(06-25-2021, 11:15 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-25-2021, 07:06 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]It was a matter of time before this got brought up. I was going to chime in but had so much fun watching people debate Dimsom.
I can see, or not see on the news, “we’ve got a jumper!” But no one cares. There’s no victim. Unless he does jump. But he didn’t jump at the time, so we let it go, oh [BLEEP]; he jumped. Let’s save the victim or the murderer?
Clearly in this case, and the one I brought up, there is no crime. Someone who is going to jump off a building needs mental health care not to be imprisoned, and that's the same with anyone who chooses self harm. But you also can't save everyone because many people of sound mind simply want out of life. It's the same with assisted suicide, if the person chooses to die who are we to stop them, but we should draw the line when it isn't really that person's choice. But it seems some of these people would be locking up Stage 4 cancer patients if they failed to end their lives. I think the clearest similar situation is gambling. I don't think anyone here thinks we should arrest people for playing poker, but it's against the law in many places even while the State endorses gambling on sports, animal racing, intra- and interstate lotteries, and casinos. And deity forbid you should sell beer or whisky off your porch without a license. Heck in NYC we had a race riot over a guy getting killed by the cops for "selling loose cigarettes", because that's really something that the State should criminalize, right? Nah, why be free when it's better to have a Police State where the government gets to tell everyone what they can and can't do with their own bodies because some of them might do things with which others disagree. Stealing for drugs should be no different that stealing for rent or stealing for a vacation or stealing for pocket money. Stealing is stealing no matter the reason why. Forcing people in to prostitution should be a crime the same as forcing people to be a nanny, a seamstress, or a gardener. Forced labor is forced labor no matter the labor. Neglecting your kids should be crime no matter the reason why you did it. But doing drugs or being a prostitute in and of themselves are only crimes because somebody somewhere thought they had the right to tell other people that they do not have the right to their own bodies, and that, well, that is just not right.
I know we don't really agree with you when it comes to the Jags, lol, but I couldn't agree with you more when it comes to this.
(06-25-2021, 08:35 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-25-2021, 07:33 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]You did not answer the question. Answer mine and then I’ll answer yours.
Stealing is a crime, being a drug addict is not.
Cause and effect. The addiction lead to desperation, the desperation lead to crime.
(06-26-2021, 05:06 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (06-25-2021, 08:35 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]Stealing is a crime, being a drug addict is not.
Cause and effect. The addiction lead to desperation, the desperation lead to crime.
And every time I wash my car it rains...
(06-26-2021, 07:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 05:06 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Cause and effect. The addiction lead to desperation, the desperation lead to crime.
And every time I wash my car it rains...
You and Dimson have the philosophy of "if there is no victim, there is no crime." Which sounds good, but what you are really saying is, you don't want to do anything to protect the public. Therefore to you, drunk driving is okay, as long as no one gets injured. You'd punish the drunk driver if he hits anybody. But that completely leaves out the aspect of public safety. A lot of laws that proscribe certain behaviors are there to protect the public, because even though it's possible that nothing bad will happen as a result of that behavior, there is enough of a risk that society can reasonably ask to be protected from that behavior.
Libertarianism is fine as long as you are willing to draw a line somewhere reasonable. But the kind of all-out, unlimited libertarianism that you two are espousing is completely impractical and unacceptable to almost everyone. The question is, should you have unlimited freedom to risk my life as long as I am not harmed? I would say, the possibility of harm has to be measured and judged and then we have the right to decide whether it's reasonable to put a restriction on your behavior.
Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one else is watching.
Some of the things mentioned may not be a crime in the technical sense but that doesn't mean they should be done. We are not islands unto ourselves and everything we do, say and think affects us and others. To think differently, especially if you have some life experience and age behind you, is plain willful ignorance and you just don't want to feel responsible for anything or anyone.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
(06-26-2021, 09:45 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 07:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]And every time I wash my car it rains...
You and Dimson have the philosophy of "if there is no victim, there is no crime." Which sounds good, but what you are really saying is, you don't want to do anything to protect the public. Therefore to you, drunk driving is okay, as long as no one gets injured. You'd punish the drunk driver if he hits anybody. But that completely leaves out the aspect of public safety. A lot of laws that proscribe certain behaviors are there to protect the public, because even though it's possible that nothing bad will happen as a result of that behavior, there is enough of a risk that society can reasonably ask to be protected from that behavior.
