Protective Justice

Does anyone wish to discuss a logically correct method of ordering our society?

:wallbang:

I don't suppose a "NO" would stop you, so go ahead. What would you do to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence[sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

:wallbang:

I don't suppose a "NO" would stop you, so go ahead. What would you do to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence[sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?

---

hey, that is kind of catchy. Maybe we can use that line in our constitution.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

hey, that is kind of catchy. Maybe we can use that line in our constitution.

---

I'll sell the rights to it for a reasonable price.:D

I agree it is catchy...

Loooo-ooook!

2 cartoons that are more entertaining than Twyce. What are the odds?

4eyedbuzzard...I'll give $2.01 and a bottle of Dr. Pepper (don't want to get outbid).

Quote:

---

Quoting jojo4

---

4eyedbuzzard...I'll give $2.01 and a bottle of Dr. Pepper (don't want to get outbid).

---

You'll have to snipe it - I put it on Ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/US-Constitution-...ayphotohosting

the OP is off his rocker ,because America may throw some people in jail who are later found to be innocent,at least this country is better than Cuba or China, where the people are guilty until proven innocent.

Quote:

---

Quoting Happy Trails

---

I agree it is catchy...

---

You buy into that propoganda? A better opening line is "We the slaves..."

Ya know Twyce, after a little studying of civilizations and cultures over the years, working in a few Soviet Bloc countries and getting "detained and interrogated" by the Romanian Securitate in the early '80s, visiting Saudi Arabia on business, seeing the reality of several 3rd world countries... Yeah, Twyce, I believe in that We the People propaganda. No, it ain't perfect. It's not even close. It's a work in progress. But I haven't seen a better alternative yet.

You say you travel in Asia, so you must see the reality of the human condition from time to time unless you spend all your time in tourist hotels and close your eyes while traveling around. For all your ranting, you don't seem to acknowledge what real slavery and oppression is.

You have your political voice, it's called your vote. That few believe or want to share in your "philosophy" may frustrate you, but that is the will of The People, expressed in their vote. You certainly have the right to express your point of view, and I support your right to dissent - I just don't agree with you philosophy. You should think long and hard about how the rights you routinely exercise came to be protected and maintained.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

I'll sell the rights to it for a reasonable price.:D

---

HEY!!! what kind of scam are you trying to run on me??

I watched that vid and I never say your name in the credits. I bet you had nothing to do with even writing that line.

Man, what kind of people is Aaron allowing on this site anyway:mad:

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

Ya know Twyce, after a little studying of civilizations and cultures over the years, working in a few Soviet Bloc countries and getting "detained and interrogated" by the Romanian Securitate in the early '80s, visiting Saudi Arabia on business, seeing the reality of several 3rd world countries... Yeah, Twyce, I believe in that We the People propaganda. No, it ain't perfect. It's not even close. It's a work in progress. But I haven't seen a better alternative yet.

You say you travel in Asia, so you must see the reality of the human condition from time to time unless you spend all your time in tourist hotels and close your eyes while traveling around. For all your ranting, you don't seem to acknowledge what real slavery and oppression is.

You have your political voice, it's called your vote. That few believe or want to share in your "philosophy" may frustrate you, but that is the will of The People, expressed in their vote. You certainly have the right to express your point of view, and I support your right to dissent - I just don't agree with you philosophy. You should think long and hard about how the rights you routinely exercise came to be protected and maintained.

---

extremely well written 4 eyedbuzzard. Very eloquent.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

You say you travel in Asia, so you must see the reality of the human condition from time to time...

---

I see people with real faith and culture, living real lives. Occasionally, I see a North American news crew, filming a selected segment of what they think Americans want to view, so they can feel better about serfdom.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

You should think long and hard about how the rights you routinely exercise came to be protected and maintained.

---

In my view, a 'right' is something that a free person intrinsically owns--like his freedom. The 'rights' given in your constitution are flimsy promices from a fickle government. The fact that there is an 'amending' process proves they are not etched in granite. Accrding to your general theory of 'rights', I should have the right not to believe in law. However, the law protects only itself (as always) by supposing it's not my right to believe in anything bit IT.

