Police Stops: Constitutional

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286576779' post='2178636']Correct. Now, how is my staying within a geographical area, despite the fact that it happens to controlled by a violent monopoly, a display of "unspoken consent:" a validation of the legitimacy of their rule and a silent approbation of the justice of their actions? [/quote]These are NOT the conditions I stipulated for my example... Might want to address what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286576779' post='2178636']You suspect rashly. I am not mistaking force for consent. I am saying that my staying in a particular geographical area is absolutely no indication that I give any form of consent to any violent entities that operate therein. [/quote]If you do it voluntarily while voluntarily cooperating within that social contract, you are giving some kind of consent.[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286576779' post='2178636']You did:[/quote]Representation of an argument does not imply agreement with it. I can clearly represent the argument of an atheist without being an atheist, unless you see this as a personal fight between the two of us and I should only bring forward my personal opinions.[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286576779' post='2178636']I don't deny the existence of tacit consent. I deny that your example of "tacit consent" is not an example of tacit consent. A true example of tacit consent would be allowing a child to take three pieces of candy from the bowl on Halloween because you didn't say anything against it. Giving three pieces of candy to a child who has a gun to your head and [i]demands[/i] three pieces of candy is not "tacit consent."[/quote]When following the posted advisory while driving, I was not aware there was a peace officer with a gun lodged in your head ever ready to blow your brains out if you disregard that advisory. If that is the case, I agree it was not voluntary, thus not "[i]tacit consent[/i]". But as soon as that force becomes indirect and you are cooperating on your own, it is some kind of consent.

To keep with your example, your arguing that if you handed candy out frantically to little children in fear they will egg your house, that fear is NOT a direct force. You are still voluntary cooperating and voluntary putting candy out. If you didn't is there a possibly an egg my hit your door, sure...

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286577271' post='2178640']
These are NOT the conditions I stipulated for my example... Might want to address what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

If you do it voluntarily while voluntarily cooperating within that social contract, you are giving some kind of consent.[/quote]
Again, you're predicating a "social contract." You need to prove such a chimera exists before you or anyone else can ascribe credence to it.


[quote]Representation of an argument does not imply agreement with it.[/quote]
You said that remaining within the jungle, did, in fact, imply consent. That is not merely a representation of an argument, that is an affirmation of your belief that the statement is true.


[quote]When following the posted advisory while driving, I was not aware there was a peace officer with a gun lodged in your head ever ready to blow your brains out if you disregard that advisory.[/quote]
What happens if you disregarded the advisory, disregarded the blinky red and blue lights in your rear view mirror, and disregarded the orders of the officer to put your hands up, all acts based upon the initial lack of regard for the advisory? He blows your brains out. (Or more likely, he unleashes his entire 17-round mag at you and you bleed out from a nicked femoral artery on the second mag.) And the majority would think, "Well, whatever that cop done were right, 'cause he's a cop. You run from a cop, and you deserve what you get, no matter why you were runnin.'" [i]That[/i] is a classic example of "tacit consent."


[quote]If that is the case, I agree it was not voluntary, thus not "[i]tacit consent[/i]". But as soon as that force becomes indirect and you are cooperating on your own, it is some kind of consent.[/quote]
There is always [i]some [/i]form of consent in any human act. The political idea of "tacit consent" is not synonymous with "how much the people are willing to tolerate." It's synonymous with "I agree to the rules because I live here, and agree that 50% plus one is a magical number that gives their violent actions legitimacy."


[quote]To keep with your example, your arguing that if you handed candy out frantically to little children in fear they will egg your house, that fear is NOT a direct force. You are still voluntary cooperating and voluntary putting candy out. If you didn't is there a possibly an egg my hit your door, sure...
[/quote]
My giving them candy to prevent them from harming me is, in a way, consensual, [i]insofar [/i]as the interaction is voluntary, but it is not the political theory of "tacit consent." If it were an example of the political theory of "tacit consent," my giving them candy would be my way of saying, "Well, it's what children do, so I am bound to give them candy or else rightly suffer the just consequences."

~Sternhauser

Edited October 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286571361' post='2178609']
"[i]Tacit consent[/i]" in political science simply proposes that if you [b][u]voluntarily[/u][/b] are cooperating with a state and [b][u]voluntarily[/u][/b] living in the territory of that respective state, you are giving your consent to that government and social contract.[/quote]So... what your whole argument is based on is IGNORING "voluntarily"... Then arguing there is no differences in the kind of consent, which is inherently implied when we start NAMING the kind of consent...

