dealing with cops on OCing..again !

[BriKuz]

We all live in the complicated web of relationships called society. Our particular society has accepted certain agreements or contracts if you will, of proper behavior towards one another as means to protect individual rights of everyone from the infringing behavior of others. What constitutes a freedom and what constitutes an infringement is a topic up for much debate in what we call the world of politics.

We can either chose to be apart of said society and agree to the contracts herein and receive what benefits that entails or we can chose another path and accept the consequences of that choice.

I understand your sentiment about not wanting to be a mind numbed robot who simply obeys without question, but the way your post reads, it sounds like you'd prefer it if there was no rule of law at all. Unfortunately such a situation never lasts for long as political power abhors a vacuum. Sooner or later, someone with the might will take over and start a new society with new laws and social contacts and you're back to square one. Why would anything else be better than what we have right now? What would you have us replace our current system with?

Politeness is a lubricant for social interactions between wild animals who's core genetic motive is to make sure that THEIR genes, through their children are passed on at the expense of all others. Each of us is choosing a way to pass OUR genetics and beliefs to as many in the future generation as possible. Some of us choose to do this by living our lives as WE see fit, interfering with other's livelihoods only by working harder or cheaper or smarter. Others compete by attempting to use force to divide off small groups and conquer them one by one... and by removing the ability to defend themselves, either by force or communications...

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I see very little need for an expansive "rule of law"... especially when that rule-of-law is used in a tyrannical way to remove the rights of others by force...

[TunnelRat]

... Why would anything else be better than what we have right now? What would you have us replace our current system with?

...
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I see very little need for an expansive "rule of law"... especially when that rule-of-law is used in a tyrannical way to remove the rights of others by force...

Good points, both.

On the other hand, so long as that rule of law is not "used in a tyrannical way to remove the rights of others by force", we seem to be on track...

Some are anarchists, who seem to be unable to relate socially: neither understanding politeness, custom, nor lawfully delegated authority. They love to "rage against the machine", and to "speak truth to power". Then they proclaim that those who do not likewise rage and rant do not understand the meaning of 'liberty'.

I carry a firearm daily. I have for decades. Sometimes I carry my firearm openly. Other times (being duly licensed) I carry it concealed. In any case, I endeavor to keep the laws as written. I tend to cooperate, as necessary, with the police in accordance with the requirements of the law.

Sometimes that means I do what I am told; sometimes it means I ask an officer to call for a supervisor. My object is to get on with my business -- not to attempt to become some sort of test case.

[Klingon00]

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I see very little need for an expansive "rule of law"... especially when that rule-of-law is used in a tyrannical way to remove the rights of others by force...

I quite agree, that's why I vote to attempt to influence the direction of our society using the peaceful tools available to me at this time. Tools that although perhaps somewhat diminished over time are still better than what is available in any other society on this planet that I am aware of. Remember that peaceful tools to change a course of a society are the exception rather than the norm in this world.

Edit: I would like to add that I would like to have enough rule of law to enable a system in which I can peacefully petition a redress of grievances while baring such rule of law from infringing my basic human rights. In other words, I would prefer it if our own rule of law would return to respect of the US constitution and Bill of Rights. I do not believe that we should be so quick to completely throw the baby out with the bathwater though to achieve that goal.

[Werz]

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I see very little need for an expansive "rule of law"... especially when that rule-of-law is used in a tyrannical way to remove the rights of others by force...

I quite agree, that's why I vote to attempt to influence the direction of our society using the peaceful tools available to me at this time. Tools that although perhaps somewhat diminished over time are still better than what is available in any other society on this planet that I am aware of. Remember that peaceful tools to change a course of a society are the exception rather than the norm in this world.

Edit: I would like to add that I would like to have enough rule of law to enable a system in which I can peacefully petition a redress of grievances while baring such rule of law from infringing my basic human rights. In other words, I would prefer it if our own rule of law would return to respect of the US constitution and Bill of Rights. I do not believe that we should be so quick to completely throw the baby out with the bathwater though to achieve that goal.

An excellent point. Even John Locke - whose beliefs were geared toward liberty and whose writings were influential in the creation of the Bill of Rights - agreed that that the social contract must delegate to an impartial authority the power to judge and punish because that task can too easily devolve into the Hobbesian "state of nature" - an anarchy ruled by the strongest and most brutal - where everyone is too driven by their own self-interest to deal fairly with others. A reasonably independent authority to whom one can "peacefully petition a redress of grievances" is essential.

[whoownsyou]

especially when that rule-of-law is used in a tyrannical way to remove the rights of others by force...

A "law" is a command backed by threat of violence. The only "laws" that are not tyranical ways to remove the rights of others by force are the ones that don't need written down to begin with: theft, rape, kidnapping, assault, murder, and fraud for example. In other words, REAL crimes with REAL victims.

[Klingon00]

A "law" is a command backed by threat of violence. The only "laws" that are not tyranical ways to remove the rights of others by force are the ones that don't need written down to begin with: theft, rape, kidnapping, assault, murder, and fraud for example. In other words, REAL crimes with REAL victims.

Rules often have consequences for those who disobey or they become meaningless. Laws you consider not tyrannical may very well seem tyrannical to the rapist's point of view. The difference between the lawless thug demanding what you refuse to give and a representative government doing the same under rule of law, is whether you have the ability to peaceably petition for redress of grievances or not.