Taken from closed thread--

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Everybody is still waiting for you to give examples of a law and its use that would do what you keep claiming is a better way. If you have a better way, then spit it out but all you have done up to now is analogous to a person saying, "we need to be able to transport people across light years of distance in the blink of an eye" It sure sounds good but until somebody finds a way to actually do it, all you have is a dream. Do you have a dream or do you have a plan of action with real goals and real methods to achieve those goals.

---

The aparatus for achieving protective law already exists in the court/police/prison/law systems. The change needs only to start at the root phylosophy of law, and then the whole system could come into plumb with the true base.

At the law writing level - murder for example is still concidered wrong and the government will take action against persons committing it. The change is that the action is no longer concidered a prohibited act that was directed against the body of the law and/or society as a whole. Instead, the authority is acting on behalf of the victim, the potencial victims, and even the culprit, to protect people. (Protecting a law and protecting people is a huge difference.)

At the police level - The police/investigators are able to take a full and impartial look at the details, because they aren't just tasked with gathering evidence of how a law was broken. Instead of only 'upholding the law' the police begin to 'serve and protect' the people--and the general public's respect for them rises dramatically.

At the court level - The judge/jury aren't seeking a black/white answer for whether a law was broken. Instead, they are able to deal with the greyscale of the human situation.

Immediate benefit to society - A prohibitive law against murder would not exist, so a malcontent couldn't 'break' that law to make his twisted political statement--Another Virginia Tech shouldn't happen.

Russell...I would be willing to chip in to buy you a one-way ticket to any country of your choice.

Where do you want to go?

Since I heard through the grape vine that Aaron is going to give us all a raise, we can all chip in - that should be enough.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Russell...I would be willing to chip in to buy you a one-way ticket to any country of your choice.

Where do you want to go?

---

Since the internet is almost everywhere, what would my departure gain you?

What is the problem with discussion? Does it make your brain hurt trying to find logic that defends the system that you love? If you can't think of ways to explain and rationalize the law, then how can you be so certain that it is actually doing what you think it is? (ie. why must public order keeping require using a the body of concept with power embued into it?)

Lawyers, police, and senior judges along with their families all have to live in the only world that we have. Why wouldn't everyone want to see it made better?

Quote:

---

Quoting Betty3

---

Since I heard through the grape vine that Aaron is going to give us all a raise, we can all chip in - that should be enough.

---

I have respectfully declined my raise.

It would put me in a higher tax bracket!

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

Since the internet is almost everywhere, what would my departure gain you?

What is the problem with discussion? Does it make your brain hurt trying to find logic that defends the system that you love? If you can't think of ways to explain and rationalize the law, then how can you be so certain that it is actually doing what you think it is? (ie. why must public order keeping require using a the body of concept with power embued into it?)

Lawyers, police, and senior judges along with their families all have to live in the only world that we have. Why wouldn't everyone want to see it made better?

---

I think departure is the operative word here.

Okay, if you hate this country so much, which country would you choose?

(I said I loved the country: can't stand the government.)

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

Does anyone wish to discuss a logically correct method of ordering our society?

---

If you are speaking of the concept of "ordered liberty" per federal constitutional law, that is truely an endless debate!!

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

I think departure is the operative word here.

Okay, if you hate this country so much, which country would you choose?

(I said I loved the country: can't stand the government.)

---

I don't hate any country and no country has the optimal justice system---yet.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

(I said I loved the country: can't stand the government.)

---

Then seek to change what you can't stand about it. If the government was stripped of it's ability to pass laws that restrict or compel people, then the government would lose it's 'overlordship'. With the ability to pass protections instead, the government would be a body comprised of citizen's rights--a legeslated bill of rights would be utterly unnecessary..(Other issues would also change like the taxation question, but the government could still easily raise the required money.)

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

I don't hate any country and no country has the optimal justice system---yet.
Then seek to change what you can't stand about it. If the government was stripped of it's ability to pass laws that restrict or compel people, then the government would lose it's 'overlordship'. With the ability to pass protections instead, the government would be a body comprised of citizen's rights--a legeslated bill of rights would be utterly unnecessary..(Other issues would also change like the taxation question, but the government could still easily raise the required money.)

