Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/15/2008 6:06:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2008 1:40:33 PM EDT by GrandForks]
If you'd like an IM when I post a new one of these, let me know.  I post once a week.

“We have too many laws.”

In my discussions with people who identify as conservative or as a Republican, this phrase is greeted with universal approval.  There is no end to the sort of bashing that issues from such people when this topic is introduced; complaints about this regulation or that regulation abound.

“I don’t mean only regulatory rules; I’m talking about criminal law.”  

This, my usual response to regulatory bashing, stops all talking at once as a stunned hush falls over those in the discussion.  It’s almost as if this has never before occurred to them.  This is a problem.

One of the great tragedies of our society is the transformation of priorities that has taken place within the law enforcement apparatus and the legislative process.  The transformation relates to how we as a society think of the law.

One job of the government is to punish criminal wrongdoing by wielding the power and authority loaned it by the citizenry for that purpose.  When punishment is meted out, it is only after someone has been proven guilty of some wrongdoing.  Again, government wields this power AFTER a crime has been committed and the suspect has been proven guilty.  The punishment is a reactive force that strips an exact person of something after he has done something that is actually wrong.  Only during the 20th Century did the paradigm shift.

Now, law is not only expected to provide for reactive punishment of an exact person after they have done wrong, but also to be a proactive, preventing force applied to many inexact people in hopes of heading one of them off at the pass, so to speak, before they commit a crime regardless of their intent to act as such.  Again, law is now expected to make illegal for everyone behaviors thought to be connected to actual criminal activity without having to prove criminal intent and certainly not waiting to see if an actual crime will be committed.

An example of this phenomenon is a town with many banks.  During a particularly trying time, a man with a ski mask and a shotgun robs many of these banks.  The townspeople, in a panic and ready to try any remedy, allow the city council to pass citywide bans on ski masks and shotguns.  It becomes illegal in this town to be found in possession of either item.

You can see the problem with this thinking.  All of a sudden, many people who had nothing to do with the bank robberies-aside from owning items used by the robber-are made instant criminals without having done anything that’s actually wrong.  Hopefully, the foolishness of this is realized lest the town’s renowned ski team be locked up only weeks before the Winter Olympics in which they were projected to do well…all for having ski masks.

Let's revisit the Republican Party.  A sad fact in more recent years is the recognition that the party is the party that’s “tough on crime”.  Having abdicated the moral high ground of being the party of liberty due to laziness and unwillingness to show leadership by teaching the masses why liberty is good and electable, the Republicans instead found it easier to exploit the “tough on crime” reputation.  When this happened, the good party I once knew was ruined.

At this point, the Republicans engaged in the sort of fear-based scaremongering that the Democrats has long ago mastered.  Like the Democrats, the Republicans were able to isolate, take, and hold certain key voting blocs and constituencies by forcing them on the take with this new brand of statist thinking.  When this becomes your method for winning, a desire builds to come up with new ways to keep people coming back.  Hence, the Republicans got into the preventive criminal law business too.

The terrible end result of all this preventive criminal law is a loss of liberty.  Rather than having law around to be a means by which people that truly do wrong might be punished, law now becomes a means of enforcing compliance on everyone.  Once this is accomplished, the citizenry is told that they still have liberty…as long as they are in compliance with these new demands of government.  

Liberty secured through compliance is not liberty; it is tyranny.  Preventive law, the demander of undefined compliance, must be abolished.

Link Posted: 11/15/2008 6:19:32 AM EDT


Link Posted: 11/15/2008 6:23:23 AM EDT
Liberty secured through compliance is not liberty; it is tyranny. Preventive law, the demander of undefined compliance, must be abolished.


I couldn't agree more, but keep in mind the problem goes even deeper than just the rise of preventative law. We are in a situation now where many people not only accept the concept of preventative law, but those who do not are ostracized.  The whole "It's for the children" thing is about pushing the idea that preventative laws are necessary and those who disagree are painted as hateful, selfish people. There has been quite a successful attempt to make preventative law a morality question in an effort to demonize those who see it for what it is, and this will have to reversed before the laws themselves can be abolished.


Link Posted: 11/15/2008 6:25:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 6:28:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Is this  a DUI shouldn't be a crime unless you actually kill or injure somebody thread?


No, because driving is not a right, it's a priveledge, and comes with pre-conditions that you do it in a manner as not to kill or injure other people.
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 6:36:57 AM EDT


Originally Posted By pukindog:



Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Is this  a DUI shouldn't be a crime unless you actually kill or injure somebody thread?




No, because driving is not a right, it's a priveledge, and comes with pre-conditions that you do it in a manner as not to kill or injure other people.
Perhaps this is a "I should be allowed to own an M-16" thread. I can certainly get behind that.





 
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 6:46:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ahiodsohi:
Originally Posted By pukindog:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Is this  a DUI shouldn't be a crime unless you actually kill or injure somebody thread?


No, because driving is not a right, it's a priveledge, and comes with pre-conditions that you do it in a manner as not to kill or injure other people.
Perhaps this is a "I should be allowed to own an M-16" thread. I can certainly get behind that.

 


But you can't own an M-16 for the same reasons you can't drive "intoxicated" with a BAC of 0.05 - "dear lord, you might hurt somebody!"
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 6:51:34 AM EDT
I think this is a "wussification of America" thread.
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 6:56:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2008 6:57:50 AM EDT by GrandForks]
This could be a "DUI isn't actually a crime unless someone is hurt or killed thread"; this could be an "I want to own an M-16" thread.  The beauty of it is that this thread could be about anything you can imagine.

As for the claim that driving isn't a right, I totally disagree with that.  Just as you have a right to convey yourself from point A to point B, so too is it your right to drive.  Strange that you need permission from the state to utilize one means and not another means (try to think of a way to convert this phenomenon into firearms-speak, why do I need a permit for a gun and not a knife or a baton or a rock carried for self-defense).

It's too bad we've had this hardwired into our minds so heavily that we no longer question the state, but buy their tired old lines every time the state uses them.
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 7:03:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2008 7:05:02 AM EDT by fssf158]
Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Originally Posted By Ahiodsohi:
Originally Posted By pukindog:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Is this  a DUI shouldn't be a crime unless you actually kill or injure somebody thread?


No, because driving is not a right, it's a priveledge, and comes with pre-conditions that you do it in a manner as not to kill or injure other people.
Perhaps this is a "I should be allowed to own an M-16" thread. I can certainly get behind that.

 


But you can't own an M-16 for the same reasons you can't drive "intoxicated" with a BAC of 0.05 - "dear lord, you might hurt somebody!"


Actually, there is a key difference between the two.  DUI laws deal with an action that puts others at risk, while MG laws restrict the mere possession of an object.  DUI laws are more similar in concept to laws against discharging a firearm in public, while the equivalent of an MG ban would be a law against owning a car and a case of beer at the same time.

Edited for spelling.
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 7:07:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
This could be a "DUI isn't actually a crime unless someone is hurt or killed thread"; this could be an "I want to own an M-16" thread.  The beauty of it is that this thread could be about anything you can imagine.

As for the claim that driving isn't a right, I totally disagree with that.  Just as you have a right to convey yourself from point A to point B, so too is it your right to drive.  Strange that you need permission from the state to utilize one means and not another means (try to think of a way to convert this phenomenon into firearms-speak, why do I need a permit for a gun and not a knife or a baton or a rock carried for self-defense).

It's too bad we've had this hardwired into our minds so heavily that we no longer question the state, but buy their tired old lines every time the state uses them.


I was mistaken in saying that driving is a privilege - what I should have said is driving on a public road is a privilege. It is afforded to you by the public (which you are a part of) and the rules are set by the public through their representatives.
If you want to drive around drunk all day long on your own property - or someone else's property with their permission - then that's none of the government's business. If you want to let your 13 year old kid drive your truck all over your farm, again, none of the government's business. But you don't have sole ownership of the public roads, and we all make the rules together.  You don't like them? Then convince more people to see things your way.

Link Posted: 11/15/2008 7:08:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 7:10:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

So if I want to fly a plane from point C to point D I shouldn't need license?



I wonder about that sometimes too...
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 7:13:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pukindog:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
This could be a "DUI isn't actually a crime unless someone is hurt or killed thread"; this could be an "I want to own an M-16" thread.  The beauty of it is that this thread could be about anything you can imagine.

As for the claim that driving isn't a right, I totally disagree with that.  Just as you have a right to convey yourself from point A to point B, so too is it your right to drive.  Strange that you need permission from the state to utilize one means and not another means (try to think of a way to convert this phenomenon into firearms-speak, why do I need a permit for a gun and not a knife or a baton or a rock carried for self-defense).

It's too bad we've had this hardwired into our minds so heavily that we no longer question the state, but buy their tired old lines every time the state uses them.


I was mistaken in saying that driving is a privilege - what I should have said is driving on a public road is a privilege. It is afforded to you by the public (which you are a part of) and the rules are set by the public through their representatives.


Be careful what you wish for on this one.  I can bicycle and walk on public streets and sidewalks without a license...should I need one?

Actually, let's take it one step further.  Should I need a license to use any kind of public good?  (Think PD, FD, .mil, and soforth)

By the way, I question whether or not government should even be in the road business.  We used to have a fine privately owned transportation network at one time until .gov screwed it all up.  It used to be that you went everywhere riding a privately owned train and nearly every town of any size had a rail depot.
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 7:17:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
This could be a "DUI isn't actually a crime unless someone is hurt or killed thread"; this could be an "I want to own an M-16" thread.  The beauty of it is that this thread could be about anything you can imagine.

As for the claim that driving isn't a right, I totally disagree with that.  Just as you have a right to convey yourself from point A to point B, so too is it your right to drive.  Strange that you need permission from the state to utilize one means and not another means (try to think of a way to convert this phenomenon into firearms-speak, why do I need a permit for a gun and not a knife or a baton or a rock carried for self-defense).

It's too bad we've had this hardwired into our minds so heavily that we no longer question the state, but buy their tired old lines every time the state uses them.


So if I want to fly a plane from point C to point D I shouldn't need license?



Correct. To fly a plane from point c to d, you don't need a license. You only need a license to operate the plane. Now though, you do have to file a flight plan even for training.
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 7:28:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GrandForks:

Be careful what you wish for on this one.  I can bicycle and walk on public streets and sidewalks without a license...should I need one?


I am not wishing for anything, just stating the way it is.

Actually, let's take it one step further.  Should I need a license to use any kind of public good?  (Think PD, FD, .mil, and soforth)


I am not arguing whether or not you should need a license for certain things, simply the reason it is the way it is - if it is a public owned entity, then you are not the sole decision maker in whether there should or shouldn't be a license.


By the way, I question whether or not government should even be in the road business.  We used to have a fine privately owned transportation network at one time until .gov screwed it all up.  It used to be that you went everywhere riding a privately owned train and nearly every town of any size had a rail depot.


Being libertarian in nature, I agree - again I am commenting on the system we have and the reason it is like it is.  However, even if private companies owned the roads, you would still have to go by their rules. Maybe as a paying customer you might have influence on their rules, but other paying customers would as well. And maybe their rules would not be as draconian as our nanny-state government, but in the end, without sole ownership, you would still be under their rules.  
That's all I am trying to point out about driving as we currently have it. Back to he post that started this –– I see a distinct difference in DUI laws for public roads and laws that would tell me I can't keep a firearm in the private property of my own home.
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 8:22:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Drilldo:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
This could be a "DUI isn't actually a crime unless someone is hurt or killed thread"; this could be an "I want to own an M-16" thread.  The beauty of it is that this thread could be about anything you can imagine.

As for the claim that driving isn't a right, I totally disagree with that.  Just as you have a right to convey yourself from point A to point B, so too is it your right to drive.  Strange that you need permission from the state to utilize one means and not another means (try to think of a way to convert this phenomenon into firearms-speak, why do I need a permit for a gun and not a knife or a baton or a rock carried for self-defense).

It's too bad we've had this hardwired into our minds so heavily that we no longer question the state, but buy their tired old lines every time the state uses them.


So if I want to fly a plane from point C to point D I shouldn't need license?



Correct. To fly a plane from point c to d, you don't need a license. You only need a license to operate the plane. Now though, you do have to file a flight plan even for training.


Actually, the need for a flight plan is a function of the type of airspace that you want to use.  IMHO this is not an unreasonable condition for the privilege of flight...  take it from a CFI, CFII, MEI, A&P-IA–– Fixed and Rotary Wing...

And, furthermore-

The thoughts that began this thread are too overstated-  simplify.  The problems that we face as a nation stem from the general plague of SPECIAL INTERESTS and the necessity to legislate those special interests by those that are in CONGRESS.  VOTE ALL THE BASTARDS OUT NEXT ELECTION (the cycle begins again in two years).  Eventually they'll get the message!  The fact is we all have our special interests- be it banking, tort reform, immigration or the AWB.  Tough row to hoe when all most we ever do is preach to the choir.
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 8:52:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By whiskeybravo:
Originally Posted By Drilldo:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
This could be a "DUI isn't actually a crime unless someone is hurt or killed thread"; this could be an "I want to own an M-16" thread.  The beauty of it is that this thread could be about anything you can imagine.

As for the claim that driving isn't a right, I totally disagree with that.  Just as you have a right to convey yourself from point A to point B, so too is it your right to drive.  Strange that you need permission from the state to utilize one means and not another means (try to think of a way to convert this phenomenon into firearms-speak, why do I need a permit for a gun and not a knife or a baton or a rock carried for self-defense).

It's too bad we've had this hardwired into our minds so heavily that we no longer question the state, but buy their tired old lines every time the state uses them.


So if I want to fly a plane from point C to point D I shouldn't need license?



Correct. To fly a plane from point c to d, you don't need a license. You only need a license to operate the plane. Now though, you do have to file a flight plan even for training.


Actually, the need for a flight plan is a function of the type of airspace that you want to use.  IMHO this is not an unreasonable condition for the privilege of flight...  take it from a CFI, CFII, MEI, A&P-IA–– Fixed and Rotary Wing...

And, furthermore-

The thoughts that began this thread are too overstated-  simplify.  The problems that we face as a nation stem from the general plague of SPECIAL INTERESTS and the necessity to legislate those special interests by those that are in CONGRESS.  VOTE ALL THE BASTARDS OUT NEXT ELECTION (the cycle begins again in two years).  Eventually they'll get the message!  The fact is we all have our special interests- be it banking, tort reform, immigration or the AWB.  Tough row to hoe when all most we ever do is preach to the choir.


I have a weekly column item that deals with special interests/lobbyists.  Perhaps I ought to fast track that one to completion so I can post it next week.

As for your comment about preaching to the choir, AR 15.com isn't the only place where I post this stuff and I certainly don't put it only in places where it would be a preaching to the choir, though I do put it on websites where it would be a preaching to the choir.

Anyway, one last comment before I go on a hiking trip today:

Beware of the argument that urges government intervention to "keep our kids safe".  Making me fear the unlicensed 13 year old driver is asking me to accept the idea that parents can't be trusted to do their job, welcoming government intervention.  
This logic is how we get "mandatory, age-appropriate" sex education for 2nd graders stuck in the morass of the public education system.  I'm here to argue an anti-statist position and agenda.
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 9:30:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Originally Posted By whiskeybravo:
Originally Posted By Drilldo:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
This could be a "DUI isn't actually a crime unless someone is hurt or killed thread"; this could be an "I want to own an M-16" thread.  The beauty of it is that this thread could be about anything you can imagine.

As for the claim that driving isn't a right, I totally disagree with that.  Just as you have a right to convey yourself from point A to point B, so too is it your right to drive.  Strange that you need permission from the state to utilize one means and not another means (try to think of a way to convert this phenomenon into firearms-speak, why do I need a permit for a gun and not a knife or a baton or a rock carried for self-defense).

It's too bad we've had this hardwired into our minds so heavily that we no longer question the state, but buy their tired old lines every time the state uses them.


So if I want to fly a plane from point C to point D I shouldn't need license?



Correct. To fly a plane from point c to d, you don't need a license. You only need a license to operate the plane. Now though, you do have to file a flight plan even for training.


Actually, the need for a flight plan is a function of the type of airspace that you want to use.  IMHO this is not an unreasonable condition for the privilege of flight...  take it from a CFI, CFII, MEI, A&P-IA–– Fixed and Rotary Wing...

And, furthermore-

The thoughts that began this thread are too overstated-  simplify.  The problems that we face as a nation stem from the general plague of SPECIAL INTERESTS and the necessity to legislate those special interests by those that are in CONGRESS.  VOTE ALL THE BASTARDS OUT NEXT ELECTION (the cycle begins again in two years).  Eventually they'll get the message!  The fact is we all have our special interests- be it banking, tort reform, immigration or the AWB.  Tough row to hoe when all most we ever do is preach to the choir.


I have a weekly column item that deals with special interests/lobbyists.  Perhaps I ought to fast track that one to completion so I can post it next week.

As for your comment about preaching to the choir, AR 15.com isn't the only place where I post this stuff and I certainly don't put it only in places where it would be a preaching to the choir, though I do put it on websites where it would be a preaching to the choir.

Anyway, one last comment before I go on a hiking trip today:

Beware of the argument that urges government intervention to "keep our kids safe".  Making me fear the unlicensed 13 year old driver is asking me to accept the idea that parents can't be trusted to do their job, welcoming government intervention.  
This logic is how we get "mandatory, age-appropriate" sex education for 2nd graders stuck in the morass of the public education system.  I'm here to argue an anti-statist position and agenda.


My last shot for the day-(hope not! as deer season opened in NY)—

Sadly, TOO MANY parents CAN NOT be trusted to raise their children. As one example consider that   in this touchy––feely world of feel good, positive reinforcement, no one should fail bullshit- it somehow becomes the systems fault that Johnny can’t learn in school.  The result?  Dump more money into the schools.  In reality- parents of my generation (I’m 50+) forgot the lessons of parenting beat into us by parents, neighbors, preachers, teachers and the law.  In the extreme, now we’re surrounded by, and swallowed up in, a system that truly is convinced that we are all not just equal but the same.  The fact is- sometimes Johnny is just STUPID or WRONG.  The fact is that many parents are AFRAID to seriously discipline a child.  Maybe the system failed when “learning disabled” individuals became part of the general population at a school by rule of legislation or when teachers were no longer allowed to fail a student for not completing his work.  The system is ALL wrong now.  The solution starts with basics—God, guns and religion (any religion), reading, writing and arithmetic, family disciple and family values.  So- as a mass we’ve decided to let the government do OUR jobs for us collectively.  In fact- there exists no simple, collective solution to a problems most people won’t face at home.
Link Posted: 11/15/2008 9:37:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By whiskeybravo:
Originally Posted By Drilldo:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
This could be a "DUI isn't actually a crime unless someone is hurt or killed thread"; this could be an "I want to own an M-16" thread.  The beauty of it is that this thread could be about anything you can imagine.

As for the claim that driving isn't a right, I totally disagree with that.  Just as you have a right to convey yourself from point A to point B, so too is it your right to drive.  Strange that you need permission from the state to utilize one means and not another means (try to think of a way to convert this phenomenon into firearms-speak, why do I need a permit for a gun and not a knife or a baton or a rock carried for self-defense).

It's too bad we've had this hardwired into our minds so heavily that we no longer question the state, but buy their tired old lines every time the state uses them.


So if I want to fly a plane from point C to point D I shouldn't need license?



Correct. To fly a plane from point c to d, you don't need a license. You only need a license to operate the plane. Now though, you do have to file a flight plan even for training.


Actually, the need for a flight plan is a function of the type of airspace that you want to use.  IMHO this is not an unreasonable condition for the privilege of flight...  take it from a CFI, CFII, MEI, A&P-IA–– Fixed and Rotary Wing...

And, furthermore-

The thoughts that began this thread are too overstated-  simplify.  The problems that we face as a nation stem from the general plague of SPECIAL INTERESTS and the necessity to legislate those special interests by those that are in CONGRESS.  VOTE ALL THE BASTARDS OUT NEXT ELECTION (the cycle begins again in two years).  Eventually they'll get the message!  The fact is we all have our special interests- be it banking, tort reform, immigration or the AWB.  Tough row to hoe when all most we ever do is preach to the choir.


If you have all of those ratings, I hate you. I am still on the 3rd stage of my inst. rating. I soloed in 1997.  Expensive hobby. Especially hate you if you have your roto rating. $300/hr around here for me, but I will get it.
Link Posted: 11/16/2008 9:25:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By whiskeybravo:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
Originally Posted By whiskeybravo:
Originally Posted By Drilldo:
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
This could be a "DUI isn't actually a crime unless someone is hurt or killed thread"; this could be an "I want to own an M-16" thread.  The beauty of it is that this thread could be about anything you can imagine.

As for the claim that driving isn't a right, I totally disagree with that.  Just as you have a right to convey yourself from point A to point B, so too is it your right to drive.  Strange that you need permission from the state to utilize one means and not another means (try to think of a way to convert this phenomenon into firearms-speak, why do I need a permit for a gun and not a knife or a baton or a rock carried for self-defense).

It's too bad we've had this hardwired into our minds so heavily that we no longer question the state, but buy their tired old lines every time the state uses them.


So if I want to fly a plane from point C to point D I shouldn't need license?



Correct. To fly a plane from point c to d, you don't need a license. You only need a license to operate the plane. Now though, you do have to file a flight plan even for training.


Actually, the need for a flight plan is a function of the type of airspace that you want to use.  IMHO this is not an unreasonable condition for the privilege of flight...  take it from a CFI, CFII, MEI, A&P-IA–– Fixed and Rotary Wing...

And, furthermore-

The thoughts that began this thread are too overstated-  simplify.  The problems that we face as a nation stem from the general plague of SPECIAL INTERESTS and the necessity to legislate those special interests by those that are in CONGRESS.  VOTE ALL THE BASTARDS OUT NEXT ELECTION (the cycle begins again in two years).  Eventually they'll get the message!  The fact is we all have our special interests- be it banking, tort reform, immigration or the AWB.  Tough row to hoe when all most we ever do is preach to the choir.


I have a weekly column item that deals with special interests/lobbyists.  Perhaps I ought to fast track that one to completion so I can post it next week.

As for your comment about preaching to the choir, AR 15.com isn't the only place where I post this stuff and I certainly don't put it only in places where it would be a preaching to the choir, though I do put it on websites where it would be a preaching to the choir.

Anyway, one last comment before I go on a hiking trip today:

Beware of the argument that urges government intervention to "keep our kids safe".  Making me fear the unlicensed 13 year old driver is asking me to accept the idea that parents can't be trusted to do their job, welcoming government intervention.  
This logic is how we get "mandatory, age-appropriate" sex education for 2nd graders stuck in the morass of the public education system.  I'm here to argue an anti-statist position and agenda.


My last shot for the day-(hope not! as deer season opened in NY)—

Sadly, TOO MANY parents CAN NOT be trusted to raise their children. As one example consider that   in this touchy––feely world of feel good, positive reinforcement, no one should fail bullshit- it somehow becomes the systems fault that Johnny can’t learn in school.  The result?  Dump more money into the schools.  In reality- parents of my generation (I’m 50+) forgot the lessons of parenting beat into us by parents, neighbors, preachers, teachers and the law.  In the extreme, now we’re surrounded by, and swallowed up in, a system that truly is convinced that we are all not just equal but the same.  The fact is- sometimes Johnny is just STUPID or WRONG.  The fact is that many parents are AFRAID to seriously discipline a child.  Maybe the system failed when “learning disabled” individuals became part of the general population at a school by rule of legislation or when teachers were no longer allowed to fail a student for not completing his work.  The system is ALL wrong now.  The solution starts with basics—God, guns and religion (any religion), reading, writing and arithmetic, family disciple and family values.  So- as a mass we’ve decided to let the government do OUR jobs for us collectively.  In fact- there exists no simple, collective solution to a problems most people won’t face at home.


This is why I believe in extremely limited government.  It's my opinion that government manipulation in virtually every aspect of our society has caused this watering down that we would be wise to eschew...if only we could always be free to do so.  Sadly, the government doesn't like competition in something where they've become involved...unless of course they can control the "competition".  Wow, that opens up a whole new set of possibilities.  Consider this:

You know how there's this program called Social Security that's supposed to help people in retirement?  We have things in the private sector that do the same thing.  But what happens to those things in the private sector?  You need all kinds of special licensing, permits, audits, or whatever.  From whom do these come?  The government!  Tell me, when does the private sector ever get to go in and impose things on Social Security?  It's a double f***ing standard that ought to be eliminated!
Link Posted: 11/16/2008 9:35:13 AM EDT
you do have to file a flight plan even for training
.

IFR flights...
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 5:36:46 AM EDT
Good thread. I agree with the OP 100%.
Link Posted: 11/17/2008 2:16:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DangerousNinja:
Good thread. I agree with the OP 100%.


One of my best turnouts ever!
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 1:28:50 PM EDT
I want more reads for this thread!
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 1:33:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
........................
So if I want to fly a plane from point C to point D I shouldn't need license?



Did the operation of an ultralight plane require a license? Haven't seen one of those in years.
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 1:39:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GrandForks:
If you'd like an IM when I post a new one of these, let me know.  I post once a week.

“We have too many laws.”

In my discussions with people who identify as conservative or as a Republican, this phrase is greeted with universal approval.  There is no end to the sort of bashing that issues from such people when this topic is introduced; complaints about this regulation or that regulation abound.

“I don’t mean only regulatory rules; I’m talking about criminal law.”  

This, my usual response to regulatory bashing, stops all talking at once as a stunned hush falls over those in the discussion.  It’s almost as if this has never before occurred to them.  This is a problem.

One of the great tragedies of our society is the transformation of priorities that has taken place within the law enforcement apparatus and the legislative process.  The transformation relates to how we as a society think of the law.

One job of the government is to punish criminal wrongdoing by wielding the power and authority loaned it by the citizenry for that purpose.  When punishment is meted out, it is only after someone has been proven guilty of some wrongdoing.  Again, government wields this power AFTER a crime has been committed and the suspect has been proven guilty.  The punishment is a reactive force that strips an exact person of something after he has done something that is actually wrong.  Only during the 20th Century did the paradigm shift.

Now, law is not only expected to provide for reactive punishment of an exact person after they have done wrong, but also to be a proactive, preventing force applied to many inexact people in hopes of heading one of them off at the pass, so to speak, before they commit a crime regardless of their intent to act as such.  Again, law is now expected to make illegal for everyone behaviors thought to be connected to actual criminal activity without having to prove criminal intent and certainly not waiting to see if an actual crime will be committed.

An example of this phenomenon is a town with many banks.  During a particularly trying time, a man with a ski mask and a shotgun robs many of these banks.  The townspeople, in a panic and ready to try any remedy, allow the city council to pass citywide bans on ski masks and shotguns.  It becomes illegal in this town to be found in possession of either item.

You can see the problem with this thinking.  All of a sudden, many people who had nothing to do with the bank robberies-aside from owning items used by the robber-are made instant criminals without having done anything that’s actually wrong.  Hopefully, the foolishness of this is realized lest the town’s renowned ski team be locked up only weeks before the Winter Olympics in which they were projected to do well…all for having ski masks.

Let's revisit the Republican Party.  A sad fact in more recent years is the recognition that the party is the party that’s “tough on crime”.  Having abdicated the moral high ground of being the party of liberty due to laziness and unwillingness to show leadership by teaching the masses why liberty is good and electable, the Republicans instead found it easier to exploit the “tough on crime” reputation.  When this happened, the good party I once knew was ruined.

At this point, the Republicans engaged in the sort of fear-based scaremongering that the Democrats has long ago mastered.  Like the Democrats, the Republicans were able to isolate, take, and hold certain key voting blocs and constituencies by forcing them on the take with this new brand of statist thinking.  When this becomes your method for winning, a desire builds to come up with new ways to keep people coming back.  Hence, the Republicans got into the preventive criminal law business too.

The terrible end result of all this preventive criminal law is a loss of liberty.  Rather than having law around to be a means by which people that truly do wrong might be punished, law now becomes a means of enforcing compliance on everyone.  Once this is accomplished, the citizenry is told that they still have liberty…as long as they are in compliance with these new demands of government.  

Liberty secured through compliance is not liberty; it is tyranny.  Preventive law, the demander of undefined compliance, must be abolished.



My sentiments exactly.

Part of my rant on privacy invasion "for our own good":

Someone explain to me why I have to register like a sex offender every single time I buy OVER THE COUNTER asthma medication, or something for my fucking allergies or cold, or flu, or whatever the fuck I've got.

You know what? I WANT TO BE ABLE TO BREATHE and I can't afford to renew my fucking inhaler prescription right now. When I go in to buy a thirteen dollar box of pills to keep my asthma from flaring up, YOU DON'T NEED MY FUCKING NAME, BIRTH DATE, ADDRESS, DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER, AND ALL MY INFORMATION ENTERED INTO A FUCKING DATABASE THAT YOU KEEP FOREVER. And if I want more than one box of medicine then I'LL BUY MORE THAN ONE FUCKING BOX OF MEDICINE, MOTHER FUCKERS!

Oh, someone might try to make meth from that single box of over-the-counter medication, so you need to register all my information in your little database? You know what bitch, I've got a dick, so I just might bend you over this counter and rape you in the ass, so why don't we go ahead and add me to that sex offender registry preemptively. And hey, some asshole tried blowing up a school and a couple federal buildings with pipe bombs, so I guess we better register me and record all my purchases whenever I buy some plumbing. We already do it to gun owners, right?

FUCK THIS SHIT. DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER! If some asshole wants to make meth, you arrest HIS ass, you don't need to do a fucking THING to ME, and you don't need to violate my privacy one iota!
Link Posted: 11/19/2008 1:42:26 PM EDT
The government should only interfere in my activities when they interfere with the rights of other people. Until and unless I start infringing on the rights of others (theft, murder, rape, etc.), they should leave me the fuck alone.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 2:16:25 PM EDT
Please!  Read more about preventive law and make the connection between it and "creeping totalitarianism"!
Top Top