I think you imagine violation of "[i]tacit consent[/i]" means the FULL FORCE of law will come crashing down around you while the world implodes cracking apart into molten coagulated milk... No...

"[i]Tacit consent[/i]" isn't ALL or NOTHING.

My institution enacted a policy that smoking on all campuses or near institution activities will be disciplined. The only place they allow it is within a private vehicle that isn't near other students or activities. I really don't care about the policy and it doesn't influence me, but I haven't joined any of the student protests or petitions, I haven't gone to another institution, nor have I actively tried to be deviant to the new policy. I have given my "[i]tacit consent[/i]", because I voluntarily cooperate and I am voluntarily there. If I choose to start protesting or go to another institution, my "[i]tacit consent[/i]" has ceased, no violation of the policy needed...

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286579715' post='2178647']
So... what your whole argument is based on is IGNORING "voluntarily"... Then arguing there is no differences in the kind of consent, which is inherently implied when we start NAMING the kind of consent...

I think you imagine violation of "[i]tacit consent[/i]" means the FULL FORCE of law will come crashing down around you while the world implodes cracking apart into molten coagulated milk... No...

"[i]Tacit consent[/i]" isn't ALL or NOTHING.[/quote]

I made no such claims.

[quote]My institution enacted a policy that smoking on all campuses or near institution activities will be disciplined. The only place they allow it is within a private vehicle that isn't near other students or activities. I really don't care about the policy and it doesn't influence me, but I haven't joined any of the student protests or petitions, I haven't gone to another institution, nor have I actively tried to be deviant to the new policy. I have given my "[i]tacit consent[/i]", because I voluntarily cooperate and I am voluntarily there. If I choose to start protesting or go to another institution, my "[i]tacit consent[/i]" has ceased, no violation of the policy needed...
[/quote]

Not saying something or acting against a behavior one disapproves of is not "tacit consent." If you refrain from saying, "Hey, you, same-sex couple holding hands, you shouldn't engage in homosexual behavior," have you given tacit consent to their relationship? And if so, what [i]kind[/i] of consent is unspoken? The theory of "tacit consent" means that you [i]approve[/i] of the actions of a third party [i]because[/i] you believe you have an [i]unspoken agreement[/i] with them, [i]not[/i] because you let them get away with it. I have no contract, no agreement with any politician. I do not follow their unjust statutes because I believe they have any right to enact and enforce unjust statutes, I follow them because if I don't, their thugs might visit unjust violence upon me. Following the statutes because I believed they had the right to enact and enforce them would be "tacit consent." Following the statutes to avoid violence is no sign of consent, which really means, "recognition of a right," in the term "tacit consent." If I make no sound or resistance to a robber, have I given him my tacit consent? I believe I've only given him my money. "Tacit consent" does not mean what you think it means.

My not smoking for fear of being punished would not be an example of "tacit consent." My not smoking because I [i]respect your will[/i] would be an example of tacit consent.

The underlying question about such an institutional arrangement is: would it be just for the institution to expel you if you smoked? If not, why? If [i]so, [/i]why?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286581703' post='2178655']I made no such claims.[/quote]You did... I insistently have mentioned the word "voluntary" and you have insistently come up with examples that are NON-voluntary... [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286581703' post='2178655']Not saying something or acting against a behavior one disapproves of is not "tacit consent." If you refrain from saying, "Hey, you, same-sex couple holding hands, you shouldn't engage in homosexual behavior," have you given tacit consent to their relationship? And if so, what [i]kind[/i] of consent is unspoken? The theory of "tacit consent" means that you [i]approve[/i] of the actions of a third party [i]because[/i] you believe you have an [i]unspoken agreement[/i] with them, [i]not[/i] because you let them get away with it.[/quote]"[i]Tacit consent[/i]" is aimed more in a social contract sort of mentality. You are the one mentioning NON-Social Contract examples... "[s]rape[/s]", "halloween", "jungles", and now "homosexual relationships"... So again your whole mode of argument isn't quite getting there. But this is a discussion so I replied in the hopes to foster dialogue...[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286581703' post='2178655']My not smoking for fear of being punished would not be an example of "tacit consent." My not smoking because I [i]respect your will[/i] would be an example of tacit consent.[/quote]Respectfully disagreed. If you voluntarily came to my campus and voluntarily started to smoke, you broke "[i]tacit consent[/i]", and would be fined and asked to leave. But if you In-voluntarily were taken to my campus and In-voluntarily started to smoke, that wouldn't be a violation of "[i]tacit consent[/i]" because it was "In-voluntarily". But you would still most likely be fined and asked to leave.[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286581703' post='2178655']The underlying question about such an institutional arrangement is: would it be just for the institution to expel you if you smoked? If not, why? If [i]so, [/i]why?[/quote]I am in favor of the anti-drug policies of my institution, though I can understand ([i]because of addiction[/i]) the difficulty that might impose to some faculty, staff, students, or guests. But far as I am aware, a student wouldn't be expelled on these grounds, not without a hearing.

Edited October 9, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Sternhauser]

From the Wikipedia, font of truth: "[b]Consent theory[/b] is a term for the idea in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_philosophy"]social philosophy[/url] that individuals primarily make decisions as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will"]free agents[/url] entering into consensual relationships with other free agents, and that this becomes the basis for political governance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_theory

Let's take their example. [i]Free agents[/i] entering into [i]consensual relationships. [/i]I was born and raised under a political regime. Did I enter into any consensual relationship with agents of the State? It seems to me that I have no alternative but to play by their rules, or ultimately, be killed. As it says, consensual relationships are in a [i]society[/i], a network of mutually-beneficial [i]free-will[/i] interactions. Aggression (not to be confused with defensive violence) is the antithesis of social behavior.

In other words, 50% of a population, plus one, get together and decide upon a just system of interaction. Unfortunately, their system relies upon [i]aggression, [/i]and thus it ceases to be just.

~Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286582782' post='2178664']From the Wikipedia, font of truth: "[b]Consent theory[/b] is a term for the idea in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_philosophy"]social philosophy[/url] that individuals primarily make decisions as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will"]free agents[/url] entering into consensual relationships with other free agents, and that this becomes the basis for political governance." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_theory[/quote]Consent theory is a rather large branch of ideas. I guess its akin to World Religions compared to Catholicism, Economics to Capitalism, or macro to micro.

You disagree with "[i]tacit consent[/i]", I get it, and frankly I don't care.

But I am assuming that you are voluntarily cooperating with your government and voluntarily living within the boundaries of that same government, regardless of why you voluntarily choose to do so. If you want to propose that you are In-voluntarily cooperating with your government and in-voluntarily living within the boundaries of that same government... I am sorry for you.

Edited October 9, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286582547' post='2178660']
You did... I insistently have mentioned the word "voluntary" and you have insistently come up with examples that are NON-voluntary...[/quote]

Is consent voluntary or not? And if so, to what degree is consent voluntary?

[quote]"[i]Tacit consent[/i]" is aimed more in a social contract sort of mentality.[/quote]

You keep using this term "social contract," but you've not defined it, you've not described how it has the power to morally bind anyone, and I have no idea what you're talking about, any more than if you had replaced "social contract" with "the purple klonitzer." You're putting two real words in a relationship that they do not share, like "gay marriage." There's no such thing, and you need to prove otherwise before you can pretend the term has any basis and import in reality.


[quote]Respectfully disagreed. If you voluntarily came to my campus and voluntarily started to smoke, you broke "[i]tacit consent[/i]", and would be fined and asked to leave.[/quote]

You're conflating "tacit consent" with Rousseau's "general will." So once again, we come back to the "social contract." You need to define that, or we can't go anywhere with this discussion.

Whose consent did I "break?" What do you mean by "break?" Is consent some abstract entity, unrelated to individual human beings? I did not "break" my consent by smoking. And obviously, my smoking was done without the consent of others, otherwise there wouldn't be a problem, so there was no [i]consent[/i] to be "broken." I violated their [i]wills[/i], but not some "tacit consent/social contract." I can not refrain from smoking while simultaneously giving my consent to their policy, and I can not smoke and [i]not[/i] give consent to their policy. Mere [i]compliance[/i] does not indicate[i] consent[/i], as [i]consent[/i], in the way the term is used in the term "tacit consent" means [i]approval. [/i]Tacit [i]approval. [/i]If it meant anything else, it would be mere compliance. It's not called "tacit compliance" for a reason. But it's more than compliance. It's compliance while believing that one is [i]bound[/i] to apply because other individuals have a [i]right[/i] to expect compliance. When you give [i]consent [/i]to a process, it is an act of giving [i]legitimacy[/i] to a process.

Other people do not give consent for me. They give [i]their[/i] consent, they give [i]their[/i] power, and [i]their[/i] consent and [i]their [/i]yielded power does, indeed, have an effect upon me, but it does not mean that [i]I [/i]have given [i]my [/i]consent to the rules to which [i]they [/i]consent and to which they lent their credence.

[quote]
I am in favor of the anti-drug policies of my institution, though I can understand ([i]because of addiction[/i]) the difficulty that might impose to some faculty, staff, students, or guests.[/quote]

Very well. All that means is that [i]you [/i]give [i]your[/i] tacit consent to the policies of the institution. You believe they are just.

[quote] But far as I am aware, a student wouldn't be expelled on these grounds, not without a hearing. But you would still most likely be fined and asked to leave.I am in favor of the anti-drug policies of my institution, though I can understand ([i]because of addiction[/i]) the difficulty that might impose to some faculty, staff, students, or guests. But far as I am aware, a student wouldn't be expelled on these grounds, not without a hearing.
[/quote]

I phrased my question very carefully. I did not ask what [i]would [/i]happen. I asked whether or not it would be [i]just [/i]if it [i]did [/i]happen. Would it be just for the institution to expel a student, given a hearing, etc., for having smoked on the campus? If not, why? If [i]so[/i], why?

~Sternhauser

Edited October 9, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Mr.Cat]

[b]Sternhauser[/b], the past several replies NOTHING that you wrote has been directed at what I hold or what I presented. Therefore, no reply is warranted. The imaginary Mr Cat that you have made is welcome to reply, and in fact I see his imaginary reply... Maybe you can rebuttal that.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1286584911' post='2178677']
[b]Sternhauser[/b], the past several replies NOTHING that you wrote has been directed at what I hold or what I presented. Therefore, no reply is warranted. The imaginary Mr Cat that you have made is welcome to reply, and in fact I see his imaginary reply... Maybe you can rebuttal that.
[/quote]

Your use of terms has been equivocal, so it's hard to tell what you hold.

~Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286574120' post='2178621']
RKWright, again, you've predicated an aetherial, invisible contract signed with invisible ink. I don't think any such contract exists. Now, how can you prove it? What rational argument can you make on behalf of its existence? As I said, threatening non-aggressors with violence does not an argument make.



Wright, you're an advocate of a mystical non-existent document. I wouldn't [i]want[/i] you to plead my case before other irrational men.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

You live in the US (I assume). You are afforded the rights and protections of the United States, and by accepting those you also accept the responsibilities/laws that come with them.

Its not that hard really... every time you drive on a road you are enjoying the benefit of the taxpayers of this country. And every time you drive on that road, you have a responsibility, you have agreed, to stop at stop signs and red lights.

If you don't agree, don't drive (leave the country).

One more time...

[quote]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/quote]

Are you a person of the United States? If yes, then you do ordain and establish.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286593457' post='2178712']
You live in the US (I assume). You are afforded the rights and protections of the United States, and by accepting those you also accept the responsibilities/laws that come with them.[/quote]

I was born here. I don't want "rights" given me by another human being. I'm happy with the ones God gave me. I want to be left alone by aggressors, and I, working in voluntary concert with others, can accomplish that end. But voluntary interaction and lack of aggression is not in the State's repertoire.

[quote]
Its not that hard really... every time you drive on a road you are enjoying the benefit of the taxpayers of this country.[/quote]
I am enjoying the benefit of the money that's been taken from me by force or the threat of force: money that can and should be raised in a voluntary fashion. Jewish prisoners enjoyed the benefit of uniforms provided to them by their captors, and made with slave labor. Does that mean they are somehow bound to obey the Kommandant of Treblinka, or to the slave laborers?

A society that cannot provide for the needs of the individuals in that society in a peaceful and non-aggressive way, is a society that has no right to exist.

[quote]And every time you drive on that road, you have a responsibility, you have agreed, to stop at stop signs and red lights.[/quote]
I don't stop at a light because of some invisible "social contract" with a State I stop at lights because if I don't, other people might be unjustly harmed by my recklessness. That's the moral law. It's not a "contract." It is reality, like gravity and thermodynamics.

[quote]If you don't agree, don't drive (leave the country).[/quote]
Ok. I see. Your paying all "your" taxes is an indication that you support abortion and contraception, in addition to every war waged by agents of the united State? Tell you what, Wright. If you don't agree with letting me conduct my business with my neighbors in a peaceful manner, you can buzz off, because I'm not leaving my neighbors or the land I was born on, despite your distal, laundered threats, based on your imaginary "contract."

[quote]Are you a person of the United States? If yes, then you do ordain and establish.[/quote]

I am not a person of the united State. I live in America, among my neighbors. I live in a society, not a State. I do not ordain or establish any State. Some dead men did, around 230 years ago. I say again: [i]they[/i] are all [i]dead[/i] now, a fact Lysander Spooner mentioned 'way back in 1869.

You should know this. Legally speaking, Wright, can you legally bind your posterity to abide by a contract that you signed on their behalf? I'm not talking about conditions of receiving some favor. I'm talking about a contract that binds them to its terms, despite their own wills.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 9, 2010 by Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286661929' post='2178816']
I was born here. I don't want "rights" given me by another human being. I'm happy with the ones God gave me. I want to be left alone by aggressors, and I, working in voluntary concert with others, can accomplish that end. But voluntary interaction and lack of aggression is not in the State's repertoire.

I am enjoying the benefit of the money that's been taken from me by force or the threat of force: money that can and should be raised in a voluntary fashion. Jewish prisoners enjoyed the benefit of uniforms provided to them by their captors, and made with slave labor. Does that mean they are somehow bound to the Kommandant of Treblinka, or to the slave laborers?

A society that cannot provide for the needs of the individuals in that society in a peaceful and non-aggressive way, is a society that has no right to exist.


I don't stop at a light because of some invisible "social contract" with a State I stop at lights because if I don't, other people might be unjustly harmed by my recklessness. That's the moral law. It's not a "contract." It is reality, like gravity and thermodynamics.


Ok. I see. Your paying all "your" taxes is an indication that you support abortion and contraception, in addition to every war waged by agents of the united State? Tell you what, Wright. If you don't agree with letting me conduct my business with my neighbors in a peaceful manner, you can buzz off, because I'm not leaving my neighbors or the land I was born on, despite your distal, laundered threats, based on your imaginary "contract."



I am not a person of the united State. I live in America, among my neighbors. I live in a society, not a State. I do not ordain or establish any State. Some dead men did, around 230 years ago. I say again: [i]they[/i] are all [i]dead[/i] now, a fact Lysander Spooner mentioned 'way back in 1869.

You should know this. Legally speaking, Wright, can you legally bind your posterity to abide by a contract that you signed on their behalf? I'm not talking about conditions of receiving some favor. I'm talking about a contract that binds them to its terms, despite their own wills.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

lol... "I am not a person of the united State? I live in America. I live in society, not a State... I knew you operated in your reality, but wow.

Well, since you are not a person of the united states, I might have to report you so that you are deported from my country.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286662759' post='2178818']
lol... "I am not a person of the united State? I live in America. I live in society, not a State... I knew you operated in your reality, but wow.[/quote]

I operate in reality. Not "my" reality.

[quote]Well, since you are not a person of the united states, I might have to report you so that you are deported from my country.
[/quote]

The State is not a place, it is an idea. It is a mental illness, actually: the idea that you have the right to enact violence against non-aggressors. The State is the idea that violence other than directly defensive violence is moral.

As do all mental illnesses when acted upon, the State has physical effects in the world. Violence is the calling card of any physical manifestation of an irrational idea. It is impossible to "deport" someone from a mental illness.

The Church is also not a place. One cannot be deported from the Church. One can be excommunicated for not believing in the ideas which it proposes. It would be an honor to be excommunicated from Holy Mother State, as Dorothy Day called it. I'm happy to report that I've already been excommunicated from that faith [i]latae sententiae.[/i]

~Sternhauser

Edited October 9, 2010 by Sternhauser

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1286667664' post='2178828']
I operate in reality. Not "my" reality.



The State is not a place, it is an idea. It is a mental illness, actually: the idea that you have the right to enact violence against non-aggressors. The State is the idea that violence other than directly defensive violence is moral.

As do all mental illnesses when acted upon, the State has physical effects in the world. Violence is the calling card of any physical manifestation of an irrational idea. It is impossible to "deport" someone from a mental illness.

The Church is also not a place. One cannot be deported from the Church. One can be excommunicated for not believing in the ideas which it proposes. It would be an honor to be excommunicated from Holy Mother State, as Dorothy Day called it. I'm happy to report that I've already been excommunicated from that faith [i]latae sententiae.[/i]

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I don't think claiming the state is a mental illness works well with ICE or immigration judges.

Not sure why you would want to be excommunicated or why anyone would be happy to be excommunicated. Sounds delusional to me.