---

Russell...please don't tell me you really consider yourself a writer.:eek:

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

If you are speaking of the concept of "ordered liberty" per federal constitutional law, that is truely an endless debate!!

---

No. Protective Justice is more like non-laws. The authority's focus is on the harms/threats to citizens, as opposed to trying to restrict or compel actions. Justice is defensive and not offensive.

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

No. Protective Justice is more like non-laws. The authority's focus is on the harms/threats to citizens, as opposed to trying to restrict or compel actions. Justice is defensive and not offensive.

---

Why don't you just explain what you are talking about in plain and simple terms which are clear to everyone?

What you have posted above is a bunch of gobbledygook.

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

In my view, a 'right' is something that a free person intrinsically owns--like his freedom. The 'rights' given in your constitution are flimsy promices from a fickle government. The fact that there is an 'amending' process proves they are not etched in granite. Accrding to your general theory of 'rights', I should have the right not to believe in law. However, the law protects only itself (as always) by supposing it's not my right to believe in anything bit IT.

---

Rights are not given in the Constitution. Rather, all rights are retained by The People, and then subject to regulation by due process(legislation/law). As such all laws represent the will of The People. In relation to the "Bill of Rights", certain rights were deemed so important by the framers that they are enumerated. The first ten amendments were kind of the sticking points of their day. But if you'll note, the ninth amendent states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Yes, the amendments can be retracted or added to. The Constitution is and was designed to be a living document able to adapt to the will of The People. And no, rights are not etched in granite. Rights within any civil system can only exist to the extent the society allows them to - the social contract. The notion of absolute freedom, that man is a free creature, can only exist in a purely anarchaic state, or in primitive social states. As Rousseau wrote, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." Just the facts of life. Only the dead are free.

Why prohibitive rather than protective law? Because the infringement on the right of any one person is an infringement on the rights of all The People. Take speeding as an example. We believe speeding infringes upon the lives individual citizens as speeding has been linked to increased traffic fatalities. Under a protective law, there would be no crime if no individuals rights were violated by getting hit by a speeding car. Yet absent any prohibitive law, people would be free to speed so long as they didn't violate another's rights. So instead we prohibit the act itself as a matter of public policy. We legislate and enact laws by the will of The People to this end - the protection of each individuals rights by prohibiting acts themselves, not just end results.

To a great degree it is just a semantics argument. The Constitution opens with "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." All that follows is enacted to that end. The reason d'etre for a constitutional republic, is one of protecting individual rights. That it does so by prohibitive law is simply semantics. Any prohibitive law can be made into a protective law simply by placing the words, "In order to protect the rights of individual citizens..." in front of it. There's no need, as it is already stated in the Preamble and is implied by the very document by which The People consent and grant the power to be governed.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Why don't you just explain what you are talking about in plain and simple terms which are clear to everyone?

What you have posted above is a bunch of gobbledygook.

---

It's only jibberish to those desperately trying to misunderstand.

When (not if) this rediculous theory of law is finally put behind us, history will probably the time we are living in as 'the second dark ages of serfdom'.

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

It's only jibberish to those desperately trying to misunderstand.

When (not if) this rediculous theory of law is finally put behind us, history will probably the time we are living in as 'the second dark ages of serfdom'.

---

Without the law, the government could enter your home without a search warrant and take your property, including the computer you are typing on? Do you want that?

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

It's only jibberish to those desperately trying to misunderstand.

When (not if) this rediculous theory of law is finally put behind us, history will probably the time we are living in as 'the second dark ages of serfdom'.

---

Now senior asked you to get to the point and just say what it is your trying to say without talking in circles.

When I read what you posts, I'm not trying to MIS understand but trying to understand exactly WTF it is you are saying AT ALL. Whatever movement or reform or whatever it is you are trying to do is lost with your circle talk. I personally think that its the direct result of some serious brain damage caused by some bad LSD. Your spinning your wheels on this cause unless you can find a way to communicate your point in a way that normal everyday people can understand what your trying to say.

Your also not debating any issue, your preaching and attempting to manipulate our thoughts, its not gonna work bc your speaking in circles.:wallbang:

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

It's only jibberish to those desperately trying to misunderstand.

