100 years ago today

[Hobo1]

Making a pipe bomb is a crime, too, even if it doesn't kill anyone.

By your logic, it should be perfectly legal to conduct target practice on a busy street unless you actually hit someone. It should be OK to drive drunk, so long as you weave your way home without actually causing an accident. It should be legal to go as fast as your car will go, no matter where you are, until you injure someone or destroy property.

Laws against speeding, driving drunk, firing weapons in populated areas, and the like are not for your own protection. They are for the protection of the rest of us.

"....these truths are self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among those life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which originally meant the pursuit of property) and (paraphrasing) governments are instituted for the protection of those rights.

I have a right to drive the freeway without having to dodge idiots racing or driving drunk. Government is instituted to protect my right to life and property, and protecting me from fools and drunks is a legitimate function of that government.

It's not to protect me from myself.

First, in Wikipedia, Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness, we read that

A differing analysis on the origin of this phrase was provided by Garry Wills in his book, Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.[8] Wills argues that the "pursuit of happiness" does not refer to property or to private happiness, but instead to public happiness. He traces the idea that a government's pursuit of public happiness is an unalienable rights to Francis Hutcheson, not John Locke​

Anyway, your whole diatribe is irrelevant to the discussion. The issue here is crime vs. fascism. As I pointed out, with your logic outlawing everything will make a better society. Perhaps you prefer to live it a nation where Big Brother is peering at you - but not me.

You also state in your first post that "putting other people's lives at risk" is a crime. NOT TRUE.

As far as your list of examples of "putting other people's lives at risk", you say,

I have a right to drive the freeway without having to dodge idiots racing or driving drunk. Government is instituted to protect my right to life and property, and protecting me from fools and drunks is a legitimate function of that government. ​

Let me clarify your thinking. Society has a right to make reckless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol a crime. Society must have a fair and impartial system of justice so the offender is properly punished and you have the right to be compensated for damages caused by the convicted criminal.

The mere fact that you were faced with a situation that caused you fear is not a criminal act. If somebody who was legally drunk was behind the wheel, chances are the courts will find him guilty of drunk driving. If it is grandma driving erratically, chances are she would not be punished. But both must be arrested first.

That is the way the law works.

 

[PLC1]

First, in Wikipedia, Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness, we read that

A differing analysis on the origin of this phrase was provided by Garry Wills in his book, Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.[8] Wills argues that the "pursuit of happiness" does not refer to property or to private happiness, but instead to public happiness. He traces the idea that a government's pursuit of public happiness is an unalienable rights to Francis Hutcheson, not John Locke​

Anyway, your whole diatribe is irrelevant to the discussion. The issue here is crime vs. fascism. As I pointed out, with your logic outlawing everything will make a better society. Perhaps you prefer to live it a nation where Big Brother is peering at you - but not me.

You also state in your first post that "putting other people's lives at risk" is a crime. NOT TRUE.

As far as your list of examples of "putting other people's lives at risk", you say,

I have a right to drive the freeway without having to dodge idiots racing or driving drunk. Government is instituted to protect my right to life and property, and protecting me from fools and drunks is a legitimate function of that government. ​

Let me clarify your thinking. Society has a right to make reckless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol a crime. Society must have a fair and impartial system of justice so the offender is properly punished and you have the right to be compensated for damages caused by the convicted criminal.

The mere fact that you were faced with a situation that caused you fear is not a criminal act. If somebody who was legally drunk was behind the wheel, chances are the courts will find him guilty of drunk driving. If it is grandma driving erratically, chances are she would not be punished. But both must be arrested first.

That is the way the law works.

OK, so recklessly endangering other people's lives and property is not a crime until society outlaws whatever behavior it is that is endangering us. Good so far.

What behavior recklessly endangers other people's lives and property, yet is legal?

What behaviors that recklessly endanger other people's lives and property do you think should be legal?


Remember, we're talking about other people's lives and property, not laws designed to protect us from ourselves.

 

[Hobo1]

OK, so recklessly endangering other people's lives and property is not a crime until society outlaws whatever behavior it is that is endangering us. Good so far.

What behavior recklessly endangers other people's lives and property, yet is legal?

What behaviors that recklessly endanger other people's lives and property do you think should be legal?


Remember, we're talking about other people's lives and property, not laws designed to protect us from ourselves.

