2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Diogenes]

Not exactly sure what happened here. I was having network problems at the time, so that's probably what futzed up this message.

[Diogenes]

Wow, perhaps another breakthru!
Please understand that I COMPLETELY support your desire to address the "bad" results that effect innocent people. Absolutely, 100% agreed. The question is how.

Now I see why I thought i'd already responded on this. You are reading my old posts while I am making new ones.

Yup, slowly catching up!

I suggested one idea. Assume people can handle something until they demonstrate that they can't. then put them on a list to be interdicted. It's a risky methodology, but it would seem that it could achieve the result of separating abusers from what they abuse.

Sounds plausible. If the govm't would try something like this, while assuring that juries KNEW they had the right to tell government they were going too far, this might work.

So here is the issue. Government keeps trying to do good

I pointed this out earlier. The Government just doing it's JOB is "good."

Not necessarily. They may be TRYING to do good. Or do you mean that the government doing JUST its legitimate job is "good"?

I mean some people are intentionally trying to characterize the government doing it's job as "do good" meddling. They argue that the government prohibiting drugs is similar to liberal social meddling, but I argue that it is a normal and proper role for the government to perform, and is no different from enforcing speed limits.

It is obvious that some people can routinely drive faster than the speed limit and cause no ill effects, but some people cannot. As one of the main principles of the law in our nation is that everyone should be treated equally according to the law, the people who can safely handle driving faster, are penalized because the laws have to reflect some minimal level of risk prevention as represented by the lowest common denominator.

by making personal actions that are bad for the folks that do them in felonies and treating those bad things like they are wrong. But they are not "wrong".

They are if they increase the probability of hurting someone. (Which they usually do.) Remember, a drunk driver is arrested even if he's harmed no one. He's arrested because he recklessly increased the danger level to people and property.

Nope. Wrong is not related to probability of hurting someone. It is involving a person in an action involuntarily, and ONLY that. Increasing the probability of hurting someone is potentially BAD, not wrong.

I think you need to rethink your definition. Firing a gun into the sky is wrong because you've increased the probability of hurting someone. It is a crime (and morally wrong) whether you hurt someone or not.

The difference between "Vice" and "Crime" is another one of those artificial perception boundaries which I am always going on about. The terms are not black and white, but a range between the two. They are "Fuzzy", not clear and distinct.

This is your primary lack of understanding. The distinction between the two IS black and white (actually bad and wrong).

That is your subjective perception. I think whether or not something is a crime and wrong is highly dependent on the intentions of whomever commits the act. Throwing a rock off a cliff is inconsequential unless you know that there are people below likely to be hit by it and killed or injured.

[Diogenes]

One does not need to label one thing a "Vice" and the other thing a "Crime" to be aware that a properly tailored campaign against them might bear fruit.

Absolutely true. It doesn't matter what you label it. But if you treat a vice as if it were a crime, you WILL make the situation worse. Only if you treat it as the vice it is will your "tailored campaign" result in good.

I used to favor the US embargo of Cuba, but years ago I realized that the quickest way to bring down that government would be to let the people know what kind of stuff they could have, and what kind of lives they could have if they just over threw their government.

Maybe soon you will recognize that favoring the drug war is a similar mistake.

Down with drugs. Legalize them!

As it stands currently, it looks like the only mistake is how we are fighting the drug war. I think we need a lot more death penalty for drug dealers. Especially foreign ones.

[Diogenes]

Your gun puts me in danger so by your argument you should be criminally prosecuted for owning a gun. I don't agree with you on that.

My gun is completely harmless unless I point it in your direction. The owning is benign, the pointing is the danger. If you wish to extend the analogy to drugs, owning a trunkfull will not harm anyone, it is the using that causes the problem. To further extend the analogy, owning a gun serves a beneficial purpose if it deters others from harming you. Owning a trunkfull of drugs which you never use, is completely pointless.

Hmmm. Pointing a gun at me does not harm either. I may percieve a potential for harm so I have every right to point out that I don't volunteer to be threatened like that. I have every right to inform you that if you continue to point your gun at me I will take it as permission to do what I choose to stop you from involving me involuntarily. I would also support a uniform social contract to make that the default condition. But there has been no harm until you pull the trigger or hit me with it or whatever.

It is currently a crime to point a gun at someone. It is called "Feloniously pointing a firearm" and you can go to prison for it. I've met people who went to prison for pointing a gun at someone, even though they didn't shoot them.

As my uncle used to say about the high voltage spark from a lawnmower. "It won't hurt you, but it might make you hurt yourself. :

I would try to sooth this disagreement by noting that it is damned near impossible to be driving under the influence without outward and specific actions that involve others involuntarily. So the simple fact that someone is driving under the influence is not a crime, but the weaving and other such behavour that almost always goes along with it is.

Actually, you can be driving perfectly. If they stop you for a tail light, you're still busted.

Busted, perhaps. Criminal, no.

I have a friend who has long argued that drunk driving should be legal. The only thing which should be illegal is violating a traffic law. As long as you don't violate a traffic law, they shouldn't bother you.

I tend to agree with your friend, though I would say as long as you don't involve other drivers involuntarily.

It's actually a perspective with some merit, especially as I mentioned previously. Not everyone's blood/alcohol works the same way.

Very true, and quite consistent with my point, thank you!

So my point is it is the involuntary interACTION that is the crime, not the condition that might create it.

Makes you wonder why people try to use being drunk as an excuse for bad behavior then.

I suspect it is because they have discovered they can con others into "forgiving" them that way, which is unfortunate for society.

Now I think I see one of our points of contention in this discussion. I count it as immoral AND illegal, to increase the risk of danger (either recklessly or intentionally) to innocents, while you only count it as immoral and a crime if someone is actually HURT.

So I give you again, the example of firing a gun into the air. (in a city) I contend the act is both immoral and criminal. (even if no one gets hurt.)

[Diogenes]

Borrowing, Unauthorized taking, stealing. They all overlap in terms of meaning, but not necessarily in terms of the act. The differences are dependent on the outcomes.

Some people intentionally mis-use words to hide their wrong-doing. That doesn't make the real meaning the same. Borrowing, the temporary, authorized use of something not your own, is NOT stealing. And saying you "borrowed" something you stole does not make it ok.

Sometimes you need to look at the deeper meaning, not the surface obfuscation!

I know this from personal experience. If you give someone the keys to your car to go get some burgers and come back, and they take off with it and go on a two day joy ride, the cops won't do a frickin thing for 48 hours. They refer to this as "Unauthorized taking", and it is a misdemeanor if they even bother to prosecute it.

[Diogenes]

I mean, if a parent is caring for his child in a positive manner while under the influence, and a car come thru the wall and harms the child, that is an accident, but hardly the parent involving the child in it. With that caveat, we are approaching an agreement.

I am refering to the much more common condition in which the parent decides they would rather get high than work and bring home food, or buy clothes, or change diapers, or make sure the child eats, you know, stuff like that. Not to mention allowing the child to see the parent getting high, and thereby learning by example to follow in the parent's footsteps.

To the degree that parent is neglecting tse's responsibility to the child, that parent should be held culpable for any harm, no matter what the cause; drugs, alchohol, the Jerry Springer Show.

Except for the drugs, they very likely wouldn't have behaved in this manner.

[Diogenes]

I agree, but we need to keep that understanding of the natural law above the level of an instinctive reptilian brain search for pleasure.

Just to check, have I said ANYTHING to make you think that I don't recognize natural law above the level of the reptilian? If so, it is a mis-communication.
I believe that I have REPEATEDLY stressed the highest level of moral law, SAPIENT voluntary action.

Yet you're still not explaining to me how using a narcotic to interfere with your normal judgment constitutes a sapient decision.

[Diogenes]

Is it voluntary action for a stray cosmic ray to hit a neuron in your brain causing you to jump one way or the other? How much different is that from flooding your synapses with chemicals that alter the brains signaling pathways?

I try and I try but it sometimes seems not to be sinking in.

Re the cosmic ray: it is a natural part of the universe and occasionally they will make your synapse mis-fire. So what. It has nothing to do with moral, or immoral behaviour, nor ethical/unethical behaviour either.
Flooding my OWN synapses with chemicals may alter the pathways but that is an unethical decision, not an immoral one (bad, not wrong).

In any case, i'm not sure i'm following you. I think you are saying it's okay for mental patients (people who are mentally ill) to play in the street or something.

Define "ok".
If you define it as "good" then heck no its not good, don't be silly!
If you define it as "right", (ignoring for this sub-thread the wrong-doing to the drivers) then yes.
So, you tell me what you mean by "ok" and the answer will be one of those two. Define it differently and who knows!

Edited in an attempt to clarify the two choises.

It didn't help.


It has long been a principle of law that people who are "Non compos mentis" cannot make decisions in their own best interest, and it is common nowadays for the court to appoint a guardian for them. Your thinking would overturn this practice, and very likely result in a lot of misery for mentally ill people.

I suppose we could save a lot of trouble by giving them access to a room with a pull cord that releases poison gas on them if they should choose to pull it. Give them enough time and exposure to such a thing, and it would be nearly a certainty. After all, if they pull the cord (not knowing what it will do) that's still "free will" isn't it? (at least the way I think you and others are defining it.)

[Diogenes]

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.

Not worth quibbling about.

[Diogenes]

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.

My understanding is that Native Americans lack an enzyme that Europeans mostly posses, which aids in the breaking down of alcohol in their system. With Native Americans, not only does it take less to get seriously drunk, it lasts longer.

The effect of alcoholism on Native Americans is to increase the level of misery and poverty within their community.

t;] Embarking on drug use is transformational for many people.

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

Those are positive transformations. Becoming an addict is a negative transformation, making these people into parasites on the productive members of society.

[Diogenes]

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.

They snuck in on that religious freedom thing. They could establish that their drugs had been part of their religion for such a long time as to be considered a legitimate part of it. That and the courts have been pretty liberal ever since FDR.

[Diogenes]

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 this state, officers are "Sworn", meaning they are agents of the state government, even though they work for municipalities.

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.

And I daresay they weren't terribly concerned with what this or that rule of law said as much as they were with what the Shire Reeve said. If he told someone to do something, it didn't matter what the "Law" said, he'd better do it.

[Diogenes]

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 saw an interesting quote over at curmudgeonly and skeptical.

“Supreme Court Discovers Right to Bear Arms in Constitution; Abortion Advocates Outraged ” -- -Chairman Ann



A lot of people think that abortion and drug usage are philosophically the same. They have this slogan. "My body, my choice."

In both cases, they ignore the harm they cause others.

[Diogenes]

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.

The "Law" is the officially defined morality. It is those list of things which are prohibited because the government says so.

[Diogenes]

I believe that is what I just said. 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.

I would charge the woman as an accessory. You don't want to be pregnant, don't make that choice!