Panarchy: Fascinating or just plain stupid?

[Truth-Bringer]

Sorry I quoted the wrong bit. What I was really calling a joke was life imprisonment for any politican committing any crime.

Politican gets in a fight, should he be imprisoned for life?

They have to be convicted. "Getting into a fight" isn't sufficient, but if a politician is convicted and found guilty of assault and battery, then yes, they committed a criminal act WHEN THEY WERE ELECTED TO NOT ONLY UPHOLD THE LAW BUT TO CREATE THE LAW and they should suffer life imprisonment. They have to be held to an incredibly high standard - or we will continue to have a corrupt system.

If someone fears those terms, then they shouldn't run for office in such a scenario.

 

[Bunz]

They have to be convicted. "Getting into a fight" isn't sufficient, but if a politician is convicted and found guilty of assault and battery, then yes, they committed a criminal act WHEN THEY WERE ELECTED TO NOT ONLY UPHOLD THE LAW BUT TO CREATE THE LAW and they should suffer life imprisonment. They have to be held to an incredibly high standard - or we will continue to have a corrupt system.

If someone fears those terms, then they shouldn't run for office in such a scenario.

All other things aside...it is not the job of the legislature to uphold the law as that falls to the judiciary. The legislature creates laws.
While I think there should be signifigant and swift punishment for breaking any laws concerning thier actions as a legislature, such as bribery, corruption, extortion, etc.
Having a politician face life imprisonment for assault or something similar that otherwise wouldnt call for a life prison term is ridiculous.
This creates a different class of citizens in this country, while those who govern are still considered citizens.
What benefit would it bring the citizens when they have to pay for a politician to sit in prison for 50 years over say a DUI?
I am one who thinks we need to have our best and brightest elected to office. This would severly limit those who would otherwise seek office.

 

[9sublime]

OK, a man throws an egg at a politician in a pathetic attack on him. The politician, in the heat of the moment, turns around and sparks the bloke in the face.

Its a crime. This actually happened in the UK. Should they be killed?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

OK, a man throws an egg at a politician in a pathetic attack on him. The politician, in the heat of the moment, turns around and sparks the bloke in the face.

Its a crime. This actually happened in the UK. Should they be killed?

Well the egg is technically the first assault - and therefore the man that threw it is the guilty party. No, I don't think someone acting in self-defense or acting on impulse to an attack is guilty of assault and battery.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

All other things aside...it is not the job of the legislature to uphold the law as that falls to the judiciary. The legislature creates laws.

Technically, yes, that is correct. But creating the laws is still obviously a huge responsibility.

While I think there should be signifigant and swift punishment for breaking any laws concerning thier actions as a legislature, such as bribery, corruption, extortion, etc.
Having a politician face life imprisonment for assault or something similar that otherwise wouldnt call for a life prison term is ridiculous.
This creates a different class of citizens in this country, while those who govern are still considered citizens.

They are already a different class of citizen. They can authorize the legal use of force against other citizens.

However, if I were seriously trying to get this law made, I would compromise and just have the crimes deal with their duties in office if that's what it took to get the thing passed.

What benefit would it bring the citizens when they have to pay for a politician to sit in prison for 50 years over say a DUI?

Have you seen their retirement plans? It would be far cheaper than paying one of those plans off. Those come from taxpayer money as well.

 

[9sublime]

Well the egg is technically the first assault - and therefore the man that threw it is the guilty party. No, I don't think someone acting in self-defense or acting on impulse to an attack is guilty of assault and battery.

Ok then, adultery. A man finds out his wife has been cheating on him, and waits until the bloke is coming into his house and gets in a fight with him. Punishable by life?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Ok then, adultery. A man finds out his wife has been cheating on him, and waits until the bloke is coming into his house and gets in a fight with him. Punishable by life?

I would say "no" because it's a crime of passion - as long as it happens immediately after he finds out about it and it's not premeditated in any way. Most cheaters who've just been confronted wouldn't press charges, as most juries are relunctant to convict in such situations.

 

[Bunz]

They are already a different class of citizen. They can authorize the legal use of force against other citizens.

I dont disagree, but they are there at the consent of the people.
I just dont agree with a life sentence. In my home state there has been an ongoing corruption scandal. 3 state lawmakers have been convicted on multi-felony accounts. One has been sentenced to 5 years or so. I think that fair. Life sentences are generally uncalled for.

 

[9sublime]

Okay truth bringer, a politican is caught going 33 in a 30 zone.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

I dont disagree, but they are there at the consent of the people.

No, they are there by the power of the majority, not necessarily the consent of the majority - if they should do anything the majority doesn't agree with - and certainly not at the consent of the minority that votes against them.

I just dont agree with a life sentence. In my home state there has been an ongoing corruption scandal. 3 state lawmakers have been convicted on multi-felony accounts. One has been sentenced to 5 years or so. I think that fair. Life sentences are generally uncalled for.

I just think since they have greater power, that they should suffer greater punishment. They should at least be prevented from ever serving in office again once convicted. Can you say "Marion Berry"?

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Okay truth bringer, a politican is caught going 33 in a 30 zone.

Sorry, I should have clarified - any crime other than a minor traffic violation.

 

[Bunz]

No, they are there by the power of the majority, not necessarily the consent of the majority - if they should do anything the majority doesn't agree with - and certainly not at the consent of the minority that votes against them.

I think we are getting into semantics. Most often when a politician is elected, most would agree that it is at the consent of the majority of the people who voted.

I just think since they have greater power, that they should suffer greater punishment. They should at least be prevented from ever serving in office again once convicted. Can you say "Marion Berry"?

I would agree that after a felony conviction nobody should be allowed to even run for office. I would assume thier inability to vote considering the felony conviction would usually preclude that.
I think it is shameful that Berry has come back to public life. It gets tricky, because he was rightfully elected by the consent of the majority of his district voters.

 

[Bunz]

Truth,
I enjoy your debates, but let me ask you about your very libertarian small government ideals.
I dont disagree with your ideals, it is a matter of actually putting them into practice.
To go back to the days before the income tax and government as small as you propose simply isnt practical. America has grown to large since those days. The technology of the world and the true expense it would take, to run even the smallest of a federal government feasible. The tax structure simply couldnt support it.

I think it might be wiser to have congress set its budget and adjust a flat income tax that it justifies annually just as most city government operates with property tax. It would make congress much more accountable.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

most would agree that it is at the consent of the majority of the people who voted.

Bunz, that is an Appeal to the Majority fallacy.

The fact is that a voting majority does not grant the state any power over the individual, as pointed out by Lysander Spooner:

1. The act of voting can bind only those who vote, and who win the vote.
2. Most people do not vote in any given election; many people never vote. Therefore, they have not consented.
3. To be binding, a vote must be “perfectly voluntary” yet a “very large number” vote in self-defense.
4. Taxation is compulsory and many vote only to prevent their money from being used against them.
5. Votes for unsuccessful candidates cannot be binding.
6. A secret vote provides no legal evidence by which to bind any particular voter to the alleged "social contract" or Constitution.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Truth,
I enjoy your debates, but let me ask you about your very libertarian small government ideals.
I dont disagree with your ideals, it is a matter of actually putting them into practice.

Right - so what must one do? One must experiment to discern the truth of th matter. Except that those in power will not allow us to experiment... So who is being scientifically rational, and who is not?

To go back to the days before the income tax and government as small as you propose simply isnt practical. America has grown to large since those days. The technology of the world and the true expense it would take, to run even the smallest of a federal government feasible. The tax structure simply couldnt support it.

Bunz, this is the inverse of Appeal to Tradition fallacy.
Life is perceived as better these days, not because of government involvement, but because of TECHNOLOGY. Take away modern transportion like planes and automobiles, central heat and air conditioning, refrigeration, and, well, anything powered by electricity for that matter, and you'd see how quickly people would perceive things as getting worse all of a sudden.

Now the typical statist's next line of argument of course is that government made all of these industries better. Not so. With electricity for example, the electrical industry sold its soul and submitted to government control because profits were slow in coming and investors were difficult to attract in the beginning. Growing pains are growing pains. They should have never made this decision. Public demand would have eventually taken over as more and more people saw the benefit of having electrical power.

The innovations they could have made with the tax money and inflation interest stolen from them in the last 100 years would have probably led to worldwide wireless power by now.

Statists then usually reply with "But government grants made all these things possible." B.S. Government intervention in electricity was unnecessary for the reasons stated earlier. And I don't see any evidence for government grants or such being responsible for refrigeration or automobiles or air conditioning.

I think it might be wiser to have congress set its budget and adjust a flat income tax that it justifies annually just as most city government operates with property tax. It would make congress much more accountable.

You're not taking into account several factors. Such as, #1, we now spend over 100 billion per year just on COMPLIANCE with the income tax - that's a complete and total waste of money. #2, federal highways are paid for by the gasoline excise tax, the military budget is roughly equal to Corporate Tax revenue, and the entitlement programs are paid for by their own taxes, like FICA. We don't need an income tax to run the government.
And #3, if the incomet tax were repealed and the Federal Reserve abolished, the United States would instantly become the largest tax haven in the world. Foreign investment here would skyrocket.