personal, but you can see how a victimless crime can lead to crimes that involve victims.
Click to expand...

And I hope you can see the slippery slope that it causes.
 
#8,140
#8,140
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Beast, let me ask you a serious question. Is there any law you don't agree with?
Click to expand...

Not sure off the top of my head....some of the drug laws I don't agree....I disagree with several regulations regarding business....taking assets....I'm sure there are plenty more
 
#8,141
#8,141
hog88 said:
Shouldn't drive reckless regardless of reason, period! You should be in favor of applying the same penalties for DUI (non-crash) to texting, eating, putting on makeup or anything else that impairs your ability to drive.
Click to expand...

It isn't just reckless driving....it severely causes delayed reaction time....I think u can eat and drive without impairment....texting and makeup I can agree with but much harder to prove
 
#8,142
#8,142
TNsnyper20 said:
I would like to know your definition of a victimless crime.

A guy driving intoxicated or a teenage driving under the influence of prescription pills? If no one is hurt is this a victimless crime? Should a LEO or privatized "protection" just let this person drive on and wait for an accident?
Click to expand...

Unlike some on here, I think it's fine to have a DUI charge, even with no victim, as long as they were pulled over because their driving was erratic. If a person is swerving/driving recklessly, they are clearly endangering the public and should be pulled over. While there is no current victim, I'm okay with preventing one, again, as long as the person is a clear and present danger to those around him/her.

Now, DUI traffic stops are a different story. I think that's a fishing expedition where someone who had three or four beers can have his or her life potentially turned upside down, even if he or she is perfectly capable of driving and were driving fine.

I think it's not only possible but should be simple for any reasonable individual to make a distinction between these two cases(a drunk guy driving recklessly, clearly endangering others, gets pulled over legitimately vs. someone who is barely above the legal limit but was driving perfectly fine and just got caught in a police trap).

We can examine a couple more examples of what I think distinctly separates a victimless crime from the literal definition versus the spirit of the term.

Jim Bob brandishes his loaded firearm on main street and starts taking potshots at pigeons, shouting about how the birds are coming for his Twinkies. In the literal interpretation, Jim Bob is isn't harming anyone or damaging any property as long as his aim is true. It's a victimless crime. However, Jim Bob's behavior is very clearly endangering the public. I don't think he's committing a victimless crime in the spirit of the term because of the immediate potential threat he is to others.

Contrast that with these examples:

Peggy Sue is driving completely sober with a stash of narcotics in her trunk. She gets pulled over because of a broken taillight and her life is ruined when they find the drugs in her car.

Billy Ray and his buddies play a game of cards every friday night in the back room of his bar. No one is forced to play, and everyone consents to their own money being at stake. Billy Ray's business gets shut down because the cops heard they were gambling.

Two consenting adults agree to monetary payment for sex. Bobby Joe does not abuse his date, they simply have sex and he pays the agreed amount. But as he drives away, he is pulled over and busted by the cops, making him a criminal and possibly affecting his life forever concerning job opportunities, etc.


Personally, I don't think these distinctions are difficult to make. Jim Bob the pigeon shooter and the reckless drunk driver had not victimized anyone yet, but they were clear and immediate dangers to those around them. Peggy Sue the party girl, Billy Ray the poker player, and lonely ol' Bobby Joe were never a threat to victimize anyone more than you or me sitting here at our computers, yet they are criminals. :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top