A government can interfere because it has the power to. The question is: will we demand that it interferes? The government CAN interfere in anything. But that doesn’t mean it will. It means it might. It means that there need to be people who won’t allow government to interfere. Like me. I should run for office, I’ll show you what “little government” means.
How is this different from what AC said? He said that the courts claim a monopoly on the interpretation of law. You replied that they do not, because you can sue and ask the court to interpret it again. If they give the same interpretation again, of course, all this did was waste money and time.
A private court would be more messy than a public one. Because…a market is run by self interest. Pure, unadulterated self interest. Is this the force you want running the justice system?
Jacob,
Look back at my post, I added some reading suggestions at the end.
No empathy for the woman that you almost ‘overpowered,’ (e.g. raped) an action which only selfish fear kept you from completing?
How do you fail to see the difference between you and I both buying something because we want it, and you wanting something and requiring me to buy it?
And how is it in the self-interest of a private court owner to run a sloppy system? The same argument you are using could be used to advocate socializing the food industry, or the steel industry. It is in the interest of the court owner to stay in business, and to do this he must be fair and efficient.
Seriously, go back to that list of books by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and do some reading. The awnsers are not all on this forum.
You’re basically asserting that the whole system of appeals courts is a ruse because they never rule against findings by lower courts. I mean…do I need to find instances where a district court has been overturned by a member of the appellate courts or by the Supreme Court now? Segregation got overturned, the court ruled in favor of teaching evolution in schools, roe vs wade has been upheld. Before Roe vs Wade, abortions were illegal. It’s possible for appellate courts to rule in favor of limited government. But also possible for them not to. It’s OUR job to make sure the right people are sitting in the judges chair. America has no one else to blame but America for the state it’s in now. And no one else to look to to fix her problems. Wouldn’t you agree?
You don’t have to buy anything. But if you want to live here, you’ve gotta play by the majority’s rules. I’m sorry that this upsets you. But you can always leave.
She knew me, she knew what I wanted, she put herself in the position to be raped. She expected me not to do it because she figured I’d be too scared to. And she was right.
The claim from AC was not about this court or that court, it was about the court system as a whole. By the way, when an appellete court overturns the trial court, what happens to the judge in the first court? Suppose they have, in the opinion of the higher court, unjustly sentenced a man to death. Do they face any real consequences as a result? (Sotomayer, I read yesterday, was just overruled in a civil rights case. Her consequence seems to be being moved to the highest court.) Anyone else would be charged with attempted murder.
But, again, the statement was about the court system as a whole. The system is owned by the government. A disagreement between two levels of the court is a disagreement about what is best for the government. In a sense, it is a private court system, just owned by a company selected as the most aggressive and brutal.
You delude yourself. Most conservatives, or so-called conservatives, are no longer opposed to welfare. At least not categorically. Bush, the “conservative” who appointed them wasn’t. Reagan babbled about it but in the end did nothing productive to end the welfare State. In fact, I’ll make your job easier. Find me one conservative, not a paleo- but a mainstream conservative/neoconservative, who thinks welfare is categorically unconstitutional.The Fed is unconstitutional. If it came to it, why shouldn’t a “conservative” strict constructionist rule it as such? Unless, you can show me where it is authorized in the constitution… And who is to judge what is torture and what isn’t? Those who owe their current stature to the administration of the accused and/or his father. That’s fair!
Ron Paul is not a conservative. Perhaps he’s a socially conservative libertarian but not a hardcore conservative. Ron Paul is a libertarian who doesn’t believe in tariffs…or excise taxes…or income taxes and supports the right to secession. So he believes in a government that can be left and that has no way to support itself? Psst…that sounds like a closet anarchist to me. The RNC is irrelevant. The DNC is irrelevant. I’m not talking about winning. I’m talking about principles. It is only the anarchist libertarians and their minarchist hardcore fellow travelers who have stayed consistent in their opposition to war, empire, socialism and progressivism in the last hundred years. As far as the entirely different question of strategy the only way to win is to leave. The only way to win is toremove yourself from the carcass of the dying States and empires and build an anarcho-Galt’s Gulch of sorts.
