2010:warmest year ever since records began

[KitemanSA]

This is an occurrence of which I am completely unfamiliar. Security guards are one thing, but Police officers derive their authority from the State or Federal governments. Unless the private cops are former or current State commissioned police officers, I don't see how they can enforce any laws.

There are laws against trespass. Security guards enforce those. There are laws against bank robbery. They inforce those too. Shop lifting, loitering, public lewdness, ... Enforcing a law is NOT the same as arresting people; but they do that too. Beyond security guards, try bounty hunters. Private detectives. Shall I go on? Naa, I'm done with this.

[KitemanSA]

If the adult CHOOSES to undergo the alteration, that is tse's right, but said choice does not eliminate the culpabilty for and adverse results of said choice. If the adult is dosed by fraud/force/etc., then that temporary child is not culpable.

The effect is permanent.

That is not what the data says.

(for some.)

Oh. Well maybe. But the fact that American natives can't handle alchohol well should not be an excuse to ban alchohol.

Embarking on drug use is transformational for many people.

So is college and the armed forces. Should we ban them?

[IntLibber]

Diogenes: A criminal is someone who commits a crime; if something is legal it is not a crime. This is a tautology, because it is inherent in the definition of "criminal".

If you think this, you are mistaken. Crime has nothing to do with legality, though lawyers would have you believe so. Crime has to do with morality. Something is a crime if it is "wrong". Something is a FELONY if it is illegal.

Since when? Morality is not the criterion of legislation or legality.

For instance, if your morality says it is immoral to destroy fetuses, then it is immoral for a government to use your tax money to do that, and it is thus moral for you to refuse to pay taxes to do a thing you regard as immoral. Despite it being moral for you to not pay a tax in that instance, it is still illegal.

[MSimon]

Embarking on drug use is transformational for many people.

So is college and the armed forces. Should we ban them?

So is going to church. BTW some people say taking some drugs gives them a religious experience.

Wait. I GET it. The churches can't stand the competition and only the Native American Church has a dispensation. And wait until you hear this: the drugs taken are in the psychedelic class.

[MSimon]

Diogenes: A criminal is someone who commits a crime; if something is legal it is not a crime. This is a tautology, because it is inherent in the definition of "criminal".

If you think this, you are mistaken. Crime has nothing to do with legality, though lawyers would have you believe so. Crime has to do with morality. Something is a crime if it is "wrong". Something is a FELONY if it is illegal.

Since when? Morality is not the criterion of legislation or legality.

For instance, if your morality says it is immoral to destroy fetuses, then it is immoral for a government to use your tax money to do that, and it is thus moral for you to refuse to pay taxes to do a thing you regard as immoral. Despite it being moral for you to not pay a tax in that instance, it is still illegal.

I think Kiteman was getting to malum in se (harming another) and malum prohibitum (bad because I say so).

[IntLibber]

Agreed, except when it is a role which ONLY government can and should perform. Defense is such a role, as is law enforcement. I do not want a private company performing law enforcement. It MUST be done by government.

Evidently you have not read David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom". Its freely available online...

Local police are not agents of the government, they are policy enforcement officers of a municipal corporation. They do not enforce laws, they enforce ordinances of the municipal corporation. Some municipalities choose to be closed, gated communities, however most choose to be open in order to encourage commercial activity. Municipal policy enforcement officers act in a constabulary function which is historically part of the militia.

In most areas of the US, you have overlapping, competing policing jurisdictions. In incorporated areas (municipalities) you have your policy enforcement officers at the municipal level. If it is an unicorporated area the constabulary function rests in the selectmen or, if they hire and delegate that function, a town constable, but you also have county jurisdiction which is usually called the sherrif (from the old english "shire reeve", some old new england towns still have an elected position called the "hog reeve" whose job is to police the local pig population, domesticated or otherwise, and to organise hog posses to hunt any wild hog populations. The Hog Reeve also was judge over disputes about whose hog was whose, and who paid for damage to property by any given pig).

The policing function in a state at all levels, no matter who exercises it, is a part of the militia, going back to the old Danelaw era of England prior to William the Conqueror.

In the militia, you had the Shire Reeve, who was equivalent in rank to a colonel, who was and is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in a County. Today he is called the Sheriff. The Shire Reeve would have Deputy Shire Reeve's who would organize and report on several townships. The township would elect their Select Men (today known as the selectmen, a sort of town council) who would hold the rank of Constable (i.e. a Captain, which is today why city police forces generally don't have a higher rank than a Captain other than a Chief of Police). Select Men were those who stood watch over the town for the duration of their elected term. They could deputize others to serve as constabulary officers, i.e. corporals.

Under the Danelaw, there was no sharp line between ordinary criminal activity and warfare, merely one of degrees, so the militia was organized to be flexible in how it could be called up to respond to varying levels of threat.

[KitemanSA]

Diogenes: A criminal is someone who commits a crime; if something is legal it is not a crime. This is a tautology, because it is inherent in the definition of "criminal".

If you think this, you are mistaken. Crime has nothing to do with legality, though lawyers would have you believe so. Crime has to do with morality. Something is a crime if it is "wrong". Something is a FELONY if it is illegal.

Since when? Morality is not the criterion of legislation or legality.

I believe that is what I just said.

For instance, if your morality says it is immoral to destroy fetuses, ....

I believe you are using the term "morality" to mean "religious dogma". Many people make that error.

[KitemanSA]

OMG, I caught up!!!

[IntLibber]

If you think this, you are mistaken. Crime has nothing to do with legality, though lawyers would have you believe so. Crime has to do with morality. Something is a crime if it is "wrong". Something is a FELONY if it is illegal.

Since when? Morality is not the criterion of legislation or legality.

I believe that is what I just said.

For instance, if your morality says it is immoral to destroy fetuses, ....

I believe you are using the term "morality" to mean "religious dogma". Many people make that error.

Um, no, morality as in "it is immoral to murder an innocent baby." Given that the government regularly prosecutes people for murder, manslaughter, or negligent homocide if they cause the death of a pregnant woman's fetus, the law clearly does recognise that killing a fetus is murder except when it is done by the mother, or a licensed doctor.

Now, you may be one of those sick psychotic individuals who think it is perfectly fine for a doctor who has a pregnant patient whose child has breached (i.e. the head is sticking out) during childbirth, to stick a needle into the skull in order to inject it with a fatal dose of some substance (this procedure is otherwise known as "late term abortion" by some, and partial birth abortion by others, some folks still call it murder), but all that does is illustrate that you are the last person on the face of the planet who should be lecturing anybody about what morality is.

[WizWom]

Diogenes: A criminal is someone who commits a crime; if something is legal it is not a crime. This is a tautology, because it is inherent in the definition of "criminal".

If you think this, you are mistaken. Crime has nothing to do with legality, though lawyers would have you believe so. Crime has to do with morality. Something is a crime if it is "wrong". Something is a FELONY if it is illegal.

I wasn't aware you were using special definitions of words, although I should have expected it. When you are willing to use the accepted definitions under common use and under law, well, then I'll take you seriously.

Keep playing semantic games, and I'll keep calling you on it.

Bovier's Law dictionary:
CRIMINAL. Relating to, or having the character of crime; as, criminal law,
criminal conversation, &c. It also signifies a person convicted of a crime.

An amazingly concise entry. Some of the entries literally have hundreds of sub-points.

[KitemanSA]

Diogenes: A criminal is someone who commits a crime; if something is legal it is not a crime. This is a tautology, because it is inherent in the definition of "criminal".

If you think this, you are mistaken. Crime has nothing to do with legality, though lawyers would have you believe so. Crime has to do with morality. Something is a crime if it is "wrong". Something is a FELONY if it is illegal.

I wasn't aware you were using special definitions of words, although I should have expected it. When you are willing to use the accepted definitions under common use and under law, well, then I'll take you seriously.

Keep playing semantic games, and I'll keep calling you on it.

Bovier's Law dictionary:
CRIMINAL. Relating to, or having the character of crime; as, criminal law,
criminal conversation, &c. It also signifies a person convicted of a crime.

An amazingly concise entry. Some of the entries literally have hundreds of sub-points.

Please note the book you quote. Bovier's LAW dictionary. As I said, lawyers would have you confuse morality and law. It is in THEIR best interest. I do not fall into their trap. Morality and Law are two different things. Confusing the two results in the need for lawyers, obviously a bad thing! It also results in the confusion of ethics and morality. This leads to "WRONG" actions by governments which results in BAD effects to society, no matter how GOOD the government's intentions.

[MSimon]

Since when? Morality is not the criterion of legislation or legality.

I believe that is what I just said.

For instance, if your morality says it is immoral to destroy fetuses, ....

I believe you are using the term "morality" to mean "religious dogma". Many people make that error.

Um, no, morality as in "it is immoral to murder an innocent baby." Given that the government regularly prosecutes people for murder, manslaughter, or negligent homocide if they cause the death of a pregnant woman's fetus, the law clearly does recognise that killing a fetus is murder except when it is done by the mother, or a licensed doctor.

Now, you may be one of those sick psychotic individuals who think it is perfectly fine for a doctor who has a pregnant patient whose child has breached (i.e. the head is sticking out) during childbirth, to stick a needle into the skull in order to inject it with a fatal dose of some substance (this procedure is otherwise known as "late term abortion" by some, and partial birth abortion by others, some folks still call it murder), but all that does is illustrate that you are the last person on the face of the planet who should be lecturing anybody about what morality is.

I'm one of those psychotics. In times of old unwanted babies were thrown on fires. Yuck. OTOH abortion and such crimes were common methods of population self control. Stemming of course from the idea that parents owned their children until majority (age 13 commonly). The very young were killed. Older ones sold into slavery.

Of course this sort of thing should be avoided as much as possible (and generally is - late term non-therapeutic abortions are in the range of 1,000 per year in the US) but you know? I'm a conservative. There were reasons for the old ways. And if we ever get desperate for energy again the old ways will come back. Culture is such a thin veneer.

I've done a not so random survey of people's attitudes on the right and the general trend is to punish the doctor (at some modest level) and let the woman go free. Not exactly a murder one offense. Despite the fact that it meets the criteria. BTW hardliners on the right in my sample are willing to live with "punish the doctor and the woman goes free" because they believe that to be the current political limit.

So actual attitudes belie the rhetoric. Kind of like the CAGW exaggerators. It seems that politics makes liars out of almost every one. Swell. Just swell.

[MSimon]

Let me add that in days of old killing a woman's unborn by some one unrelated was not treated as severely as murder. Good records of 2,000 year old legal/scholarly attitudes can be found in the Talmud.

[IntLibber]

I'm one of those psychotics. In times of old unwanted babies were thrown on fires. Yuck. OTOH abortion and such crimes were common methods of population self control. Stemming of course from the idea that parents owned their children until majority (age 13 commonly). The very young were killed. Older ones sold into slavery.

Of course this sort of thing should be avoided as much as possible (and generally is - late term non-therapeutic abortions are in the range of 1,000 per year in the US) but you know? I'm a conservative. There were reasons for the old ways. And if we ever get desperate for energy again the old ways will come back. Culture is such a thin veneer.

This is absolutely false. Extensive surveys have shown that in excess of 90% of abortions in general are merely for the convenience of the mother. A majority of partial birth abortions in the US are NOT done for saving the life of the mother, they are usually done because the child has birth defects that the parents do not want to deal with. So they are no different than those primitives who would throw malformed or sickly babies in the fire or out in the snow, except in the present day these people do not have the excuse that they are subsistence hunter gatherers living on the edge of survival. People do it today merely so they won't be burdened with a special child that would otherwise crimp their ability to afford a BMW.

Virtually all partial birth abortions done in China are without the mothers consent, by government order to comply with the 1 child law.

I am not anti-abortion by any means. I think if its done in the first month, that there is clearly minimal nervous system development in that time frame so aborting the fetus at that stage is perfectly fine. But I am just as certain that partial birth abortion is murder.

Furthermore, the concept that the child is property of the parent is antiquated and not recognized by the courts. A child isn't a doll. Parents have custody, not ownership. It is a responsibility, not a right.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes: A criminal is someone who commits a crime; if something is legal it is not a crime. This is a tautology, because it is inherent in the definition of "criminal".

If that is your final word on the subject then we are done. Drugs are illegal, and the use of them is defined as a crime. Ergo, drug users are criminals. The problem with this approach is that it relies on the whim of the legislature to declare it a crime, but it does not necessarily have any moral imperative.

Furthermore, a private company should be able to hire whoever it likes, with whatever criteria it wants. It is their money, they should get to spend it how they like. Likewise, a customer should be allowed to do business with whoever they like, with whatever criteria they please. Rules forcing affirmative action, equal opportunity, and equal pay for "equal" work are damaging to the economic strength of nations, people and to the dignity of all involved. And, of course, such rules DO NOT WORK.

But, of course, all this is smoke and mirrors, thrown up because you've run out of arguments for maintaining the pointless war on (some) drugs.

Actually I haven't. I just thought of a new argument today. (actually, a rehashed old argument)

Speed limits.

Are speed limits an infringement upon you rights?