If it is not a crime, it is legal. Reckless is in the eyes of the beholder. If you don't want your neighbor to keep his kids on the roof as punishment - too bad. If the police think that is breaking some child protection law, then it will go to court.

If my neighbor builds a big bonfire next to my house and causes damages to my house, I will sue for damages + pain and suffering.

I am not going to take away my neighbor's inalienable liberty until he breaks the law.

 

[PLC1]

If it is not a crime, it is legal. Reckless is in the eyes of the beholder. If you don't want your neighbor to keep his kids on the roof as punishment - too bad. If the police think that is breaking some child protection law, then it will go to court.

If my neighbor builds a big bonfire next to my house and causes damages to my house, I will sue for damages + pain and suffering.

I am not going to take away my neighbor's inalienable liberty until he breaks the law.

So, then, examples of reckless endangerment that aren't illegal, according to what you just said, include keeping kids on the roof and building a bonfire next to your house.

Are you sure about that?

How about target practice in the middle of the street? Racing on the freeways? Are those behaviors legal as well?

 

[GenSeneca]

So, you're willing to accept an 18% risk of being killed, and who knows how great of a risk to your property, in order to allow others to engage in foolishness that risks not only them, but us as well?

You seem to have a serious misconception about laws... Laws don't actually protect you from anything... Words on paper cannot prevent physical action, they merely make the action a punishable offense.

If you're having trouble understanding that, then let me put it this way: Drunk driving is already against the law, yet people do it... So you're already taking the chance no matter what laws are on the books. And it seems you forget about the 82% chance of dieing as the result of people you do not consider a threat... What laws could protect "the rest of us" from that 82%?

Now as to crime... Lets use the example of a drunk driver. He gets drunk, speeds home at 80 mph, parks in his driveway, stumbles in, and goes to bed.

According to you, he has committed several crimes; drunk driving, reckless endangerment, speeding, public intox, etc.

So my question to you is, who was the victim of this man's crimes?

 

[bododie]

Laws don't actually protect you from anything...

...except those that protect people who are too stupid to live, from themselves.

 

[clarkatticus]

Ox, it seems your Shangra-la version of America at the turn of the last century is a little skewed. First, Social Security is not a tax but a retirement supplement, Workers comp and unemployment are insurance. From the inception of our nation, personal and corporate property taxes existed. With the growing complexity of corporations and the intangible definition of "property" in public owned companies income tax was started to fill the void for an increasing set of needs, armed forces, infrastructure, regulatory agencies, and the growing government in a growing nation. This was addressed with the 16th Amendment. Also, from the birth of the nation, there were roads taxes, more commonly known as tolls. Tolls on roads, canals (more common), ferrys and bridges. There were exise taxes and tarriffs from the beginning, also. Lincoln passed an income tax in 1863 to pay for the war which ended with the war. You saw the beginning list of the way things were, perhaps you would like to go back to there, most would not, especially those who originally passed the laws and regulations. I enjoy driving my airconditioned car to the store to by safe food on safe roads knowing in my old age SS will supplement my retirement and Medicare will help with my health care.

 

[GenSeneca]

...in my old age SS will supplement my retirement and Medicare will help with my health care.

Good luck with that...

 

[Hobo1]

So, then, examples of reckless endangerment that aren't illegal, according to what you just said, include keeping kids on the roof and building a bonfire next to your house.

Are you sure about that?

How about target practice in the middle of the street? Racing on the freeways? Are those behaviors legal as well?

Wow, what did you learn in your civics class? First, the police arrest a man suspected of committing a crime, but assumed innocent until proven guilty. Then a jury of his peers hear the full case, with all the evidence. If found guilty of committing a crime, then the judge issues the sentence (ie, punishment).

I cannot tell you on a one sentence if target in the middle of the street is legal. It is a hypothetical situation. Guns are highly controlled. On prima facie evidence, it is reasonable to expect this is a crime. However, in court witnesses may testify that a pit bull terrier was posed to attack a child and the man shot the dog in the middle of the street. That is not illegal.

My liberty is very precious, and I go to great lengths to defend it.

Years ago, I parked in what looked like a parking space. I returned to my car to find a parking ticket. I showed up at the court on the specified date for a preliminary hearing. The judge asked me "how do you plea", not guilty.

I showed him photos of the situation. The no parking sign was hidden from view and not posted in accordance with California state law (which is very clear about how any regulatory sign must be posted).

The judge asked me if I wanted a jury trial or a trial before a judge. I said "jury trial" (which is expensive), and I wanted the right to defend myself. The judge looked at me and said, "the State of California drops this case against Mr. Hobo due to insufficient evidence".

That is what you must do to protect your liberty. Protect it or loose it.

 

[PLC1]

Wow, what did you learn in your civics class? First, the police arrest a man suspected of committing a crime, but assumed innocent until proven guilty. Then a jury of his peers hear the full case, with all the evidence. If found guilty of committing a crime, then the judge issues the sentence (ie, punishment).

I cannot tell you on a one sentence if target in the middle of the street is legal. It is a hypothetical situation. Guns are highly controlled. On prima facie evidence, it is reasonable to expect this is a crime. However, in court witnesses may testify that a pit bull terrier was posed to attack a child and the man shot the dog in the middle of the street. That is not illegal.

My liberty is very precious, and I go to great lengths to defend it.

Years ago, I parked in what looked like a parking space. I returned to my car to find a parking ticket. I showed up at the court on the specified date for a preliminary hearing. The judge asked me "how do you plea", not guilty.

I showed him photos of the situation. The no parking sign was hidden from view and not posted in accordance with California state law (which is very clear about how any regulatory sign must be posted).

The judge asked me if I wanted a jury trial or a trial before a judge. I said "jury trial" (which is expensive), and I wanted the right to defend myself. The judge looked at me and said, "the State of California drops this case against Mr. Hobo due to insufficient evidence".

That is what you must do to protect your liberty. Protect it or loose it.

I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to anything I said.

Of course, if someone built a bonfire next to your house and set it on fire, that person would be innocent until proven guilty. Does that make it not a crime until after the trial?

Recklessly endangering the public is a crime. The person doing so is innocent until proven guilty, sure, but that doesn't mean a crime hasn't been committed. If there is a murder, then the perpetrator is still innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean that murder is not a crime.

 

[GenSeneca]

Recklessly endangering the public is a crime.

I'll ask again...

Lets use the example of a drunk driver. He gets drunk, speeds home at 80 mph, parks in his driveway, stumbles in, and goes to bed.

According to you, he has committed several crimes; drunk driving, reckless endangerment, speeding, public intox, etc.

So my question to you is, who were the victims of this man's crimes?

 

[PLC1]

I'll ask again...

Lets use the example of a drunk driver. He gets drunk, speeds home at 80 mph, parks in his driveway, stumbles in, and goes to bed.

According to you, he has committed several crimes; drunk driving, reckless endangerment, speeding, public intox, etc.

So my question to you is, who were the victims of this man's crimes?

anyone who shares the road with him.

Drunk driving is not a crime because the drunk endangers himself, but because he endangers the rest of us. Can you think of any action that recklessly endangers the public that is not a crime?

 

[GenSeneca]

anyone who shares the road with him.

What right of yours did he violate?

Drunk driving is not a crime because the drunk endangers himself, but because he endangers the rest of us.

Every individual is a potential danger to himself and others. The 82% of people most likely to kill you are not drunk or speeding, so tell me which liberties, and how much freedom, shall we trade for additional safety from them?

Can you think of any action that recklessly endangers the public that is not a crime?

There is only one possible crime, the violation of another person's rights. If your actions do not result in in a violation of rights, then no crime has been committed.

 

[PLC1]

What right of yours did he violate?


Every individual is a potential danger to himself and others. The 82% of people most likely to kill you are not drunk or speeding, so tell me which liberties, and how much freedom, shall we trade for additional safety from them?


There is only one possible crime, the violation of another person's rights. If your actions do not result in in a violation of rights, then no crime has been committed.

Driving drunk is a crime.
Racing on public highways is a crime.
Firing a weapon in a crowded building is a crime.
Setting fires that threaten property is a crime.

All of those things are illegal, and for good reason.

You might try to argue that they shouldn't be crimes, but the fact is that they are.

I don't think selling, possessing, or using pot should be a crime, as it threatens only the user, but it is.


S

 

[GenSeneca]

All of those things are illegal, and for good reason.

Good, lets hear those reasons... Would it be fair to sum up those reasons as, "because such actions might result in the violation of rights"?

You might try to argue that they shouldn't be crimes, but the fact is that they are.

I'm well aware they are considered crimes... It's why they are crimes that's of interest to me. If we are both men of reason, then reason with me.