If you were accused of rape, would you rather be tried by a jury of your peers or simply face the wrath of the vigilante who believes as you do, that his actions are not tyrannical and his punishment is just? A thug that needs no approval from anyone of his methods because they need not be written?

[Werz]

especially when that rule-of-law is used in a tyrannical way to remove the rights of others by force...

A "law" is a command backed by threat of violence. The only "laws" that are not tyranical ways to remove the rights of others by force are the ones that don't need written down to begin with: theft, rape, kidnapping, assault, murder, and fraud for example. In other words, REAL crimes with REAL victims.

If such "laws ... don't need written down," then who defines them? Rape, in particular, is highly subject to interpretation from a lay person's perspective, depending on which side of the sexual controversy you abide.

Do you arrogate to yourself the position of supreme arbiter in defining these crimes?

[TunnelRat]

Do you arrogate to yourself the position of supreme arbiter in defining these crimes?

Actually, I think you've summed up his position quite succinctly.

[Werz]

Do you arrogate to yourself the position of supreme arbiter in defining these crimes?

Actually, I think you've summed up his position quite succinctly.

It's good to be king.

[whoownsyou]

Laws you consider not tyrannical may very well seem tyrannical to the rapist's point of view.

This sentence leads me to believe that you do not know what tyrannical means. Rape is the initiation of force, meaning the rapist is subjecting himself to respondent force. Is this morally identical to you working a shift at your job? Because when you work a shift at your job, there are various people pointing a gun at your head, taking some of what you earned against your will. Is this tyrannical or respondent force?

If such "laws ... don't need written down," then who defines them? Rape, in particular, is highly subject to interpretation from a lay person's perspective, depending on which side of the sexual controversy you abide.

The question of "who" defines them is invalid. Morality is not up to you or me or any person(s).

You offer the example of rape. Each person owns themselves and therefore has the right to dictate with whom they do and do not engage in sexual activity with. Should anybody engage another person in a sexual activity without consent, they are violating the property rights (body and time) of their victim, which is immoral.

The only people who believe rape is subject to interpretation are people willing to alter the meaning of words to disguise evil. Killing somebody is somehow moral when you call it war for example. These are people who are dangerous, not people who should be obeyed or perceived as some moral authority.

[TunnelRat]

[Werz]

Laws you consider not tyrannical may very well seem tyrannical to the rapist's point of view.

This sentence leads me to believe that you do not know what tyrannical means. Rape is the initiation of force, meaning the rapist is subjecting himself to respondent force. Is this morally identical to you working a shift at your job? Because when you work a shift at your job, there are various people pointing a gun at your head, taking some of what you earned against your will. Is this tyrannical or respondent force?

If such "laws ... don't need written down," then who defines them? Rape, in particular, is highly subject to interpretation from a lay person's perspective, depending on which side of the sexual controversy you abide.

The question of "who" defines them is invalid. Morality is not up to you or me or any person(s).

You offer the example of rape. Each person owns themselves and therefore has the right to dictate with whom they do and do not engage in sexual activity with. Should anybody engage another person in a sexual activity without consent, they are violating the property rights (body and time) of their victim, which is immoral.

And that immorality goes unpunished? The victim is powerless to prevent the rape and is equally unable to punish the perpetrator. Then who punishes the offender? And who does that person believe? If the rape is committed at gunpoint, there is no visible evidence of force. What if the alleged perpetrator says it was consensual and there is no physical evidence to the contrary? Do you think all rapes are accompanied by a beating, just like you see on TV? Conversely, are you aware that some people enjoy, and consensual engage in, "rough sex"? How do you define if it is rape or not? How do you determine who is credible? If not you, then who?

The only people who believe rape is subject to interpretation are people willing to alter the meaning of words to disguise evil. Killing somebody is somehow moral when you call it war for example. These are people who are dangerous, not people who should be obeyed or perceived as some moral authority.

Your vague references to evil do not excuse your inability to define what rape is, by whom it is to be defined, and what is credible evidence of the same. Your sophistry fails at every turn.

[Tweed Ring]

Hobbes. Locke. Thank you for such references. Clearly makes the discussion more interesting.

[Klingon00]

Laws you consider not tyrannical may very well seem tyrannical to the rapist's point of view.

This sentence leads me to believe that you do not know what tyrannical means.

I'm sure many rapists would like to have job security too. I'm sure they feel that punishing the only thing they are good at as unfair and unjust. Who are you or anyone else to judge or impose morality upon them? Punishing them would just be the initiation of force after all which according to your logic is equal to rape.

The question of "who" defines them is invalid. Morality is not up to you or me or any person(s).

If morality is universal, as you claim, then it must be so clear to the rapist that the rape can never occur in the first place.

You offer the example of rape. Each person owns themselves and therefore has the right to dictate with whom they do and do not engage in sexual activity with. Should anybody engage another person in a sexual activity without consent, they are violating the property rights (body and time) of their victim, which is immoral.

Agreed. However, only agreeing that something is immoral doesn't really do much to stop someone intent on immoral behavior nor prevent them from doing it again now does it?

Your vague references to evil do not excuse your inability to define what rape is, by whom it is to be defined, and what is credible evidence of the same. Your sophistry fails at every turn.

Well said Werz.

[whoownsyou]

Punishing them would just be the initiation of force after all which according to your logic is equal to rape.

Since you've expressed an interest in determining right from wrong, I urge you to become familiar with the difference between force and the initiation of force. Especially if you carry a firearm. My apologies if I'm being presumptive; given your participation on this website, I felt it was a safe bet.