Laws are simply bits of paper. Deal with it. The dirt in the road in England is no different to the dirt in the road in Scotland, just as a crime is not a crime unless you’re caught.
Empty, I am left only to compliment you on your choice of screen name.
Legal systems are just services that are commonly monopolized and controlled by states. They do not have to be that way but Western culture has evolved to take many government monopolies for granted or of a divine right.
Precisely.
You are right. All laws (state and private) are variable and you do not have to be a legal expert at all to have the clear sense to recognize this.
Yet, some people treat them automatically as if they arose from some divine authority. [For example, in some places, the state law prohibits jay-walking and in other places they do not. In some places, it is illegal to fornicate with certain people and in other places, it is not.] I think that is the sort of thing you are talking about.
I also think that the main reason your commentary is enticing such reflexive opposition is because it shakes the very foundation of the belief system of many people: blind obedience to The Almighty State.
No but I will gladly give you a wrap-around while we are at it.
Correct, as far as it goes.
Also correct, if I understand you.
Those people are clearly mistaken.
If you make a case as extreme as this - that is, characterise laws in such hyperbolic terms, espousing a view that a few psychopaths and Kantians have, then you will surely have an easy time refuting it.
It’s just that most adults don’t have that view.
All this adolescent angst over nothing.
It is not hyperbolic [unless it threatens your faith, I suppose] but rather recognizing simple reality.
This:
is hyperbolic because it is an unfounded exaggeration and an ad hominem possibly presented to discredit a speaker.
– and that is an argument for what? exactly???
Clarity precedes Literacy.
Actually, literacy is clarity.
Most actual grownups do not take civil and criminal law as gospel. Else there would be no impetus to change those laws. Laws are changed all the time. You don’t change gospel. That’s just induction. Read the papers. Watch C-Span. Find out for yourself.
Thanks for repeating what I said in a much more clear manner.
Glad I could be of some service.
What’s C-Span?
Empty - first, tell me you are not an american.
No…I’m from Northumberland.
I am relieved.
C-Span is television coverage of the US government 24/7.
In the rare case that anything is actually going on in the legislature, C-Span televises it. Actually, it televises the legislature even when nothing is going on. And a ton of public-affairs stuff.
Oh, cool. We have BBC Parliament over here - thank your American lucky stars you don’t have an outdated and elitist House of Lords deciding on the law instead of an elected chamber.
I agree that many are poorly justified, and they are a sort of pollutant in modern law that seem to build up without going away. But there’s also justification for war against other countries. Once the silly countries have too darn many silly laws, and resources that more sensible (and more powerful) countries can use . . . sucks to be the silly country.
The man with the beard is simply in the wrong country. If he finds it discriminatory, he should seek refugee status. But if I read him in the paper - well buddy, shave or it sucks to be you.
Silly laws are not my beef. My beef is that lawmakers don’t have their shit together. The Patriot Act is criminal against the Constitution. There was already Martial Law as a device which could abstain terms of the constitution for the sake of security. So americans are criminals by obeying current law. Catch22 is not just a fiction for people to contemplate. It’s real.
I’m interested how Empty placed his hypothetical in psychological terms as well, because psychological profiling has become the wildcard for any government agenda. Anyone authoritative-sounding can get away with just about anything if they incorporate “profile” into it. Scientiffic American says there’s new ways of profiling “terrorists.” Does their “axis of evil” have something to do with it?
Everyone can find laws that they disagree with. But justice, a just society, is much more than laws. Again, everyone who thinks about this should read John Rawls. It’s not all about laws. It’s about many social institutions. Actual written laws are only part of the story.
Lawmakers don’t have their shit together because the voters don’t. A great many voters vote based on one or two issues. I have a friend who is planning to vote for Hillary because she is a woman. When I asked her what she thought of Hillary’s platform, she said she didn’t know what Hillary’s platform was.
Hillary knows this, as do all politicians.
That’s in the US. Things are different elsewhere, I realise.
I don’t know of a single instance where the Patriot Act has shown itself to be a draconian affront to civil liberties. As I may have said before, it has been, in practise, much less intrusive than, say, the incarceration of virtually every Japanese-american during WWII. That doesn’t make it right - I just never hear anyone who objects to the Patriot Act come up with an actual case that should make us afraid.
In this instance, I’m not debating the results of the patriot act. Those vague, unprovable waters are not worth wading. But if you want me to demonstrate how it is directly illegal to the constitution, I could present that case on the table.
Secondly, the sad part is, voters, as dumb as they are, don’t even always have power themselves anymore. I’ll spare the details, but you’re aware of florida?
My main quip is that although I don’t expect any industry (including the courts) to be without fallibility and even corruption, I would hope that these elements are like a jack-in-the-box that just happens by surprise. In comparison, I find it blatant, open crime amongst lawmakers that are perfectly aware of it. I’d have to really make this another thread if I need to show how so.
The act denies habeas corpus to a detainee. By definition, the Act is a denial of civil liberties.
The passage you cite does not apply to citizens. The Constitution does not guarantee liberties, civil or otherwise, to non-citizens.