MyWifeSaidYes
Regular Member
My wife believes in "Don't hurt anybody" laws and "Don't steal anything" laws and that anything else is harassment...and she thinks her views are extreme?
Any feedback for her?
Any feedback for her?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
My wifes extreme views
- Thread starter MyWifeSaidYes
- Start date
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I was very confused about how you meant this so I decided to wait until someone with more common sense posted so I could use their post to try to help me understand. seems like you mean that she believes that law should be very ... Focused/concentrated... Even distilled/condensed down to basically just protecting life and property (in my view these two have the same basis and are largely connected). The only thing I'd ask her to also consider is law for enforcement of consensually entered contracts ("keep your word") law.
As far as being extreme.. Well.. Compared to the 'average person' probably so. Compared to the average sane person, no, that is not extreme.
In my opinion, while the nonaggression principle is a good way to discuss it, imo when it comes to law, the underlying theory should be that laws should generally only prohibit certain behaviors if they negatively affect others, but there is no justification (generally) for laws protecting oneself from oneself. THat's why drug laws are imo unjust, prostitution laws, etc. Whereas assault, fraud, theft, etc. are not
I think laws are just that regulate dangerous, reckless etc. behavior. Like even if you live in a "open shoot" area, that you can't shoot in your backyard unless you have a proper backstop. Similarly, speeding laws, laws against drunk driving, etc, are kosher.
We would be a better, freer nation if we could just lop off about a third of any given state's penal code. As for federal code? It's so convoluted and expansive that you can't walk out your door w/o committing a felony, it seems (see the book "three felonies a day) and could do with a lot more cutting.
The essence of the BOR is that people have the right to be left alone to do what they do except in very limited circ's. I also think of course that laws regarding justice and cooperating with same are just - perjury, obstruction (properly applied), resisting arrest, escape from custody are all valid.
Many states have overly expansive "Disorderly conduct" laws (WA state does not, but some municipalities do) that allow arrests for too much stuff that should be protected. Also, some states (mine doesn't) have drunk in public laws. Some states, such as CAlifornia even criminalize being under the influence of certain drugs e.g. heroin, which is just whack
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
assume a world with NO laws ... would you steal from someone who could then kill you w/o issues?
eye95
Well-known member
Yes. They are extreme. On two counts:
1. The overwhelming majority would disagree with her, not that we are a democracy (I actually almost typed demoncracy!), but that such is the definition of extreme.
2. She ignores, as many here do, that there, in society, are three basic classes of behavior: rights, privileges, and crimes. She only is noting the first and the last. I contend that it is proper for the state to regulate that class of behavior does not bar state infringement (rights) and does not demand state prohibition (crimes).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
1. The overwhelming majority would disagree with her, not that we are a democracy (I actually almost typed demoncracy!), but that such is the definition of extreme.
2. She ignores, as many here do, that there, in society, are three basic classes of behavior: rights, privileges, and crimes. She only is noting the first and the last. I contend that it is proper for the state to regulate that class of behavior does not bar state infringement (rights) and does not demand state prohibition (crimes).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
MR. and MRS. LAMB
Murder, Rape, Manslaughter, Robbery, Sodomy, Larceny, Arson, Mayhem, Burglary.
These are the true Constitutional/common law crimes as it relates to the feds.
All those other statutory crimes are man made. Those man made laws are placed into force by a group of people chosen for their strong progressive feelings which ultimately guarantees a dark unwholesomeness expressed in crime, perversion, and insanity. In other words, the insane in power attempting to control the insane not in power.
Murder, Rape, Manslaughter, Robbery, Sodomy, Larceny, Arson, Mayhem, Burglary.
These are the true Constitutional/common law crimes as it relates to the feds.
All those other statutory crimes are man made. Those man made laws are placed into force by a group of people chosen for their strong progressive feelings which ultimately guarantees a dark unwholesomeness expressed in crime, perversion, and insanity. In other words, the insane in power attempting to control the insane not in power.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Her belief is mine. And we are not alone:
Although I would say not merely harassment, but "immoral and criminal aggression". My opinions tend to come kind of strongly-worded like that, though.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Last edited:
I suppose she is extreeme, and would venture that she is right. There are some laws that make sense and are logical, I fear many more do not. I tend to place them in a 3 part catogory using what was told me in church as I kid. Do not lie, do not cheat, do not steal. Harassment, often leads to abuse and that often leads to tourture. Cheating one out of equality, stealling from them their freedom and health, and uasally lying about the reasons they to do this in an effort to justify.
77zach
Regular Member
Your wife is absolutely correct, in principle. There are complicated issues that don't fit neatly into categories. In practice, in talking with statists, I stress only a few current events. Abolition of gun laws, drug laws, government out of education, health care, energy, allow competition of private currencies, nonintervention in foreign policy, and abolition of direct taxation. The state also robs my time with its usually ridiculously low "speed limits" which is a tax of sorts. I'd love to get rid of most public roads, but it's too much for the average public school grad.
Last edited: