Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

[loomer]

Okay. So, your new position is we shouldn't have any laws. Got it. You do realize your position would be the complete end to our society, and to the very possibility of society (unless achieved in a Marxist utopia, anyway, according to marxist legal theorists.)

[Carinthium]

I'm not 100% certain that it's impossible to make laws completely, 100% clear. But IF that is the case then, and ONLY THEN, would I adopt that posistion. It is better than the alternative.

[loomer]

Again, your 'better than' scenario is men killing each other with rocks over food. It is impossible to have laws that are 100% clear unless they are zero-tolerance mandatory penalties for anyone accused, which would itself be tyranny, which would thus necessitate having no law under your model, leading back to men beating each other to death for an apple.

[Broomstick]

My new posistion is, after thought, that it is unjust to have any law that people cannot understand properly and if that means it is unjust to have law at all then so be it. There, I've put it in this thread.

If there can't be absolute certainty in law, so be it- a law without said certainty is unjust anyway.

What if 9999 out of 10,000 people understand it just fine but there's this one loser over here who doesn't, due to a complete inability to manage abstract concepts? Why should he be able to invalidate what works just fine for the rest of the folks?

Literal meanings can exist with only a very limited amount of context- a language and a broad era. I didn't say no context, but very little context (although there was confusion due to differing definitions of 'context').

Don't you get tired what with constantly moving goalposts?

So, do you have a similar problem with the rest of human culture and civilization?

Only law, for the reasons I have stated.

Really? Because someone else linked to a thread where you seem to have trouble comprehending why mass conscripting an army to steamroll a third world country just nuked by a world power is a Bad Idea. Is it that you've never been allowed out of mama's basement or they did let you out but you can't cope with the real world?

Oddly enough, the vast majority of the rest of us manage to comprehend the law sufficiently to avoid breaking it. Thus, I conclude the problem is with YOU.

It doesn't matter if it's unlikely that a person will run into legal problems- the point is that they do. I could name plenty of examples of people convicted due to legal ambiguities through a quick Wikipedia check alone.

You know, a lot of criminals understand the law just fine - they just thought they could get away with breaking it. You do realize that there are some genuinely bad people out in the world? Perfect comprehension of the law will not lead to a world with no crime.

Really, what your view comes down to is that of a spoiled brat who doesn't want the rules to apply to him.

[Carinthium]

What if 9999 out of 10,000 people understand it just fine but there's this one loser over here who doesn't, due to a complete inability to manage abstract concepts? Why should he be able to invalidate what works just fine for the rest of the folks?

I CAN understand abstract concepts, thank you very much. Law is an abstract concept, for a start.

If referring to a hypothetical loser (which I know you weren't, false though your accusations are), I would say that it doesn't matter- if they can't understand the rules, it is unfair for them to apply.

Don't you get tired what with constantly moving goalposts?

I haven't moved any goalposts, literal or metaphorical.

Really? Because someone else linked to a thread where you seem to have trouble comprehending why mass conscripting an army to steamroll a third world country just nuked by a world power is a Bad Idea. Is it that you've never been allowed out of mama's basement or they did let you out but you can't cope with the real world?

Other than political reasons, there ARE no problems with doing so.

You know, a lot of criminals understand the law just fine - they just thought they could get away with breaking it. You do realize that there are some genuinely bad people out in the world? Perfect comprehension of the law will not lead to a world with no crime.

Really, what your view comes down to is that of a spoiled brat who doesn't want the rules to apply to him.

I'm talking about cases such as when it was ruled firearms could be outlawed in the United States, or when it was ruled that radio and television were federal powers in Australia. Intention is irrelevant- those people were convicted, in effect, retroactively.

I never claimed perfect comprehension would lead to a world with no crime- I'm simply claiming it is a requirement of justice anyway. You don't seem to get deontology.

[loomer]

Carinthium, should the law apply to the mentally ill? They are legitimately incapable of understanding the idea sometimes - should they thus be given free rein?

[Carinthium]

Speaking only on those so mentally ill that they cannot understand ANY rules, then I would consider the only just "laws" to apply to be rights to self-defence (or having minders defend others from them) in such a way as to indirectly restrict them.

On further thought, anything that is purely an extenstion of a right to self-defence would be a libertarian exception in my head.

[Terralthra]

I would say that it doesn't matter- if they can't understand the rules, it is unfair for them to apply.

I never claimed perfect comprehension would lead to a world with no crime- I'm simply claiming it is a requirement of justice anyway.

Please justify the position that laws must be perfectly comprehensible in order to be fair.

We have laws so as to create a regulated structure of permissible actions by individuals (et alii) in order to have a civilized society. These laws proscribe, discourage, incentivize, or require certain actions which are against or for the common good or the good of individuals. Why is it "unfair" for a person who can not understand the law to nonetheless be subject to them. Is the victim of one who murders, but does not understand that murder is illegal, any less dead? Is that non-understanding person any less of a threat to a civilized society (I'd argue they are more of a threat, but that's neither here nor there)?

It's certainly arguable that laws should be as clear as possible to the greatest number of people, as that promotes the original goal: a civilized society created by regulating the actions of individuals, but that certainly doesn't imply the converse, that if they are unclear to any one person, they are junk and should be tossed.

So, again, please justify your position.

[Carinthium]

A clarification question first. Terralthra, do you believe in the concept of just retribution independent of detterent or not? And if so, why?

[loomer]

Speaking only on those so mentally ill that they cannot understand ANY rules, then I would consider the only just "laws" to apply to be rights to self-defence (or having minders defend others from them) in such a way as to indirectly restrict them.

On further thought, anything that is purely an extenstion of a right to self-defence would be a libertarian exception in my head.

You would not, however, consider it appropriate to imprison in a treatment facility a violent schizophrenic found committing violent acts? That would be a direct restriction on their liberties, due to laws they don't understand and are incapable of understanding due to their illness. If you claim otherwise, you're extending the concept of self-defence to include pre-emptive defence of the community, either in treatment or confinement forms.

[Carinthium]

Effectively, yes- although employing people to follow them around and keep them from entering private property would be a different matter.

[Terralthra]

I'm sorry, I can't understand "just retribution." Do you mean "only retribution" or "retribution in the pursuit of justice"?

Yes, I'm making fun of you.

[Carinthium]

I meant the latter- in my defence regarding my previous posistion, I was attempting to create an idea of literal law that was completely free of ambiguity. Incorporating phrases such as "common law" into that would be difficult at best.

[Metahive]

Metahive:
A- Any of those things could have been done had the Americans not had political problems impeding them. In such an event, the other obstacles would go away as they did for ancient Empires which did similiar things.
[...]
Other than political reasons, there ARE no problems with doing so.

For context, this is Carny talking about massacring other nation's people indiscriminately and sending bloated conscript armies in for occupation.

Carny, I only brought this up to illustrate your failures at dealing with RL issues in an adult manner. There's no point in restating your position from back then since it's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand and does nothing but waste time. Your continued lack of empathy however is noted.

B- I don't know what you mean by the principle of abstraction here, but I'm guessing it won't be hard to answer- I've already made the necessary ethical points about a moral right to understand a law before being made to follow it.

Your "ethical" point is that if you don't understand something then it's incomprehensible and anyone saying otherwise is delusional, mistaken or dishonest. So, concrete thinker, sociopath and solipsist. Are there any other epithets you'd like to add to the collection?

[Broomstick]

What if 9999 out of 10,000 people understand it just fine but there's this one loser over here who doesn't, due to a complete inability to manage abstract concepts? Why should he be able to invalidate what works just fine for the rest of the folks?

I CAN understand abstract concepts, thank you very much. Law is an abstract concept, for a start.

So far you have not demonstrated that ability.

If referring to a hypothetical loser (which I know you weren't, false though your accusations are), I would say that it doesn't matter- if they can't understand the rules, it is unfair for them to apply.

So, because we will always have mental defectives who will be unable to understand the law you maintain we should have no laws at all. Got it. You're a racist shit anarchist.

Really? Because someone else linked to a thread where you seem to have trouble comprehending why mass conscripting an army to steamroll a third world country just nuked by a world power is a Bad Idea. Is it that you've never been allowed out of mama's basement or they did let you out but you can't cope with the real world?

Other than political reasons, there ARE no problems with doing so.

What about the economic costs? Or do you think transport halfway around the world comes for free? That's just to start.

This is why I think you're AYVB (Angry Young Virgin Basement) dweller. For all your talk about "literal" you have no comprehension of how the real world works.

You know, a lot of criminals understand the law just fine - they just thought they could get away with breaking it. You do realize that there are some genuinely bad people out in the world? Perfect comprehension of the law will not lead to a world with no crime.

Really, what your view comes down to is that of a spoiled brat who doesn't want the rules to apply to him.

I'm talking about cases such as when it was ruled firearms could be outlawed in the United States, or when it was ruled that radio and television were federal powers in Australia. Intention is irrelevant- those people were convicted, in effect, retroactively.

I thought we were talking about US law - what they do in Australia is not relevant.

As for "outlawing firearms" in the US - 2nd amendment says that can't be done. On the other hand, the 2nd amendment also mentions "well regulated" and thus the government does have the authority to regulate ownership of firearms. What's argued is the degree to which they can be regulated. But I don't expect you to understand that at all. Also, the third paragraph of section 9 of Article 1 clearly states "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" which makes any such law unconstitutional under any interpretation but once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the document you worship and masturbate to.

I never claimed perfect comprehension would lead to a world with no crime- I'm simply claiming it is a requirement of justice anyway. You don't seem to get deontology.

You don't seem to get reality.

[loomer]

Effectively, yes- although employing people to follow them around and keep them from entering private property would be a different matter.

Okay. Again, we encounter a problem with your proposed system. It does nothing to allow for the confinement of dangerous individuals, be they a danger to themselves or others. Further, how exactly do you plan to ensure said individuals are employed? The free market, or government intervention (which would require, y'know, a law, either creating such a group or empowering a minister or other executive or even judicial official to appoint such individuals)?

[Broomstick]

Effectively, yes- although employing people to follow them around and keep them from entering private property would be a different matter.

Who is going to pay for those minders? Or will they be part of your conscript army?

Again, no comprehension of how things actually work in the real world, where you have to pay people for their time and labor.

[Flagg]

Obvious troll is trolling.

[K. A. Pital]

Abolition of the law at a high stage of development is a nice Marxist position, as loomer just said, and it is a paradoxical position for a libertarian person, perhaps. But what is your plan, then, to reach this stage? Would you also seek to abolish language?

[Carinthium]

Metahive- I am trying to demonstrate that is impossible IN PRINCIPLE to understand some of these things. Such as when such decisions are made retroactively.

I only use empathy when it is appropriate to use empathy. When planning the affairs of an empire, it is not appropriate.

Broomstick- Ignoring idiotic remarks on your part, it is worth pointing out:

1- There can be exceptions to laws.
2- Pragmatism used too much here.
3- Then why does modern United States law forbid the use of nuclear weapons, or grenade launchers? Why can people not drive tanks down the street if they want to?

loomer- Again, a question of pragmatism. Human rights exist regardless of problems in their way.

Stas Bush- I'm not sure yet- I'm just thinking it through. What I'd try to do first is attempt to create a set of rules of legal interpretation which made law 100% comprehensible. IF that failed, I would then go about attempting to create a large segment of popular culture that favored anarchism as a "spring-board" to further action (yes this would be very difficult, but it's the root of least resistance so to speak) through pro-anarchy propaganda.

[Metahive]

Metahive- I am trying to demonstrate that is impossible IN PRINCIPLE to understand some of these things. Such as when such decisions are made retroactively.

You're continuously failing at that because of your demonstrated inability to grok abstractions. How about you simply accept that deficiency and bow out of the debate?

I only use empathy when it is appropriate to use empathy. When planning the affairs of an empire, it is not appropriate.

Here, some choice quotes for your delectation, Mr. Realpolitik:

"Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice."

"I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature."

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.”

"It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God."

They are from some little known austrian picture postcard painter. Words to live by, right, eh, eh? *nudge* *wink*

[Carinthium]

Metahive:

You've given me no rational argument to deal with, but I should point out:

A- There is nothing to get- judges retroactively make law (for practical purposes, even if they say they aren't), leading to injustice.
B- Those quotes do describe a philosophy that is good at effective EMPIRE-BUILDING. That does not mean it is morally right. In the previous thread, I was talking in abstract as to how to best build an empire.

[Broomstick]

Metahive- I am trying to demonstrate that is impossible IN PRINCIPLE to understand some of these things. Such as when such decisions are made retroactively.

Retroactive laws are prohibited by the US constitution, Article 1 Section 9 Paragraph 3, as already stated.

Broomstick- Ignoring idiotic remarks on your part, it is worth pointing out:

You realize that if we ignored YOUR idiotic remarks we'd have nothing to say to you?

1- There can be exceptions to laws.

Really? I thought you were all about obeying the rules without exception. Hypocrite.

2- Pragmatism used too much here.

I'm sorry - what's the context for this statement? Used to much in your home? Your city? In the world at large? Please define "here" in unambiguous terms so we can understand what you're saying.

3- Then why does modern United States law forbid the use of nuclear weapons, or grenade launchers?

Does it? If I recall the US actually has used nuclear bombs in warfare. Twice. Not to mention all that testing. Please point to the law that forbids nuclear weapons.

Why can people not drive tanks down the street if they want to?

Actually... they can. Of course, you have to obtain a tank, and authorities might want some assurance the driver is competent, you'll stick to streets that can support the weight of the vehicle without damage, and likewise bystanders won't be hurt but people can and do drive tanks outside of war. I don't think it's unreasonable that those wishing to do that be required to do it in a safe manner.

[Broomstick]

Stas Bush- I'm not sure yet- I'm just thinking it through. What I'd try to do first is attempt to create a set of rules of legal interpretation which made law 100% comprehensible. IF that failed, I would then go about attempting to create a large segment of popular culture that favored anarchism as a "spring-board" to further action (yes this would be very difficult, but it's the root of least resistance so to speak) through pro-anarchy propaganda.

So, you're pro-anarchy?

When the local warlord who is bigger, stronger, and more bad-ass than you gets finished taking your stuff, eating your food, and it ass-fucking you for the LOL get back to me on how well that works out for you. Anarchy sucks for everyone but those on top. That's why we invented civilization and law in the first place.

[Metahive]

You've given me no rational argument to deal with, but I should point out:

I think it's rich that you apparently think of your arguments as being anywhere near "rational" when in reality they're all bourn out of your own gut-feelings and gut-instincts.

A- There is nothing to get- judges retroactively make law (for practical purposes, even if they say they aren't), leading to injustice.

You are of course basing this upon hours and hours of painstaking and diligent research you've done and not...o wait, re: gut-feeling and gut-instinct above.

B- Those quotes do describe a philosophy that is good at effective EMPIRE-BUILDING. That does not mean it is morally right. In the previous thread, I was talking in abstract as to how to best build an empire.

Do you know who made those quotes? Lemme' tell you, the people who tried to build an empire based on them didn't do a lasting job.