Fla. Libertarian Party Chairman to Surrender Driver’s Licens

[steve74baywin]

Since "self defense" defends upon one's perception of a threat, which immediately reintroduces the political aspect you seem to dislike, your answer is no different than the one we have now. A group can define "self defense" in any way they want. Hence, for example, Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war:

From Wikipedia:

"It was only in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York that the American Bush administration first claimed the right to declare a preemptive war (see Bush Doctrine).[27] This American claim was soon followed up with the American invasion of Iraq in the Iraq War for the purpose of preventing Iraq from developing nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare technologies.[28]"

Steve, unless you can explain how you're going to fix the people-problem (people see what they want to see) then your answer is silly. I mean REALLY silly. Because you are essentially arguing that somehow people are going to be more ethical in your system. How? How does removing laws, or layers of governments make people less likely to manipulate things in their favor?

You don't seem to see the actions of the gov't as the actions of people, which is very, very strange. Do you think the gov't is a non-human entity that acts independently of human perception, desire or fear? If not, then why do you persist in suggesting that removing said gov't will change the outcome?

Mike

M.

I don't think it is that hard to define self defense as you imply. The Bush Doctrine is a perversion, not a perception thing.
Once again, there will be courts.
I am not essentially arguing people will be more ethical. There will be gov for the basics, without violating rights. People would have to let go of wanting to control everybody. They would have to take on responsibility themselves. In other words people would have to more tolerant. Not more ethical, but less biased morality enforced by law.

[steve74baywin]

So Adrian Wyllie hopes to receive a citation for driving without an operators license so that he can challenge the law requiring that license. I suppose he hopes to replace it with a new law. How is challenging the system with the same set of legal tools an expression of limited government?

I'm so confused.


neal

Florida adapted the Real ID Card act. They are asking for more papers to get a license and that you get you picture taking with a facial recognition camera that uploads to a Homeland Security database. He says it violates the 4th amendment. That is what he wants to challenge.

[ruckman101]

I agree with him there, but I disagree with his opinion that driving a car is a "right". As near as I can tell, local authorities have yet to give him a citation for him to challenge.


neal

[Lanval]

Since "self defense" defends upon one's perception of a threat, which immediately reintroduces the political aspect you seem to dislike, your answer is no different than the one we have now. A group can define "self defense" in any way they want. Hence, for example, Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war:

From Wikipedia:

"It was only in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York that the American Bush administration first claimed the right to declare a preemptive war (see Bush Doctrine).[27] This American claim was soon followed up with the American invasion of Iraq in the Iraq War for the purpose of preventing Iraq from developing nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare technologies.[28]"

Steve, unless you can explain how you're going to fix the people-problem (people see what they want to see) then your answer is silly. I mean REALLY silly. Because you are essentially arguing that somehow people are going to be more ethical in your system. How? How does removing laws, or layers of governments make people less likely to manipulate things in their favor?

You don't seem to see the actions of the gov't as the actions of people, which is very, very strange. Do you think the gov't is a non-human entity that acts independently of human perception, desire or fear? If not, then why do you persist in suggesting that removing said gov't will change the outcome?

Mike

M.

I don't think it is that hard to define self defense as you imply. The Bush Doctrine is a perversion, not a perception thing.
Once again, there will be courts.
I am not essentially arguing people will be more ethical. There will be gov for the basics, without violating rights. People would have to let go of wanting to control everybody. They would have to take on responsibility themselves. In other words people would have to more tolerant. Not more ethical, but less biased morality enforced by law.

Yeah, it's a perversion according to you, but what about the next guy? And the one after him? You're missing the point. Any assumption that you make that people are going to be more X (where X equals whatever value you want: ethics, tolerance, etc.), hinges entirely upon your explaining why people are suddenly going to change... If they aren't that way now, why will they become that way under a new system?

Mike

[Randy in Maine]

Although this is sometimes sort of specific to the State of WI, this is a pretty good read on the rational of the legal theory behind the Sovereign Citizen "movement". They really are not a "movement" since they really don't all believe the same things or have common goals or backgrounds. Still sort of an interesting read for me.....

http://www.famguardian.org/PublishedAut ... Auth.htm#B. Responses to For-Profit Sovereign Citizen Legal Theorists

[Lanval]

Although this is sometimes sort of specific to the State of WI, this is a pretty good read on the rational of the legal theory behind the Sovereign Citizen "movement". They really are not a "movement" since they really don't all believe the same things or have common goals or backgrounds. Still sort of an interesting read for me.....

http://www.famguardian.org/PublishedAut ... Auth.htm#B. Responses to For-Profit Sovereign Citizen Legal Theorists

What's funny about this Randy, is that my area of expertise is Anglo-Saxon society and literature; I'm the only one here I'm sure that has actually taken a class on the relationship between AS law and post-Norman law.

It is well understood that the origins of common law are murky at best. The Libertarian interpretations are nearly unholy in their desire to ascribe a kind of state of "original grace" to English Common Law concepts. The problem is that historically, the claims to common law against the crown were predicated on the statement "since time immemorial". However, in a non-literate society, that means the last day before the memory of the current oldest member of our society. Additionally, the AS method for dealing with crimes (at least in England proper) was a kind of clan meeting. As such, not only were the "laws" fungible from generation to generation (since faulty human memory was for a good long time the only method of record keeping) but the clan system wasn't precedent based. Each case was heard on its own merits, meaning that the punishment for exactly the same crime could vary widely, depending upon who was judging, who was being judged, and the interpretations of the judges themselves. There is not now, nor was there ever, a "Common Law" that was anything except an ad hoc attempt to resolve local circumstances.

Thanks for the link ~ Randy, it's interesting reading, as an insight into how the Libertarian/Sovereign movement understands law.

It's kind of funny that they arbitrarily dismiss amendments that they don't like, while allow ones they do. Maybe we should go back to the original constitution, since the author of your link suggests that many Sovereign supporters aren't wealthy. That way we can exclude them since non-land holding "citizens" weren't allowed to vote!

Mike

addendum:

I especially like this:

"Sovereign Citizens claim an inalienable right to travel; that is, the right to travel over public roads without the necessity need to register their cars, display license plates, obtain driver's licenses, or conform to traffic laws. n80 Sovereign citizens concede that the government has a right to require licenses for vehicles driven in the "ordinary" use - vehicles driven for commercial purposes - but not to regulate vehicles driven in the "extraordinary," or personal, use."

In effect: "Hey, you have no right to make me pay for the roads you build, NOR do you have any right to regulate my use of them."

Maybe we should let the Sovereigns opt out of paying taxes, but also exclude them from uses of that tax money... Bet they'd change their tune quicker than you can say "Bullshit Libertarians complain from the comfort of their tax-supported democratic abode."

In fact, now that I think about it, wasn't the internet designed and built by the gov't, with gov't money? Isn't using the internet essentially antithetical to being Libertarian...? Oh wait, I forgot my own link. If you're a Libertarian/Sovereign citizen, you have every right to public structures built and paid for with tax money, you just aren't obligated to pay for, or follow the laws associated with, the structure in question.

Oy.

M

[steve74baywin]

[
Yeah, it's a perversion according to you, but what about the next guy? And the one after him? You're missing the point. Any assumption that you make that people are going to be more X (where X equals whatever value you want: ethics, tolerance, etc.), hinges entirely upon your explaining why people are suddenly going to change... If they aren't that way now, why will they become that way under a new system?

Mike

I will break down your post.

1)

"Yeah, it's a perversion according to you, but what about the next guy? And the one after him? You're missing the point"

We must agree to disagree here. Self Defensive isn't that hard to define. Thoughts and fantasy of what someone can do is just that, they either attacked or they did not. There will still be courts and juries to decide. Why do you keep forgetting this? The Bush example is Newspeak. Self Defense wouldn't be me going after you tonight because you might come after me tomorrow. That is paranoia, a perhaps an illness.

2)

"Any assumption that you make that people are going to be more X (where X equals whatever value you want: ethics, tolerance, etc.), hinges entirely upon your explaining why people are suddenly going to change... If they aren't that way now, why will they become that way under a new system?"

No assumption, it will be the same people. Certain things you keep wondering is what puzzles me. Who says they are going to more X? Are you confusing when I give examples to say people would still give like they do now? There is no assumption people jump to or ever get to better. The basic protection of life, rights to property. I have already said no promises of perfection. I even said in that in the other thread that the same people will be here.

I really don't know what else to say. It seems I keep answering the same thing over and over. Perhaps it is because you have this perceived idea of how things must be. Like wondering how the public would get roads like today. If the public wants road like today then they would do that. If the public doesn't build roads like today then who is this public you think needs to force the public to do it?

[Lanval]

[
Yeah, it's a perversion according to you, but what about the next guy? And the one after him? You're missing the point. Any assumption that you make that people are going to be more X (where X equals whatever value you want: ethics, tolerance, etc.), hinges entirely upon your explaining why people are suddenly going to change... If they aren't that way now, why will they become that way under a new system?

Mike

I will break down your post.

1)

"Yeah, it's a perversion according to you, but what about the next guy? And the one after him? You're missing the point"

We must agree to disagree here. Self Defensive isn't that hard to define. Thoughts and fantasy of what someone can do is just that, they either attacked or they did not. There will still be courts and juries to decide. Why do you keep forgetting this? The Bush example is Newspeak. Self Defense wouldn't be me going after you tonight because you might come after me tomorrow. That is paranoia, a perhaps an illness.

2)

"Any assumption that you make that people are going to be more X (where X equals whatever value you want: ethics, tolerance, etc.), hinges entirely upon your explaining why people are suddenly going to change... If they aren't that way now, why will they become that way under a new system?"

No assumption, it will be the same people. Certain things you keep wondering is what puzzles me. Who says they are going to more X? Are you confusing when I give examples to say people would still give like they do now? There is no assumption people jump to or ever get to better. The basic protection of life, rights to property. I have already said no promises of perfection. I even said in that in the other thread that the same people will be here.

I really don't know what else to say. It seems I keep answering the same thing over and over. Perhaps it is because you have this perceived idea of how things must be. Like wondering how the public would get roads like today. If the public wants road like today then they would do that. If the public doesn't build roads like today then who is this public you think needs to force the public to do it?

I love this: "self defense isn't that hard to define". Yeah, according to your definition. NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS YOU DO.

Why do you not understand this?

There is no absolute definition of "self-defense". And by the way, according to Texas, which tries to give the sorts of individual freedoms you're talking about, self-defense includes shooting unarmed people in the back. But let me guess; whenever someone magically doesn't think/know/act exactly the same as you their flawed/wrong/criminal/diseased.

From the NYT; I've added my italics so you can see why I think your arguments are problematic:

"Homeowner Shoots Tourist by Mistake In Texas, Police Say
Published: January 08, 1994
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT

A businessman from Aberdeen, Scotland, wandering a wealthy neighborhood in search of a telephone after a night of drinking, was shot and killed early this morning by a homeowner who took him for a burglar, the police said.

Andrew De Vries, 28, who was in Houston on a business trip, was shot twice after he pounded "in a furious manner" on the back door of a home in an exclusive neighborhood on the city's west side about 4 A.M., said Alvin Wright, a spokesman for the Houston Police Department.

Mr. De Vries and a colleague, Sydney Graves, 42, had been befriended by a Houston couple during a night on the town and had gone to the couple's home, the police said. When the couple were driving the men back to their hotel, Mr. De Vries "began to think they were taking him in the wrong direction," said a police spokesman, Joe Gamino.

Mr. De Vries jumped out of the car and Mr. Graves followed. Mr. De Vries began to ring doorbells, searching for a phone the men could use to call a cab. After ringing the front doorbell twice at a home on Warrenton Drive, Mr. De Vries went into the backyard, the police said.


"The homeowner saw two men at his back fence," Mr. Gamino said. "He then saw one of the men climb over his fence and hit the back door." The homeowner, believing that his home was being invaded, fired a pistol three times through the door. Mr. De Vries died at the scene, but Mr. Graves was not harmed.

The police said they had no plans to charge the homeowner with a crime, although the case, like all shootings in Texas, will be referred to a grand jury.

Judy Jowers, who lives on Warrenton Drive, a neighborhood where home-alarm stickers are as numerous as basketball hoops, said, "It saddens me that things are the way they are -- that you have to resort to having a gun in your house." She described her neighbors as "real nice, ordinary people trying to make a go of things around here -- hard-working, middle-class, family people."

The case is reminiscent of an incident in October 1992 in which a Japanese student in Louisiana was killed by a homeowner who said he had thought the student was trying to invade his home. The student, who did not understand English well, failed to comply when the homeowner told him to freeze. The homeowner was acquitted on manslaughter charges.

In deciding not to press charges in the case today, the Houston police appeared to regard the shooting as misguided self-defense. In the past year, there have been several incidents in Houston in which burglars have knocked down doors in the middle of the night to rob or assault residents."

I'll bet the Scottish guy's family will be real happy to hear about how in your system "there'll still be courts". Since they won't be any better than the ones we have now, if the Libertarians ever get their hands on the gov't I guess you'd better be armed at all times. Or don't get drunk. Or don't be a foreigner. Or don't freeze every time someone says "^$*^&&%&^*" in a foreign language.

Steve, I'm not going to respectfully disagree with someone who believes that everything will magically be OK if we just get rid of the "gubment" or "gobblement" or any of the other names people use to pejoratively label or system. Either explain why people/courts/etc. are somehow are all going to know exactly what's right and which definitions are in play, or accept that the current system errs in favor of making those issues clearer for people who otherwise aren't competent to tell the difference between a killer and a drunk. <--- this is what I want you to say to me; how will you fix this?

Mike

Mike

[steve74baywin]

Mike,
There would still be courts to decide such a think. The issue of interpretation would occur less with less laws.

The drunken dude needed to exercise a little more personal responsibility. That could happen in your system or mine. In both your system and mine court, judge, jury to decide.
No promise of a rose garden, and this isn't a rose garden now either. But there are tons more collateral people in jail due to the excessive laws.

There you go again, "who believes that everything will magically be OK"
Mike, I do not think everything will magically be OK.

Mike, I do not think everything will magically be OK.

Mike, I do not think everything will magically be OK.

Mike, I do not think everything will magically be OK.

Mike, I do not think everything will magically be OK.

Lanval, I do not think everything will magically be OK.

[ruckman101]

Cries for a limited government are kind of like cries against puppy kicking. Who's going to argue they are for bigger government? As many people as there are who will argue they are for puppy kicking.

Who isn't for an efficient government? Aren't laws enacted essentially under the belief that they are for the common good? In most cases they are. Laws are responses to problems, dangers, infringements etc etc.

There are, however, plenty of laws passed that are solely designed to favor one group of citizens over another, or even to address non-existent issues (against Sharia Law, for example). Corporations originally could only be formed if they could prove the public benefit their formation would provide. We've gone full circle on that one, legally. So yes, law can be and is used to suppress, infringing on the rights of the suppressed, and benefitting those who aren't. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right.

Why are laws passed that benefit some and suppress others? Greed. And greed isn't going anywhere. It's been a human trait since "time immemorial". Who can argue that spewing toxins into the environment is a common good. Because of the product that is produced? That's the balance polluters try to foist. Where would "our way of life" be without petroleum? Vastly different, but perhaps without the threat of self-annihilation of life as we know it on this planet. Short term gains, ditching the responsibility of long term consequences.

I think Libertarian ideals have already been tried, and have failed, else they would be the standard. The common good was in jeopardy, thus laws were enacted in an attempt to address that issue. That Roosevelt dude for example.

Greed will and does pursue every avenue available.

I think the core issue at the root of our nation and society's ills is the glorification of the individual over the community.

And this Sovereign Citizen bit, a scattered hodge-podge of philosophy that attempts to alleviate individuals from their responsibility to honor the common good of community. I mean, talk about petty. Who are these Sovereign Citizens? Broke losers who want to shirk financial responsibilities to the common good. At least the ones who come to light gunning down police over traffic citations. Nice.



neal

[Lanval]

Steve,

My point is particularly that Texas = more your system than mine. In Oregon, a guy shot a thief in the back. He was on the property of the gun owner, but running away. Gun owner went to jail. Why? Because in Oregon there are definite limits to the authority of the individual. We're all better off when Johnny Trigger doesn't get to decide who lives and dies on his property.

Appealing vaguely to a court system as an answer is poppycock. You've already stated that the courts of today operate on an unconstitutional basis... so why is a Libertarian court immune to greed/fear/hate etc.?

At least with the current system we can make people obey the laws that the group has accepted. It isn't perfect, but at least it gets things done that no individual or group of lesser size could; additionally, it punishes those who treat the needs of the many as worthless. Forced ethics? Perhaps, but if the group decides that's the way things go, then that's the way things go.

As we move along, we try to balance the rights of the individual against the needs of society, so the laws we make fall unevenly; society rightly recognizes for example, that a flat tax is crazy. Everyone paying 10% though simple and fair in the broadest sense, in fact allows the wealthy an unreasonable advantage. Maybe we should allow the wealthy that unreasonable advantage, but I'm against it. If they got rich, chances are it was on the backs of the little people who helped fund things like gov't, safety services, capital improvements and so on.

Neal's post is correct, and perhaps I haven't said it as clearly, but I thought I hit it above ~ you assume in your system that everyone will have a unified set of principles. And even if they don't the courts will somehow know what the definitions are, and stripped of the ability to interpret, will administer law.

Since the changes in the constitution that the Sovereign/Libertarian groups are the result of changes implemented according to the perceived needs of society, I can't see how you end up with either: 1. a document that is inflexible, or 2. another version of what we have now, with more people shooting and getting shot.

Unless you can give me a better answer than "there will still be courts" to the issue of human nature, and flexible interpretation, I fail to see how "fewer laws" would result in anything other than more bullshit by people who no longer have to consider the consequences of their actions. Once you do acknowledge that interpretation and flexibility are added in, then in essence you accept our current gov't, since it is (according to you) based on a correct form of gov't (Jeffersonian Democracy ~ your version of which is a fairy tale, by the way) that was interpreted and flexibly amended by the people to adjust for changes over time, and in perception.

Mike

[steve74baywin]

Lanval, you are constantly ignoring things I say. You are constantly putting assumptions upon a party or movement, and repeating them over and over. I explain, I don't think you read. Basically dude, this dirty cheap from of discussion you can keep with your college brats. You may discuss with yourself. Leave me out of it.
New light has been shed on the Turk Lanval issue in the Global Warming or Antarctic thread.
Your method is one that uses means to piss off, rather than logic and truth. As is apparent when you keep putting words in my mouth.

[Lanval]

Lanval, you are constantly ignoring things I say. You are constantly putting assumptions upon a party or movement, and repeating them over and over. I explain, I don't think you read. Basically dude, this dirty cheap from of discussion you can keep with your college brats. You may discuss with yourself. Leave me out of it.
New light has been shed on the Turk Lanval issue in the Global Warming or Antarctic thread.
Your method is one that uses means to piss off, rather than logic and truth. As is apparent when you keep putting words in my mouth.

Actually, I just want you to connect theory to practice; instead of arguing the system is better (whatever system one prefers), why not say how it's better? Give concrete examples that show me (or anyone else) a better result.

I'm all for Libertarianism (or other forms of gov't) if it'll work better. I'd just like to know it works better before I throw the old system away. In order to do that, we need to get down to "brass tacks" as they say. If asking (demanding?) specifics constitutes being a "jerk", then so be it. But I'll leave you and your ideas in peace as that's your wish.

Mike

Mike

[steve74baywin]

Lanval, you are constantly ignoring things I say. You are constantly putting assumptions upon a party or movement, and repeating them over and over. I explain, I don't think you read. Basically dude, this dirty cheap from of discussion you can keep with your college brats. You may discuss with yourself. Leave me out of it.
New light has been shed on the Turk Lanval issue in the Global Warming or Antarctic thread.
Your method is one that uses means to piss off, rather than logic and truth. As is apparent when you keep putting words in my mouth.

Actually, I just want you to connect theory to practice; instead of arguing the system is better (whatever system one prefers), why not say how it's better? Give concrete examples that show me (or anyone else) a better result.

I'm all for Libertarianism (or other forms of gov't) if it'll work better. I'd just like to know it works better before I throw the old system away. In order to do that, we need to get down to "brass tacks" as they say. If asking (demanding?) specifics constitutes being a "jerk", then so be it. But I'll leave you and your ideas in peace as that's your wish.

Mike

Mike

Mike, I think I am going to start another thread on my political idea, this way we don't direct all these other threads back to the same thing.
The persistent "prove yours is better" is going off track.
In other words, perhaps the basis for deciding a system for rule isn't "which one will work better". Better is very subjective, or as you might say, open for interpretation. This is where perhaps things are getting off track, IMHO. I don't think you pick a system on based on which one ends up with more roads and more territories that provide oil for us.
I could come with one that maybe would show the best results beyond any stretch of the imagination. Should we jump to that one? And after we jump to it, do we then discover part of what helped us get there was killing those with an IQ below 120?
Anyway, I'm gonna start another thread with the basis for my system. Maybe that will avoid all the questions like, How we going to have roads just like they are today?