Libertarianism is fine as long as you are willing to draw a line somewhere reasonable. But the kind of all-out, unlimited libertarianism that you two are espousing is completely impractical and unacceptable to almost everyone. The question is, should you have unlimited freedom to risk my life as long as I am not harmed? I would say, the possibility of harm has to be measured and judged and then we have the right to decide whether it's reasonable to put a restriction on your behavior.
If nothing happens to the public, why do you want it to be a crime? If nothing effects someone else, why should it be a crime? If you want to gather rain water to water your plants, by law you can't. Why should that be a law? If you want to set up a lemonade stand to make a little extra money, you should be able to without getting a permit. If you want to cut hair for a living you should be able to without getting a license. If what you are doing does not impede on someone else's life, liberty or property, it should not be a law.
(06-26-2021, 02:24 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 09:45 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You and Dimson have the philosophy of "if there is no victim, there is no crime." Which sounds good, but what you are really saying is, you don't want to do anything to protect the public. Therefore to you, drunk driving is okay, as long as no one gets injured. You'd punish the drunk driver if he hits anybody. But that completely leaves out the aspect of public safety. A lot of laws that proscribe certain behaviors are there to protect the public, because even though it's possible that nothing bad will happen as a result of that behavior, there is enough of a risk that society can reasonably ask to be protected from that behavior.
Libertarianism is fine as long as you are willing to draw a line somewhere reasonable. But the kind of all-out, unlimited libertarianism that you two are espousing is completely impractical and unacceptable to almost everyone. The question is, should you have unlimited freedom to risk my life as long as I am not harmed? I would say, the possibility of harm has to be measured and judged and then we have the right to decide whether it's reasonable to put a restriction on your behavior.
If nothing happens to the public, why do you want it to be a crime? If nothing effects someone else, why should it be a crime? If you want to gather rain water to water your plants, by law you can't. Why should that be a law? If you want to set up a lemonade stand to make a little extra money, you should be able to without getting a permit. If you want to cut hair for a living you should be able to without getting a license. If what you are doing does not impede on someone else's life, liberty or property, it should not be a law.
Most states have no regulation on the collection of rainwater, and if fact, encourage the practice.
What if someone becomes sick from a lemonade stand?
What if someone suffers from an infected cut with a razor by an untrained barber who is not practicing mandated hygiene laws?
You seem to think these laws are written in a vacuum by politicians and bureaucrats with the sheer intent to create hardship. They're written and enforced because of adverse incidences. Health and safety laws are there for a purpose.
(06-26-2021, 03:06 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 02:24 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]If nothing happens to the public, why do you want it to be a crime? If nothing effects someone else, why should it be a crime? If you want to gather rain water to water your plants, by law you can't. Why should that be a law? If you want to set up a lemonade stand to make a little extra money, you should be able to without getting a permit. If you want to cut hair for a living you should be able to without getting a license. If what you are doing does not impede on someone else's life, liberty or property, it should not be a law.
Most states have no regulation on the collection of rainwater, and if fact, encourage the practice.
What if someone becomes sick from a lemonade stand?
What if someone suffers from an infected cut with a razor by an untrained barber who is not practicing mandated hygiene laws?
You seem to think these laws are written in a vacuum by politicians and bureaucrats with the sheer intent to create hardship. They're written and enforced because of adverse incidences. Health and safety laws are there for a purpose.
If you get sick from a lemonade stand you treat them like any other business. If know a barber is not practicing hygene laws, you take your business else where. It isn't that hard of a concept.
(06-26-2021, 02:24 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 09:45 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You and Dimson have the philosophy of "if there is no victim, there is no crime." Which sounds good, but what you are really saying is, you don't want to do anything to protect the public. Therefore to you, drunk driving is okay, as long as no one gets injured. You'd punish the drunk driver if he hits anybody. But that completely leaves out the aspect of public safety. A lot of laws that proscribe certain behaviors are there to protect the public, because even though it's possible that nothing bad will happen as a result of that behavior, there is enough of a risk that society can reasonably ask to be protected from that behavior.
Libertarianism is fine as long as you are willing to draw a line somewhere reasonable. But the kind of all-out, unlimited libertarianism that you two are espousing is completely impractical and unacceptable to almost everyone. The question is, should you have unlimited freedom to risk my life as long as I am not harmed? I would say, the possibility of harm has to be measured and judged and then we have the right to decide whether it's reasonable to put a restriction on your behavior.