“Alive and well in the people who believe in it.” You mean like Santa Claus? LOL. But the fact that the constitution can be reinterpreted again and again by different people renders it a gaggle of guidelines rather than a rule of law to confine the State.
Under what conditions would the steel industry or shoe industry be socialized? Probably under the same conditions the banking and automobile system got nationalized. The argument was that it was in the public interest to prevent these institutions from toppling. I argued it wasn’t. It’s not that socialism is morally wrong, it just asks something of people that they’re not capable of doing. We will now get to see the automobile industry fail despite being bailed out and the banking system fail unless the government turns it loose. Almost guaranteed.
Private courts would ask people to honor rules that…honestly…no one is going to fear. You’re asking something of people that they’re not capable of. Just like socialists and communists do. Your view of human nature is skewed.
And, for the 10th or so time, where did that rule come from? If the rules must be made by the majority, that itself is a rule, and not at all an intuitive one. We rely by far more often on such rules as “get off my lawn.” How did you come to this decision that the majority is right, and that the only alternative I ought to have is to get off of MY land because my neighbors want to either take it or take my money to hire thugs to kill people?
Majority’s rule? Well then, I don’t know why anybody would prosecute Nazis for gassing Jews. They should have left!
Your absolutely wrong.And yes it is. Why? Because it is in the interest of both parties to an arbitration to agree on an arbitrator with a reputation for fairness, not to have a political machine man a la the current system. Competition between courts to get a reputation as just makes them more appetizing to insurance companies and individuals alike.
Remember, Jacob. Socialism sucks. Always. Be it in courts, shoes or cheese. It always promotes systemic inefficiency and injustice.
This thread makes me sick, yet I can’t stop reading it. I feel like I’m jodi foster visiting hannibal… fascinating.
-
The reason the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled against welfare, in my opinion, is that the Supreme court is passive. It doesn’t seek out cases, people have to bring it to them. That being said, I’m positive that if a case was brought to the SC now about the constitutionality of the Fed and Welfare, I GUARANTEE YOU…Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts would all vote against the Fed and Welfare. It’s just not something the SC has been asked to decide on. We should bring the case against it, now that I think about it! This is a great idea. Except I don’t know how to do it. Does anyone here know how to do that?
-
Well, if Ron Paul is a closet anarchist, there’s a reason he’s kept it in the closet. Winning matters because your principles aren’t good for anything unless they can actually make a difference. You may not like it, but you’re going to have to sell your ideas sooner or later. A lot of shitty salesman on this site though, so I can see why this annoys them. lol. Galt’s Gulch was protected by a heat mirage that prevented people from seeing it. This was before…I guess thermal imaging or radar was developed or something. Rand clearly had a hard time figuring out how Galt’s Gulch wasn’t going to get found. And then she said they had super technology that would’ve repelled even the strongest armies. Obviously, this was a work of fiction. If you succede from the Union, there will be an army coming after you I guarantee you that.
-
Except Santa Claus isn’t a real person. The Constitution is a real document. It has meaning to those willing to uphold its “guidelines” just like anarchy does to those who want to uphold Rothbard’s guidelines.
When people who do not understand how the market works claim, much like you just did, that the free market is too ‘sloppy’ to do things correctly, and that they must be centrally planned in order to work. This is precisely the argument you just made against private courts.
There is an awnser to this objection, but again, it’s going to be found on this forum. Go do some reading. That link I posted above has some of the best scholarly books on polycentric law, and none of those scholars are going to be found here.
[From the OP]
So if “you gotta play by the majorities rules” has it not "infringe[d] on [your] personal choice in the name of the majority? Obviously so.
What can we call the system you ar advocating. Again back to you, Jacob:
[From the OP]
It’s not about right and wrong, it’s about who has the power to assert their position. It’s only your land because someone allows you to have it and is willing to protect you from people trying to take it. There’s a reason they say “possession is 9/10 of the law” and it’s because the law is designed to protect ownership. The legal system will use force, if necessary, to maintain your ownership. But if you don’t want that protection, you don’t deserve to have it and you should leave. Why do you think Welfare exists? Because the majority wants it. Right and wrong don’t matter. We have to convince nanny state people that welfare doesn’t actually do what it’s supposed to be doing, not that it’s morally wrong.