A bit for Anthony. by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

A bit for Anthony.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 19:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1111
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:36 AM

Not entirely sure if it was you or HKCav who said any time a law *had* to be passed we should treat it like a funeral, but as you seem of similar sentiment, you might appreciate this.

Quote:
LANSING — Gov. Jennifer Granholm has signed legislation getting rid of some of Michigan’s outdated statutes.

The bills signed today get rid of laws specifically banning dueling and forcing women into marriage. Granholm also signed bills eliminating laws dealing with prizefighting.

Prosecutors say modern laws already make it a crime to kidnap, enslave, kill, assault or hurt someone so older statutes covering the same crimes are redundant and unnecessary.

It’s part of an effort to update Michigan law and get rid of unnecessary or duplicative laws.

That's one of the reasons I've always liked Jenny, unlike most politicians, she's got an ounce of common sense, and on occasion even uses it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:32 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

A laudable step. I'm always shocked to discover what sorts of rediculous laws we have hanging on in the books. Something about walking in front of a car with a lantern, was the last one I heard.

But yes, most especially I'm in favor of eliminating any law that makes something illegal when that thing is already illegal.

Here's hoping the trimming continues and catches on.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 12:38 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You know... Im getting a little bit (not much, but a little bit) annoyed at his nifty catchphrase..

"Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience."

Guess he couldn't stand the fire.

Left the kitchen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:42 PM

DREAMTROVE

The legal code should be short enough for every citizen to memorize. If tis not, it loses it's stated goal. And yes I realize that there is a secret agenda, but it's secret because it wouldn't have as much support as the stated goal, and because of that it can theoretically be thwarted when it is in conflict with the stated goa,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:17 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Imma tag this one cause I dun wanna subvert the purpose of your filters, Anthony, just ignore this bit.

Select to view spoiler:

Wulfie, after the way you fucking wussed out when it counted, when I was prepared to back you up if you started to address all that shit you bitch about on a local level - you're a damn fine one to talk about folks bailing out on anything ya damn hypocrite - see to the beam in your own eye, mister.

But yes, our entire legal system could certainly do with an audit, that's long overdue and well worth the time and effort.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:32 PM

ANTIMASON

ive got to admit, unless someone commits a direct act of aggression towards me, or my liberties(as defined), i wouldnt care what they were doing. that includes speeding, streaking, doing crack, whatever. until, or unless they physically harm me, or my property.. what is my place to say anything? its a legitimate question..

maybe that's too idealistic, call me oldfasioned, i dont care

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:36 AM

MALACHITE

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The legal code should be short enough for every citizen to memorize. If tis not, it loses it's stated goal.

I guess the 10 commandments would be a start, since probably most crimes boil down to violations of these principles... The problem is, people can be so creative in how they violate the rights of others,so laws addressing specific violations end up being made, which leads to an ever increasing list. Then with technological changes in society (stem cell research, cybertechnology), you have to come up with new regulations and limits to specifically address violations (otherwise, criminals can just claim ignorance). There really are just so many ways to cheat people either because there are no laws protecting against a certain act, or because the laws that do exist have loopholes, or because there are always ways to block justice from happening (like using the judicial system to your own advantage), etc. Here is an interesting link describing the various types of law out there (and reading it made me more aware of all the ways humans try to take advantage of eachother): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

It is interesting though, because all this makes me think about a question Frem might have which is: Does the existence of law actually prevent harm (since some people are going to do evil acts anyway)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA

No more than a lock or fence keeps a burglar out.

What it does is serve as a polite reminder to keep honest men honest, at least, that was the principle - till divine right of kings and better men and the idea of seperating society into classes so one could class could use the rules as a weapon of oppression on another came around, which gave rise to the philosophy of anarchism.

But no, words on paper don't mean much to a sociopath, and the false belief that they would gets a lotta people hurt - how many women have died with a useless restraining order in their purse ?

Laws are only as good as peoples faith in them, and peoples willingness to help enforce them (leaving out for the moment the idea of Police), which means in the end they're only as good as people are.

What happened to prohibition was a good example of when a law is bad and every damn body knows it - no matter how many jackboots, no matter how many guns, it isn't, and never was, the threat of force that really causes a law to be obeyed, so much as peoples agreement with that law in the first place.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:12 AM

MALACHITE

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

No more than a lock or fence keeps a burglar out.What it does is serve as a polite reminder to keep honest men honest, at least, that was the principle - till divine right of kings and better men and the idea of seperating society into classes so one could class could use the rules as a weapon of oppression on another came around, which gave rise to the philosophy of anarchism.

But no, words on paper don't mean much to a sociopath, and the false belief that they would gets a lotta people hurt - how many women have died with a useless restraining order in their purse ?

Laws are only as good as peoples faith in them, and peoples willingness to help enforce them (leaving out for the moment the idea of Police), which means in the end they're only as good as people are.

What happened to prohibition was a good example of when a law is bad and every damn body knows it - no matter how many jackboots, no matter how many guns, it isn't, and never was, the threat of force that really causes a law to be obeyed, so much as peoples agreement with that law in the first place.

Well, a lock or a fence might keep a burglar out of your house and make someone else's house (who doesn't have the lock, fence, barking dog, etc.) look like more of an appealing target. That no-nonsense self defense link you posted is all about anticipating and preventing crime through smart preventative actions and awareness of surroundings. A person who displays those techniques is supposedly safer from having a crime committed on them because their actions deter the would be criminal or limit/block their window of opportunity to commit a crime. I wonder if everyone practiced those techniques if crime rates would decrease. I'm also wondering if law could act as a deterrant to would-be criminals, too? That is, could some people who might commit a crime say, "I'd like to kill so and so, or I'd like to rob a bank, but I won't because I don't want the consequences of getting caught"? I've certainly heard this sentiment expressed in my line of work, but I don't know if it actually pans out in the real world. (Obviously, I'd like to think so).

I think your example of prohibition is an interesting one. In that case, I'm wondering if the law should have been made in the first place. I don't know the specific history for why/how the prohibition law was placed. Did the majority of people think it was a good idea, or did the majority of legislators think it was a good idea (ie did it pass by popular vote or from the top down). Prohibition seems like it was an interesting experiment in what you can and can't make laws about. My guess is that even though it is obvious how much harm alcohol causes (drunk driving, addiction, medical complications), most people can drink responsibly without all the awful negative consequences. So the law was punishing the majority of people for the sins of the minority and the majority decided that it wasn't a good idea and bucked the law. I don't know if a useful principle can be devised from this example re: when you should or should not make a law, but I don't think we can use this example to say that because prohibition was such a mess, we shouldn't have any laws -- we have to be careful about what we make laws about. (Again, this is just my current opinion and I'm sorry that I'm speaking with some degree of ignorance about the prohibition movement and its consequences. Perhaps others can build on what I've said if they want.)

Of course, as a framework, I think we are on the same page that the law won't change the heart, and that some criminals (the sociopaths) are going to commit crimes regardless of the deterrants. (You gave an example of a restraining order. It doesn't work for everyone because some people are too sociopathic. Does it work for anyone, though? Is there a better alternative?) I also agree that law can be used as a means of oppression, but would add that people can be just as oppressive to one another without the aid of law, too. Some people will use whatever means of power at hand to oppress others, be it religion, more firepower, wealth or laws. That is also an interesting point about laws needing the people's help in enforcing them -- I think law would be a more effective tool if people were more aware of their community and surroundings. It is interesting how we've gotten away from this idea of community. Many hardly even know their neighbors and are content with a "live and let live, stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours" kind of mentality, which seems opposite to a community approach to regulation which requires active involvement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:46 AM

WHOZIT

It's illegal to drink booze from a tea cup in Massachusetts, it's law held over from probition that's still on the books.....don't know why.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:55 AM

MALACHITE

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
It's illegal to drink booze from a tea cup in Massachusetts, it's law held over from probition that's still on the books.....don't know why.

Yeah, I'm on board with the basic premise of getting rid of laws that serve no purpose and that are relics of the past when sensibilities were different.

We definitely should keep the no booze drinking from tea cups law, though... That one's an obvious keeper. I don't see how you could argue otherwise...

Hey, wait a minute, did people ever add booze to their tea to spice it up? I wonder if they did that before the law, or if they started doing that after the law to get around it?

ETA: I've been reading a bit about prohibition. It looks like it was a fairly controversial measure to start with: "Prohibition was demanded by the "dries" — primarily pietistic Protestant denominations, especially the Methodists, Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Scandinavian Lutherans. They identified saloons as politically corrupt and drinking as a personal sin. They were opposed by the "wets" — primarily liturgical Protestants (Episcopalians, German Lutherans) and Roman Catholics, who denounced the idea that the government should define morality.[9]" Interestingly, Wilson actually vetoed the bill, but it was still passed by the houses. Here's the full link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:57 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Very interesting thoughts, Malachite - and I must admit, I am rather gratified that you read through that site, you gotta admit, if we trained Police to that standard I would have a *lot* less problems with em, neh ?

That's in fact why I don't get on well with many of the blockheads who are involved in right-to-carry, cause the tool itself isn't *nearly* as helpful as all the other things involved in personal self defense, and I would much rather someone have the training without the tool, than the tool without the training, but I digress...

Quote:
I'm also wondering if law could act as a deterrant to would-be criminals, too?

Generally not, or not much of one.

You gotta think about WHY folk commit crimes.
Desperation, lack of self-control, sociopathy, there's as many reasons as there are people, and the biggest real problem so far as crime goes is unaffected by legal type deterrent force.

WHO IS THE SERIOUS, VIOLENT, HABITUAL OFFENDER?
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/lifestyle.html
"The second characteristic is lack of perception of the future. He has none. If you ask a kid like this, "What are you going to be doing next year?" you will get an absolutely blank stare. Not because he's stupid, but because he simply cannot conceptualize such a distance from right now."

You run up against one of these, no down-the-road threat of arrest and incarceration is going to *mean* anything to them, only a personal, imminent threat to their own person and existence will - that said, the real solution and defense to THAT is not producing such monsters in the first place, which is why I address the root causes that are practically a social assembly line for such individuals.

Re: Prohibition.

Quote:
So the law was punishing the majority of people for the sins of the minority and the majority decided that it wasn't a good idea and bucked the law. I don't know if a useful principle can be devised from this example re: when you should or should not make a law, but I don't think we can use this example to say that because prohibition was such a mess, we shouldn't have any laws -- we have to be careful about what we make laws about.

I concur, but part of my issue with it was also the religious idea of pushing ones own beliefs and morals unto others using the law as a bludgeon, I still grind my teeth over Blue Laws and suchlike, if I wanna buy a bottle of rum on Sunday, that's my goddamn business (pun intended) innit ?

But having been rebuffed quite successfully, legislators have repeatedly tried to end run the legal process by exploiting loopholes, not the least of which is the extremely profitable attempt at prohibition-via-taxation which they have levelled at tobacco, therefore repeating all of prohibitions mistakes (including the related crime, racketeering, smuggling(1)) without much recourse, and helped along with a certain level of demonization which is very unfortunate - and it's got shit to do with health cause every time they do stockpile that tax largess for whatever original excuse, they rob it for something else and figure they can just slap another tax on indefinetely, much like they did with a 1300% increase (NOT a typo!) on bulk tobacco taxes here in Michigan, which caused smuggling to go through the roof to where even hard drug dealers started carrying tobacco in addition to hard drugs(2).

When they started this, I stood against it, only to be sorely pissed off by the milquetoast-quisling attitudes of as-long-as-it's-not-MY-vice people, and while gratified by their horror and outrage when those same legislators went after those pansys cheeseburgers, I'll still stand with em cause you let something like that go, eventually you'll wind up in a rubber room with some crayons on a diet of bread and lettuce "For your own good" - which is, IMHO, the phrase most Tyranny of any kind is preceded by.

Re: Community.

Quote:
That is also an interesting point about laws needing the people's help in enforcing them -- I think law would be a more effective tool if people were more aware of their community and surroundings. It is interesting how we've gotten away from this idea of community. Many hardly even know their neighbors and are content with a "live and let live, stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours" kind of mentality, which seems opposite to a community approach to regulation which requires active involvement.

Well, there's good and bad in that approach - admittedly the nature of our society, and the rise of the internet has caused interpersonal communication to take something of a beating, I see it all the time as people talk AT each other, instead of TO each other, but that has more to do with how we have comprehensively beaten anything resembling human empathy out of our children in the name of raising and educating them, so those are just symptoms of a deeper illness.

But yes, any decent law isn't truly enforced by the boys in blue, they're more social janitors who come clean up the mess - it's enforced by you and me, cause it's damn rare for a cop to actually spot a crime in progress and who do you think calls them but joe sixpack when he sees an offense he thinks needs to be addressed by them ?

The american highway system is a good example of that kinda cooperation, folks don't play by the rules cause of fear of punishment, they cooperate cause it just doesn't work any other way, and as a rule it works pretty well - you do get the occasional asshole, but that's kind of inevitable, and even then folks generally act in concert cooperatively - like at a construction site when folks are merging to a single lane and you have the occasional asshole who charges down to the last and tries to cut over, jamming up the works on everyone in their arrogance, and then people are reluctant to let them in, and other folk edge their cars over to block that shit, assuming some small amount of risk to their vehicle voluntarily in order to benefit all.

So really, people are not the slavering monsters who need to be controlled "for their own good", that's bullshit, a myth, a bad bill of goods always, ALWAYS sold to you by folks who are supposedly out of the kindness of their own hearts (yeah, right) offering to perform that control, because they want POWER, and falling for that game is what leads to empires, wars and atrocities, because otherwise why would you have any inclination to do harm to someone you don't know who hasn't done a damn thing to you ?

For more reading along this line, you should check out Kropotkins work, which is based on the Rosseau theory, and as relevant now as it ever was.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents
.html

Most laws are just an clarification of what the basic ground rules are, most good ones, anyways - and those that ain't are prettymuch always going to be subverted at every opportunity in some of the most interesting fashions.

Case in point, Raines Law and the Brick Sandwich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raines_law

Quote:
Jacob Riis wrote in 1902 of saloon keepers who mocked the law by setting out "brick sandwiches," two pieces of bread with a brick in between, thus fulfilling the legal requirement of serving food. He also writes of altercation in a saloon where a customer attempted to eat a sandwich which the bartender had served just for show; "the police restored the sandwich to the bartender and made no arrests."

-Frem

(1) This was helped along by really severe fuel price gouging back when Gas was hitting $5 a gallon and companies were throwing that down on the motor carriers are owner operators (which in part lead to the IWW raising MWU530) some of whom, on the verge of bankrupcty already, and with the perfect storm of this MASSIVE tax increase on bulk tobacco, turned to smuggling in a desperate attempt to make ends meet, and some of em continue to do so.

(2) Thanks to Big Pharma and their attempt to hold a market lock, some of these dopemen have also added lines of common medications for the elderly, making a tidy profit with much less risk - but what does it really say when you have to visit the dopeman to get grammas blood pressure medication at an affordable price ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:45 PM

DREAMTROVE

Malachite

Interesting. Figure you've probably figured this one already:
There's always someone pushing for everything, but it gets passed for Somme other reason. Gotta figure this one was an industry, like the current one.

Also sometimes I question the preexisting believe of certain religious sects, on a lot of modern issues. I think there's a possibility they are created to take absurd positions (creationism, Dobson, etc.) to forward other political agendae later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:01 PM

DREAMTROVE

Frem

Couple thoughts

1) ever thout about this lack of a future vision applied to corporations? I just posted something very similar as an anal sys of the cop orate mind based not he idea that people can leave. The golden parachute headhunter world creates a live for today joyride mentality in both the public and private sectors because the people committing the acts will not be the ones suffering their consequences.

Ive thought for a while that some structure where long term liability, and probably not just financial, was inherently implied in the structure of org that would connect the people run ing the show to the business, the people, the land, the products, customers, workers, etc, should anything negatively impact any of them, you see where going with this. Of course such a model would ha to be designed to evolutionarily replace the current models.

2) the sin taxes are prohibition gone over the edge though, once they start, they become a vested shared interest in the sin, where it must continue for revenues to continue,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:16 PM

FREMDFIRMA

No Dream, that model ALREADY exists.

It's called Mondragon, and it's evolved right outta Catalonian Anarchism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE