justice for just us
justice for just us
When a cop is accused of a major crime they get paid administrative leave. When a rich person is accused of a major crime they get bail. When a poor person is accused of a major crime, they get jail, with all the excessive automatic punishment that entails.
assumed innocent, assumed able to win in court, assumed guilty
One of the core principles of legitimacy in government is not treating certain people differently than others just because of their status, whether caste, color, or gender. One of the core principles of justice is that guilt must be tested for, never assumed.
The US "justice" system contains neither legitimacy or justice in any part.
assumed innocent, assumed able to win in court, assumed guilty
One of the core principles of legitimacy in government is not treating certain people differently than others just because of their status, whether caste, color, or gender. One of the core principles of justice is that guilt must be tested for, never assumed.
The US "justice" system contains neither legitimacy or justice in any part.
Last edited by Advocate on Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: justice for just us
trueAdvocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:07 pm When a cop is accused of a major crime they get paid administrative leave. When a rich person is accused of a major crime they get bail. When a poor person is accused of a major crime, they get jail, with all the excessive automatic punishment that entails.
assumed innocent, assumed able to win in court, assumed guilty
One of the core principles of legitimacy in government is not treating certain people differently than others just because of their status, whether caste, color, or gender. One of the core principles of justice is that guilt must be tested for, never assumed.
The US "justice" system contains neither legitimacy or justice to in any part.
solution?
Re: justice for just us
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488706 time=1610211020 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=488682 time=1610204839 user_id=15238]
When a cop is accused of a major crime they get paid administrative leave. When a rich person is accused of a major crime they get bail. When a poor person is accused of a major crime, they get jail, with all the excessive automatic punishment that entails.
assumed innocent, assumed able to win in court, assumed guilty
One of the core principles of legitimacy in government is not treating certain people differently than others just because of their status, whether caste, color, or gender. One of the core principles of justice is that guilt must be tested for, never assumed.
The US "justice" system contains neither legitimacy or justice in any part.
[/quote]
true
solution?
[/quote]
Revolution. You can't fix a broken system with it's own broken tools,
[quote=Advocate post_id=488682 time=1610204839 user_id=15238]
When a cop is accused of a major crime they get paid administrative leave. When a rich person is accused of a major crime they get bail. When a poor person is accused of a major crime, they get jail, with all the excessive automatic punishment that entails.
assumed innocent, assumed able to win in court, assumed guilty
One of the core principles of legitimacy in government is not treating certain people differently than others just because of their status, whether caste, color, or gender. One of the core principles of justice is that guilt must be tested for, never assumed.
The US "justice" system contains neither legitimacy or justice in any part.
[/quote]
true
solution?
[/quote]
Revolution. You can't fix a broken system with it's own broken tools,
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: justice for just us
yes...a revolution with an eye toward a natural rights libertarian minarchy is exactly what we needAdvocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:14 pmRevolution. You can't fix a broken system with it's own broken tools,henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 5:50 pmtrueAdvocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 4:07 pm When a cop is accused of a major crime they get paid administrative leave. When a rich person is accused of a major crime they get bail. When a poor person is accused of a major crime, they get jail, with all the excessive automatic punishment that entails.
assumed innocent, assumed able to win in court, assumed guilty
One of the core principles of legitimacy in government is not treating certain people differently than others just because of their status, whether caste, color, or gender. One of the core principles of justice is that guilt must be tested for, never assumed.
The US "justice" system contains neither legitimacy or justice in any part.
solution?
bet you have other ideas, though
Re: justice for just us
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488725 time=1610212944 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=488720 time=1610212473 user_id=15238]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488706 time=1610211020 user_id=472]
true
solution?
[/quote]
Revolution. You can't fix a broken system with it's own broken tools,
[/quote]
yes...a revolution with an eye toward a natural rights libertarian minarchy is exactly what we need
bet you have other ideas, though
[/quote]
Libertarian Whatever would be much better than what we have now, but in most cases it would result in recreating the wheel. We need most of the essential parts of the current system, it's the glue that holds them together that is made of purest bullshit - layer upon layer of assumption, compromise, legal fictions, band-aids, capture, graft, misappropriation of words...
[quote=Advocate post_id=488720 time=1610212473 user_id=15238]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488706 time=1610211020 user_id=472]
true
solution?
[/quote]
Revolution. You can't fix a broken system with it's own broken tools,
[/quote]
yes...a revolution with an eye toward a natural rights libertarian minarchy is exactly what we need
bet you have other ideas, though
[/quote]
Libertarian Whatever would be much better than what we have now, but in most cases it would result in recreating the wheel. We need most of the essential parts of the current system, it's the glue that holds them together that is made of purest bullshit - layer upon layer of assumption, compromise, legal fictions, band-aids, capture, graft, misappropriation of words...
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: justice for just us
not really...my strain is just principles everyone intuitively knows...the wheel requires no re-creation...just gotta toss out all bullshit you mention and get rollin'Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:32 pmLibertarian Whatever would be much better than what we have now, but in most cases it would result in recreating the wheel. We need most of the essential parts of the current system, it's the glue that holds them together that is made of purest bullshit - layer upon layer of assumption, compromise, legal fictions, band-aids, capture, graft, misappropriation of words...henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:22 pmyes...a revolution with an eye toward a natural rights libertarian minarchy is exactly what we need
bet you have other ideas, though
Re: justice for just us
Would a "revolution with an eye toward a natural right libertarian minarchy, with just the principles everyone intuitively knows" include NO harm to "others"?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:51 amnot really...my strain is just principles everyone intuitively knows...the wheel requires no re-creation...just gotta toss out all bullshit you mention and get rollin'Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:32 pmLibertarian Whatever would be much better than what we have now, but in most cases it would result in recreating the wheel. We need most of the essential parts of the current system, it's the glue that holds them together that is made of purest bullshit - layer upon layer of assumption, compromise, legal fictions, band-aids, capture, graft, misappropriation of words...henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:22 pm
yes...a revolution with an eye toward a natural rights libertarian minarchy is exactly what we need
bet you have other ideas, though
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: justice for just us
probably not...slavers are gonna slave: they'll hurt folks...when slavers are caught, they dieAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:03 amWould a "revolution with an eye toward a natural right libertarian minarchy, with just the principles everyone intuitively knows" include NO harm to "others"?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:51 amnot really...my strain is just principles everyone intuitively knows...the wheel requires no re-creation...just gotta toss out all bullshit you mention and get rollin'Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jan 09, 2021 6:32 pm
Libertarian Whatever would be much better than what we have now, but in most cases it would result in recreating the wheel. We need most of the essential parts of the current system, it's the glue that holds them together that is made of purest bullshit - layer upon layer of assumption, compromise, legal fictions, band-aids, capture, graft, misappropriation of words...
my minarchy is not a utopia
Re: justice for just us
Okay, so why exactly do these, so called, "slavers" die when they are caught?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:04 pmprobably not...slavers are gonna slave: they'll hurt folks...when slavers are caught, they dieAge wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 7:03 amWould a "revolution with an eye toward a natural right libertarian minarchy, with just the principles everyone intuitively knows" include NO harm to "others"?henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:51 am
not really...my strain is just principles everyone intuitively knows...the wheel requires no re-creation...just gotta toss out all bullshit you mention and get rollin'
my minarchy is not a utopia
And, If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: justice for just us
If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?
*a man belongs to himself (you are your own, right?)
*his life, liberty, property are his (your life, liberty, property are yours, right?)
*his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of life, liberty, or property (if someone takes what's yours, they ought to have a consequence, right?)
do no harm is in there but not as a contextless, meaningless, feel-good, bit of hokum
Okay, so why exactly do these, so called, "slavers" die when they are caught?
they ought to die cuz slavers treat a man as property
the slaver isn't stealin' a man's tv or wallet...the slaver, like the murderer or rapist, literally steals or abuses another's life
seems to me to be a death-worthy offense
*a man belongs to himself (you are your own, right?)
*his life, liberty, property are his (your life, liberty, property are yours, right?)
*his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of life, liberty, or property (if someone takes what's yours, they ought to have a consequence, right?)
do no harm is in there but not as a contextless, meaningless, feel-good, bit of hokum
Okay, so why exactly do these, so called, "slavers" die when they are caught?
they ought to die cuz slavers treat a man as property
the slaver isn't stealin' a man's tv or wallet...the slaver, like the murderer or rapist, literally steals or abuses another's life
seems to me to be a death-worthy offense
Re: justice for just us
nope you do not "own" yourself nor any property unless you have the power to keep others from taking it, or you live where the powers that be agree to let you have use of it under certain conditions. example you can't continue to own land without maintaining the tax on it, or the powers that be take it. if you commit a crime whereas the Gov according to the agreement has the right to take your life or can incarcerate you taking your freedom to be and do. hence you belong to them.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:36 pm If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?
*a man belongs to himself (you are your own, right?)
*his life, liberty, property are his (your life, liberty, property are yours, right?)
*his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of life, liberty, or property (if someone takes what's yours, they ought to have a consequence, right?)
so without an agreement with power you have and or own nothing not even yourself. slaves were slaves because they did not have the power to posses their own freedom. either by force and fear like sex slaves or by the powers that be, like slavery back in the day. there was a time when thieves and the like were given to slavery in stead of imprisonment.
ethics and "morality" are based on the agreement at hand such as a constitution or a marriage contract. therefore without agreements there is no entitlement and if there be entitlement its within the agreement. also a agreement like the US constitution is a open end agreement that can be renegotiated called amendments suppressing the need for violent revolution. hence the agreement in the constitution for the Gov to allow the public to demonstrate peacefully to express the need for renegotiation.
but demonstration isn't intuitively a "right", its only agreed that the Gov won't open fire if a demonstration is executed according to the law, which is also a part of the agreement.
Re: justice for just us
[quote=DPMartin post_id=489413 time=1610465505 user_id=13848]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488984 time=1610307412 user_id=472]
[b]If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?[/b]
*a man belongs to himself (you are your own, right?)
*his life, liberty, property are his (your life, liberty, property are yours, right?)
*his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of life, liberty, or property (if someone takes what's yours, they ought to have a consequence, right?)
[/quote]
nope you do not "own" yourself nor any property unless you have the power to keep others from taking it, or you live where the powers that be agree to let you have use of it under certain conditions. example you can't continue to own land without maintaining the tax on it, or the powers that be take it. if you commit a crime whereas the Gov according to the agreement has the right to take your life or can incarcerate you taking your freedom to be and do. hence you belong to them.
so without an agreement with power you have and or own nothing not even yourself. slaves were slaves because they did not have the power to posses their own freedom. either by force and fear like sex slaves or by the powers that be, like slavery back in the day. there was a time when thieves and the like were given to slavery in stead of imprisonment.
ethics and "morality" are based on the agreement at hand such as a constitution or a marriage contract. therefore without agreements there is no entitlement and if there be entitlement its within the agreement. also a agreement like the US constitution is a open end agreement that can be renegotiated called amendments suppressing the need for violent revolution. hence the agreement in the constitution for the Gov to allow the public to demonstrate peacefully to express the need for renegotiation.
but demonstration isn't intuitively a "right", its only agreed that the Gov won't open fire if a demonstration is executed according to the law, which is also a part of the agreement.
[/quote]
Ownership is best understood as certainty of access and control. If you haven't got that, whether of yourself or property, your ownership may be legitimate but not actual. I am the legitimate owner of the universe but have no actual ownership of it in any meaningful sense.
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488984 time=1610307412 user_id=472]
[b]If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?[/b]
*a man belongs to himself (you are your own, right?)
*his life, liberty, property are his (your life, liberty, property are yours, right?)
*his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of life, liberty, or property (if someone takes what's yours, they ought to have a consequence, right?)
[/quote]
nope you do not "own" yourself nor any property unless you have the power to keep others from taking it, or you live where the powers that be agree to let you have use of it under certain conditions. example you can't continue to own land without maintaining the tax on it, or the powers that be take it. if you commit a crime whereas the Gov according to the agreement has the right to take your life or can incarcerate you taking your freedom to be and do. hence you belong to them.
so without an agreement with power you have and or own nothing not even yourself. slaves were slaves because they did not have the power to posses their own freedom. either by force and fear like sex slaves or by the powers that be, like slavery back in the day. there was a time when thieves and the like were given to slavery in stead of imprisonment.
ethics and "morality" are based on the agreement at hand such as a constitution or a marriage contract. therefore without agreements there is no entitlement and if there be entitlement its within the agreement. also a agreement like the US constitution is a open end agreement that can be renegotiated called amendments suppressing the need for violent revolution. hence the agreement in the constitution for the Gov to allow the public to demonstrate peacefully to express the need for renegotiation.
but demonstration isn't intuitively a "right", its only agreed that the Gov won't open fire if a demonstration is executed according to the law, which is also a part of the agreement.
[/quote]
Ownership is best understood as certainty of access and control. If you haven't got that, whether of yourself or property, your ownership may be legitimate but not actual. I am the legitimate owner of the universe but have no actual ownership of it in any meaningful sense.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: justice for just us
as a moral realist, I disagree with pretty much everything in your responseDPMartin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:31 pmnope you do not "own" yourself nor any property unless you have the power to keep others from taking it, or you live where the powers that be agree to let you have use of it under certain conditions. example you can't continue to own land without maintaining the tax on it, or the powers that be take it. if you commit a crime whereas the Gov according to the agreement has the right to take your life or can incarcerate you taking your freedom to be and do. hence you belong to them.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:36 pm If do NO harm is NOT a principle that everyone intuitively knows, what then are these 'principles', exactly, which, supposedly, "everyone intuitively knows"?
*a man belongs to himself (you are your own, right?)
*his life, liberty, property are his (your life, liberty, property are yours, right?)
*his life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives, in part or whole, another of life, liberty, or property (if someone takes what's yours, they ought to have a consequence, right?)
so without an agreement with power you have and or own nothing not even yourself. slaves were slaves because they did not have the power to posses their own freedom. either by force and fear like sex slaves or by the powers that be, like slavery back in the day. there was a time when thieves and the like were given to slavery in stead of imprisonment.
ethics and "morality" are based on the agreement at hand such as a constitution or a marriage contract. therefore without agreements there is no entitlement and if there be entitlement its within the agreement. also a agreement like the US constitution is a open end agreement that can be renegotiated called amendments suppressing the need for violent revolution. hence the agreement in the constitution for the Gov to allow the public to demonstrate peacefully to express the need for renegotiation.
but demonstration isn't intuitively a "right", its only agreed that the Gov won't open fire if a demonstration is executed according to the law, which is also a part of the agreement.
question: is slavery wrong?
Re: justice for just us
well morals believe it or not is relative, relative to those in a agreement, which is the agreed morals, or rules, or behavior, or this for that.henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:51 pm
as a moral realist, I disagree with pretty much everything in your response
question: is slavery wrong?
without the agreement and the power to enforce it, there's no binding of obligation and restoration that is justified, only what I can take from you and visa versa. that's reality.
as far as slavery, is it wrong according to what, your views, social norms, the law of the land, what?
Re: justice for just us
[quote=DPMartin post_id=489599 time=1610552813 user_id=13848]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=489423 time=1610470268 user_id=472]
as a moral realist, I disagree with pretty much everything in your response
question: is slavery wrong?
[/quote]
well morals believe it or not is relative, relative to those in a agreement, which is the agreed morals, or rules, or behavior, or this for that.
without the agreement and the power to enforce it, there's no binding of obligation and restoration that is justified, only what I can take from you and visa versa. that's reality.
as far as slavery, is it wrong according to what, your views, social norms, the law of the land, what?
[/quote]
You're going to have to start further down than that. What do you mean by slavery? There are many many variations on controlling other people's lives. Wage slavery certainly counts in most of the ways that matter, as does democracy. If you mean ultimate control over someone's life and death, even during most of America's slave days that wasn't the case, at least not legally. In a practical sense, any billionaire can do as they please with any poor person's life.
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=489423 time=1610470268 user_id=472]
as a moral realist, I disagree with pretty much everything in your response
question: is slavery wrong?
[/quote]
well morals believe it or not is relative, relative to those in a agreement, which is the agreed morals, or rules, or behavior, or this for that.
without the agreement and the power to enforce it, there's no binding of obligation and restoration that is justified, only what I can take from you and visa versa. that's reality.
as far as slavery, is it wrong according to what, your views, social norms, the law of the land, what?
[/quote]
You're going to have to start further down than that. What do you mean by slavery? There are many many variations on controlling other people's lives. Wage slavery certainly counts in most of the ways that matter, as does democracy. If you mean ultimate control over someone's life and death, even during most of America's slave days that wasn't the case, at least not legally. In a practical sense, any billionaire can do as they please with any poor person's life.