If nothing happens to the public, why do you want it to be a crime? If nothing effects someone else, why should it be a crime? If you want to gather rain water to water your plants, by law you can't. Why should that be a law? If you want to set up a lemonade stand to make a little extra money, you should be able to without getting a permit. If you want to cut hair for a living you should be able to without getting a license. If what you are doing does not impede on someone else's life, liberty or property, it should not be a law.
You are shifting the discussion. You’ll get few arguments from the above, but if you endanger the public such as driving under the influence that is a different story.
(06-26-2021, 07:17 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 02:24 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]If nothing happens to the public, why do you want it to be a crime? If nothing effects someone else, why should it be a crime? If you want to gather rain water to water your plants, by law you can't. Why should that be a law? If you want to set up a lemonade stand to make a little extra money, you should be able to without getting a permit. If you want to cut hair for a living you should be able to without getting a license. If what you are doing does not impede on someone else's life, liberty or property, it should not be a law.
You are shifting the discussion. You’ll get few arguments from the above, but if you endanger the public such as driving under the influence that is a different story.
If no one gets injured or hurt or no property is damaged, how can it be a crime? Plus I am not talking about things you do under the influence of drugs or alcohol, I am talking about the consumption and sale of drugs and alcohol.
(06-26-2021, 11:34 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one else is watching.
Some of the things mentioned may not be a crime in the technical sense but that doesn't mean they should be done. We are not islands unto ourselves and everything we do, say and think affects us and others. To think differently, especially if you have some life experience and age behind you, is plain willful ignorance and you just don't want to feel responsible for anything or anyone.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Who claims the right to say what is the "right thing" for someone else? Why should I be responsible for anyone outside my family? Collective responsibility is not an American principle.
(06-26-2021, 09:45 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 07:06 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]And every time I wash my car it rains...
You and Dimson have the philosophy of "if there is no victim, there is no crime." Which sounds good, but what you are really saying is, you don't want to do anything to protect the public. Therefore to you, drunk driving is okay, as long as no one gets injured. You'd punish the drunk driver if he hits anybody. But that completely leaves out the aspect of public safety. A lot of laws that proscribe certain behaviors are there to protect the public, because even though it's possible that nothing bad will happen as a result of that behavior, there is enough of a risk that society can reasonably ask to be protected from that behavior.
Libertarianism is fine as long as you are willing to draw a line somewhere reasonable. But the kind of all-out, unlimited libertarianism that you two are espousing is completely impractical and unacceptable to almost everyone. The question is, should you have unlimited freedom to risk my life as long as I am not harmed? I would say, the possibility of harm has to be measured and judged and then we have the right to decide whether it's reasonable to put a restriction on your behavior.
The question is do you have the right to tell me what to do and put me in jail if I refuse? If so then I am not free and you are my master. Public Safety is a fool's concept that merely gives those who tend towards tyranny another reason to claim mastery of other people. As C.S. Lewis said, it's better to live under Robber Barons than moral busybodies.
(06-26-2021, 07:22 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 07:17 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]You are shifting the discussion. You’ll get few arguments from the above, but if you endanger the public such as driving under the influence that is a different story.
If no one gets injured or hurt or no property is damaged, how can it be a crime? Plus I am not talking about things you do under the influence of drugs or alcohol, I am talking about the consumption and sale of drugs and alcohol.
1. Imagine a knock on your door at 3am for an officer of the law to inform you that your (insert loved one) was killed by a drunk driver. Now imagine hearing on the news the next day that the drunk driver had been pulled over multiple times but released because no one got hurt.
2. I agree with you on self abuse. If you want to sit at home a drink a 12 pack go for it. When you run out and decide to drive to the store to buy another one then we have a problem.
(06-26-2021, 07:37 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 07:22 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]If no one gets injured or hurt or no property is damaged, how can it be a crime? Plus I am not talking about things you do under the influence of drugs or alcohol, I am talking about the consumption and sale of drugs and alcohol.
1. Imagine a knock on your door at 3am for an officer of the law to inform you that your (insert loved one) was killed by a drunk driver. Now imagine hearing on the news the next day that the drunk driver had been pulled over multiple times but released because no one got hurt.
2. I agree with you on self abuse. If you want to sit at home a drink a 12 pack go for it. When you run out and decide to drive to the store to buy another one then we have a problem.
Freedom is messy, tyranny can be very clean.
(06-26-2021, 07:37 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 07:22 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]If no one gets injured or hurt or no property is damaged, how can it be a crime? Plus I am not talking about things you do under the influence of drugs or alcohol, I am talking about the consumption and sale of drugs and alcohol.
1. Imagine a knock on your door at 3am for an officer of the law to inform you that your (insert loved one) was killed by a drunk driver. Now imagine hearing on the news the next day that the drunk driver had been pulled over multiple times but released because no one got hurt.
2. I agree with you on self abuse. If you want to sit at home a drink a 12 pack go for it. When you run out and decide to drive to the store to buy another one then we have a problem.
I would say why didn't that officer take the time to call someone for the clearly drunk driver so they could get home safely. There are ways to handle things without throwing people in jail.
(06-26-2021, 08:15 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 07:37 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]1. Imagine a knock on your door at 3am for an officer of the law to inform you that your (insert loved one) was killed by a drunk driver. Now imagine hearing on the news the next day that the drunk driver had been pulled over multiple times but released because no one got hurt.
2. I agree with you on self abuse. If you want to sit at home a drink a 12 pack go for it. When you run out and decide to drive to the store to buy another one then we have a problem.
I would say why didn't that officer take the time to call someone for the clearly drunk driver so they could get home safely. There are ways to handle things without throwing people in jail.
In your scenario, the officer wouldn't even stop the drunk driver. No victim, therefore no crime, so he wouldn't stop him in the first place. He'd let him continue down the road until he hit and possibly killed someone else.
I think we're beating a dead horse at this point. You don't believe in protecting the public from dangerous behavior. You and I draw that line at a different place. I think it is entirely within the right of the public to forbid people from behaving in a way that endangers other people.
(06-27-2021, 06:31 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2021, 08:15 PM)Dimson Wrote: [ -> ]I would say why didn't that officer take the time to call someone for the clearly drunk driver so they could get home safely. There are ways to handle things without throwing people in jail.
In your scenario, the officer wouldn't even stop the drunk driver. No victim, therefore no crime, so he wouldn't stop him in the first place. He'd let him continue down the road until he hit and possibly killed someone else.
I think we're beating a dead horse at this point. You don't believe in protecting the public from dangerous behavior. You and I draw that line at a different place. I think it is entirely within the right of the public to forbid people from behaving in a way that endangers other people.
As always this conversation slid right down the slope from "People who use drugs or engage in prostitution aren't really committing a crime" to "You mean we shouldn't do anything to protect the public from harm including let people shoot at each other all willy nilly or stop people from passing out drunk in the middle of I-95." And you'll notice that he didn't say anything about not stopping the driver, merely that it wouldn't be treated as a crime. Nuance is an important concept that Statists toss out the window in favor of their "Jail First" lifestyle.
Nuance is irrelevant, because this radical libertarian positions treats all future possibilities as unavailable, which renders authority useless. So, what happens if the driver refuses to pull over? If he ignores the cop and drives anyways? There is no crime. Nothing can be done until someone ends up injured or dead. This is an unreasonable position to take. The founders never said municipalities can't make laws. They only said these types of laws should be made at the most local level. If libertarians want to form their own municipality and live with the fallout of this type of reasoning, they should be allowed to do so. However, most people with common sense want some measure of protection against other people's stupidity.
(06-27-2021, 11:25 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Nuance is irrelevant, because this radical libertarian positions treats all future possibilities as unavailable, which renders authority useless. So, what happens if the driver refuses to pull over? If he ignores the cop and drives anyways? There is no crime. Nothing can be done until someone ends up injured or dead. This is an unreasonable position to take. The founders never said municipalities can't make laws. They only said these types of laws should be made at the most local level. If libertarians want to form their own municipality and live with the fallout of this type of reasoning, they should be allowed to do so. However, most people with common sense want some measure of protection against other people's stupidity.
Like I said, the conversation about what we propose gets devolved into something we aren't. Almost like one those logical fallacies ya'll are always going on about.
(06-27-2021, 11:25 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Nuance is irrelevant, because this radical libertarian positions treats all future possibilities as unavailable, which renders authority useless. So, what happens if the driver refuses to pull over? If he ignores the cop and drives anyways? There is no crime. Nothing can be done until someone ends up injured or dead. This is an unreasonable position to take. The founders never said municipalities can't make laws. They only said these types of laws should be made at the most local level. If libertarians want to form their own municipality and live with the fallout of this type of reasoning, they should be allowed to do so. However, most people with common sense want some measure of protection against other people's stupidity.
People are the problem with most of the extremes. Libertarian or left utopia all fail because some people are evil and don't care about others. You have to have laws because people will do whatever they feel is fine without them, regardless if it hurts or threatens others.
Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk