Active Duty Soldier Illegally Disarmed And Arrested

[4588686]

If no one possesses any property rights, then you kind of undermine the whole government thing you've advocated.

 

There's no argument against zero property rights. Just as there's no argument against a man claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte.

 

 

Right, I would.  Which is why I don't argue against property rights.  My point is that this works in the reverse as well.  Without government property rights become silly and contrived.  Without government why do you get demarcate a piece of land as yours and not mine and then get to use violence to enforce that decree?  Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction of terms.  

[Winchester]

Right, I would.  Which is why I don't argue against property rights.  My point is that this works in the reverse as well.  Without government property rights become silly and contrived.  Without government why do you get demarcate a piece of land as yours and not mine and then get to use violence to enforce that decree?  Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction of terms.  

 

You should think about that claim.

 

[4588686]

You should think about that claim.

 

 

I made a number of unsubstantiated claims.  Which one?

[Nihil Obstat]

What if someone could plausibly demonstrate the existence of property rights a priori?

[4588686]

What if someone could plausibly demonstrate the existence of property rights a priori?

 

 

That would help.  Is there somebody who can do that?

[Nihil Obstat]

That would help. Is there somebody who can do that?

I am not sure. I am willing to give it a shot this evening.
Of course, you may not know this, but I am not a philosopher. I just play one on the intertubes. And even if I were, my specialty would not be philosophy of law. That said, I am painting a deck all day, so I have lots of time to ponder.

[RCIA ~ Class of 09]

It is more than just my Canadian-ness. ;)

 

Are laws really man-made though? I do not think we would follow them if they were. Who really cares about speeding limits? In and of themselves, few people really do. Nobody is willing to die for the sake of upholding a 50km/h speeding limit in residential areas. What people do care about is driving in such a way that they do not die or kill anyone.

There are anomalies. There are always anomalies. But this is true with man-made laws every bit as much as laws with a deeper basis.

I do not think that people refrain from murder because murder is illegal. Murder is illegal because of something outside of 'the legal system.'

 

So, why was the prohibition of alcohol unjust?

 

First of all, sorry for throwing my gloves in the ring and then going MIA. :unsure:

 

Regarding man-made laws: I would consider legalized abortion and gay marriage to be two laws that are man-made given they both contradict Biblical principals.  People don't seem to have issue with "following" them on either side of the aisle whether it's the individual choosing to do it or whether it's the individual choosing not to arrest those who are doing it.

 

Also, when it comes to the speed limit I would say that I personally would drive a lot faster than just 5 - 8 miles over the speed limit if I could; but that's just me. I am too freaked out about blemishing my perfect driving record though. And the average person (myself included) wouldn't drive 50 through a residential neighborhood, but that's because I have common sense and children. That doesn't stop the idiot high school kids who speed up and down our street all the time; so in that case I appreciate that they get a little reminder by way of a hefty speeding ticket for being irresponsible.

 

When it comes to murder, I can't say. I would certainly think that just like anything else, there are people out there who would commit a more serious crime than speeding if it weren't for the fact that they would get in trouble. The fact that I have a rule that my children aren't allowed to get into my wallet because they ran out of their allowance and they are craving a candy bar keeps them from doing just that. I had to set that ground rule for them. That's stealing, but to a child who doesn't have those ground rules in place they may just think of it as grabbing some cash.

[RCIA ~ Class of 09]

Do you possess the right to prevent me from consuming alcohol on my own property?
 

 

I am pretty sure that most states in the United States have laws that allow underage drinking as long as you are in the presence of a parent or legal guardian (which could be your spouse) who is over 21.

 

Why??

[Nihil Obstat]

First of all, sorry for throwing my gloves in the ring and then going MIA. :unsure:

 

Regarding man-made laws: I would consider legalized abortion and gay marriage to be two laws that are man-made given they both contradict Biblical principals.  People don't seem to have issue with "following" them on either side of the aisle whether it's the individual choosing to do it or whether it's the individual choosing not to arrest those who are doing it.

 

Also, when it comes to the speed limit I would say that I personally would drive a lot faster than just 5 - 8 miles over the speed limit if I could; but that's just me. I am too freaked out about blemishing my perfect driving record though. And the average person (myself included) wouldn't drive 50 through a residential neighborhood, but that's because I have common sense and children. That doesn't stop the idiot high school kids who speed up and down our street all the time; so in that case I appreciate that they get a little reminder by way of a hefty speeding ticket for being irresponsible.

 

When it comes to murder, I can't say. I would certainly think that just like anything else, there are people out there who would commit a more serious crime than speeding if it weren't for the fact that they would get in trouble. The fact that I have a rule that my children aren't allowed to get into my wallet because they ran out of their allowance and they are craving a candy bar keeps them from doing just that. I had to set that ground rule for them. That's stealing, but to a child who doesn't have those ground rules in place they may just think of it as grabbing some cash.

So you follow speeding limits (more or less) because certain limits on speed are smart. Not because going faster is illegal. The arbitrary speed limit of 50km/h is not what stops you speeding- by your own admission you already do break that arbitrary limit.

So, there is some underlying principle deeper than 'the law' (by which we mean the legal system's laws) itself. Yes?

[RCIA ~ Class of 09]

So you follow speeding limits (more or less) because certain limits on speed are smart. Not because going faster is illegal. The arbitrary speed limit of 50km/h is not what stops you speeding- by your own admission you already do break that arbitrary limit.

So, there is some underlying principle deeper than 'the law' (by which we mean the legal system's laws) itself. Yes?

 

Right, as I said I personally have common sense (and the desire to not get a speeding ticket which keeps me at a speed just over the limit to where a cop won't pull me over) but the punky kids in my neighborhood don't, so I appreciate the legal system keeping children and old lady's cats safe. :smile4:

[Nihil Obstat]

Right, as I said I personally have common sense (and the desire to not get a speeding ticket which keeps me at a speed just over the limit to where a cop won't pull me over) but the punky kids in my neighborhood don't, so I appreciate the legal system keeping children and old lady's cats safe. :smile4:

So then I have to go back to this again: why was the prohibition of alcohol unjust?

[RCIA ~ Class of 09]

So then I have to go back to this again: why was the prohibition of alcohol unjust?

 

I am confused as to why you keep asking me that since you are the one who said it was unjust; not me. When I quoted you saying that the crux of my question was who deems it unjust; individual law enforcement officers, etc. I was making a point that regardless as to whether or not a law is unjust or not to an individual does that individual who is in the position of authority get to go against the law just because they think it's unjust?

[Nihil Obstat]

I am confused as to why you keep asking me that since you are the one who said it was unjust; not me. When I quoted you saying that the crux of my question was who deems it unjust; individual law enforcement officers, etc. I was making a point that regardless as to whether or not a law is unjust or not to an individual does that individual who is in the position of authority get to go against the law just because they think it's unjust?

Well, I am assuming we both agree it is unjust. It is difficult for you to articulate why, given that your arguments approach (in an indirect and somewhat remote way) legal positivism. It is easy for me to say why it is unjust.

[Winchester]

I am pretty sure that most states in the United States have laws that allow underage drinking as long as you are in the presence of a parent or legal guardian (which could be your spouse) who is over 21.

 

Why??

 

"Allow" is the problem. No one is government property.

 

But you really haven't answered the question. I really want to know if you possess this right (or feel you do).

[RCIA ~ Class of 09]

Well, I am assuming we both agree it is unjust. It is difficult for you to articulate why, given that your arguments approach (in an indirect and somewhat remote way) legal positivism. It is easy for me to say why it is unjust.

 

I am not articulating why because it's not the basis of my argument. My argument is that I believe that if an individual in a position of authority feels that he/she is justified in doing something that goes against the law (in the original point an officer took a gun away from a law abiding citizen illegally) it is an abuse of power. As such, when the Prohibition was in affect it was illegal to possess alcohol and as such the authorities had the right to take the alcohol from them, technically as according to the law. This, at least for me and obviously not you, all boils down to the fact the Police are to uphold the law, not abuse it.