Law Is Bullying Taken To The Extreme

[Twyce]

NOBODY has the right to tell another what they must/mustn't do and then excercise power to enforce compliance - a definition for that is 'bully'. When a bully terrorizes a schoolyard, the stronger teachers bully the bully into not being a bully. When a bully fights in a street, the stronger (better armed and greater numbers) police bully, bullies the bully into a squad car and the court bully, bullies the bully into a jail cell. BUT, the bully law NEVER had the right to bully, AND it's rampant bullying doubtlessly taught all the smaller bullies how to bully in the first place.

It's ironic that JK offered a 'bully' anecdote as a parable of how law 'protected' me. How did any of you feel when you suffered at the hands of a bully? Did you feel like kicking the bully's young sister in the shins? Because that way you could strike back at the bully through a more vulnerable place? (That's an analogy of the law 'painting a target' on innocent people.) The law bullies everyone and even though you try to suppress it, I'm certain that all of you resent the law's bullying sometimes. How much of today's crime and violence is actually bully victims hitting back at the bully law?

What did your Mom and Dad tell you about how to handle a bully? You stand up to them and say 'you don't have the right to push me around.' Well, despite all of you trying to bully me into silence, I'm saying as loudly to the law as I can--"Law does NOT have the right to bully me, and tell me what I must/mustn't do, or to punish me for non-compliance." I can say so without fear, because LAW doesn't even exist in a form: it's only a flawed concept in your minds: it has no power in mine.

Now, if any of you wish to discuss how to form a REAL justice system that is based on societal rights, instead of on the principle of 'big bully', I'm available. If you want to keep suffering my slams on the law, for which you have no valid come-backs, I'm good with that too.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Trying to bully us into agreeing with your protective law stuff again, huh? By exercising your right to free speech and your privilege of using this DB, both pretty much protected under prohibitive law and existing under private prohibitive type rules. Fascinating.

I'll give you this Twyce, you are persistent in your trolling.

[Twyce]

you are persistent in your trolling.

Let me count how many off-topic posts I've inserted into threads that I didn't start myself for the purpose of discussing a relevent societal problem of law. Hmmm, that total now is up to zero. I suppose that means I'm persistant in my non-trolling.

You OTOH, are persistant in sticking your head in the sand to avoid viewing an utterly solvable set of problems.

[4eyedbuzzard]

There is no problem.
Your dissent is noted.
I support your right to dissent, which is protected by the prohibitive laws that are the issue of your dissent.
Happy fishing.

[gigirle]

I support your right to dissent, which is protected by the prohibitive laws that are the issue of your dissent.

Only by american standards, he's canadian.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Only by american standards, he's canadian.

Yeah, I always forget how repressive the Canadian government is.

[gigirle]

What he doesn't seem to get is that we don't have a problem with our laws. We seperated from the King and it caused some kind of un uproar involving tea I think ??
I suggested that he argue his points with the Queen but apprently he's gotton no where and is now attacking our perception of laws that don't even apply to him. Guess he has a lot of time on his hands.

[blueeagle]

What he doesn't seem to get is that we don't have a problem with our laws. We seperated from the King and it caused some kind of un uproar involving tea I think ??

Yep in Boston. They really knew how to party back then.

I suggested that he argue his points with the Queen but apprently he's gotton no where and is now attacking our perception of laws that don't even apply to him. Guess he has a lot of time on his hands.

Canada doesn't have a Queen. They have a prime minister.

[blueeagle]

NOBODY has the right to tell another what they must/mustn't do and then excercise power to enforce compliance - a definition for that is 'bully'. When a bully terrorizes a schoolyard, the stronger teachers bully the bully into not being a bully. When a bully fights in a street, the stronger (better armed and greater numbers) police bully, bullies the bully into a squad car and the court bully, bullies the bully into a jail cell. BUT, the bully law NEVER had the right to bully, AND it's rampant bullying doubtlessly taught all the smaller bullies how to bully in the first place.

It's ironic that JK offered a 'bully' anecdote as a parable of how law 'protected' me. How did any of you feel when you suffered at the hands of a bully? Did you feel like kicking the bully's young sister in the shins? Because that way you could strike back at the bully through a more vulnerable place? (That's an analogy of the law 'painting a target' on innocent people.) The law bullies everyone and even though you try to suppress it, I'm certain that all of you resent the law's bullying sometimes. How much of today's crime and violence is actually bully victims hitting back at the bully law?

What did your Mom and Dad tell you about how to handle a bully? You stand up to them and say 'you don't have the right to push me around.' Well, despite all of you trying to bully me into silence, I'm saying as loudly to the law as I can--"Law does NOT have the right to bully me, and tell me what I must/mustn't do, or to punish me for non-compliance." I can say so without fear, because LAW doesn't even exist in a form: it's only a flawed concept in your minds: it has no power in mine.

Now, if any of you wish to discuss how to form a REAL justice system that is based on societal rights, instead of on the principle of 'big bully', I'm available. If you want to keep suffering my slams on the law, for which you have no valid come-backs, I'm good with that too.

Oh, go eat some dirt!!!

[Twyce]

“Hey Martha,” a pioneer enters his rough-hewn log cabin, “our founding fathers just traded our freedom for this wonderful bag of magic law beans.”
“That seems like a pretty steep price.” The woman looks ruefully at the small sack.
“Nah,” he laughs, “the new law gives our freedom back. So, it’s a freebie.”
“Didn’t we leave the old world to escape kings and their bully thugs?”
“This is different. The new ruler is imaginary and it’s named ‘The People’ so it seems like one or even all of us. Er, I’m not sure if I quite understand that part.”
“I suppose we can plant these and see what grows.” Martha takes up a shovel. “I suppose this has to be well-fertilized with patriotic sounding B.S.”
“Wait a second.” Benjamin extracts a sheet instructions printed on parchment. “It’s not quite as easy as that. We need to pay a law priest to chant over it too.”
As could be expected, an unruly thatch of crime and violence soon grew. The pioneers complained to the law’s judge.
“Tough luck,” the magistrate scolded, “you sold yourself into slavery and you sold your children’s children too. Now get back to work and keep those taxes coming.”
“That’s a fanciful fiction.” Back in the present day, another judge is wearing the same hand-me-down robe. “However, you’ve broken the law of sedition and that short story is further evidence of your heinous thought crime.”
“Really?” Twyce dramatically casts his eyes about. “I don’t see shards of a shattered law. The breakage seems to reside only in your imagination.”
“That’s contempt of court,” the magistrate howls, “and that’s another broken law.”
“I have the right of my own beliefs.” Twyce smiles contemptuously. “Just now, I believe you are trying to flay me with an imaginary whip—for breaking my unreal slave collar and running a pretend lawnmower over my personal crop of fictitious law beans.”
“Paradox? This does not compute!” The judge hits his own head with a gabble and begins to gabble. “Quack, quack, quack!”
“Halt in the name of the law!” The bailiff knows his job isn’t just to look macho and flirt with the steno. He draws his sidearm and fires six warning shots into the defendant’s chest. “You also have the right to die for my unthinking trust in the law.”

I thought it quite considerate to end this tale, as you would doubtlessly like it to, but who really won? The overall winner certainly has NEVER been the society of man.