When (not if) this rediculous theory of law is finally put behind us, history will probably the time we are living in as 'the second dark ages of serfdom'.

---

You can't spell.

You can't write.

You can't explain.

Why would anyone listen to you?

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

You can't spell.

You can't write.

You can't explain.

Why would anyone listen to you?

---

Who is listening.

Again twyce, you make claims, are asked for definition and then you slam all of us with ,"It's only jibberish to those desperately trying to misunderstand."

I take that as an insult. It appears to be you that cannot define your position, not we in the ability (or lack of) to understand.

You claim that a law against murder is not a protective law but then you spin around and claim that we need laws against murder with no explanation of how your idea is somehow different.

example:

Quote:

---

At the law writing level - murder for example is still concidered wrong and the government will take action against persons committing it. The change is that the action is no longer concidered a prohibited act that was directed against the body of the law and/or society as a whole. Instead, the authority is acting on behalf of the victim, the potencial victims, and even the culprit, to protect people. (Protecting a law and protecting people is a huge difference.)

---

Ok, so murder is still wrong. Good, but you do not prohibit ones right to murder another so, how does that state that murder is still wrong? Actually, that tends to state that it is not wrong.

So, how does one act on behalf of a victim (that is not a victim until they are vicitmized) to prevent a murder.




I think I know what Twyce is up to. He succeeded in perfecting the method used in that Tom Cruise movie where there were those 3 freaky folks floating around in the water reading the future. Wow! I'm impressed.

Very good twyce but you may notice that even in the movie, the premise failed.

Quote:

---

Quoting gigirle

---

...Whatever movement or reform or whatever it is you are trying to do is lost with your circle talk. I personally think that its the direct result of some serious brain damage caused by some bad LSD...

---

:cool:Absolutely. Those whose brains are damaged by the good LSD are much more coherent. Well, in a psychedelic sense anyway. Not that it's a bum trip man, ya know, cause like flashbacks are a trip man...

WOW - LOOK AT THOSE COLORS, FAR OUT :cool:

Aw bummer, my screen just

M
e
l
t
e
d

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

You claim that a law against murder is not a protective law but then you spin around and claim that we need laws against murder with no explanation of how your idea is somehow different.

---

Here is a murder as is under law.

[The soon to be killer exists in a bracket of law that tells him what he must/mustn't do. Like many in society, he has a growing resentment for his chains. He vents his rage.]

(((The law against MURDER))) - I've placed it in ((())) so it looks like a bull's eye.

He commits the murder, but WHY?

A) Did the murderer hate the victim enough to break the law?
---or---
B) Did the murderer hate the law enough to kill the victim?

If A is true, then the law provided no barrier or protection and a person died.
If B is true (as it was at Virginia Tech), then the law was the target but a person died.

After the wrongful death, society is vengeful towards the killer, and law says that his punishment will deter him and others in the future--but an unprotected person still died.

Here is a murder as it is under protective justice.

The soon to be killer exists in a state of personal freedom. Perhaps he is still frustrated about some things but a (((LAW))) doesn't exist to put a red cape in front of his eyes. We can be fairly certain now that the answer to the WHY question is A, he hates the victim enough act against society's )))PROTECTION((( against murder.

After the wrongful death, society is NOT vengeful, BUT it still offers a deterence. Jail time for the just rationale of protecting others, and jail time given out in punishment are both still jail time.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

Rights are not given in the Constitution. Rather, all rights are retained by The People, and then subject to regulation by due process(legislation/law). As such all laws represent the will of The People. In relation to the "Bill of Rights", certain rights were deemed so important by the framers that they are enumerated. The first ten amendments were kind of the sticking points of their day. But if you'll note, the ninth amendent states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Yes, the amendments can be retracted or added to. The Constitution is and was designed to be a living document able to adapt to the will of The People. And no, rights are not etched in granite. Rights within any civil system can only exist to the extent the society allows them to - the social contract. The notion of absolute freedom, that man is a free creature, can only exist in a purely anarchaic state, or in primitive social states. As Rousseau wrote, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains." Just the facts of life. Only the dead are free.

---

I understand how your constitutuion works, and how the Canadian version works with 'the crown' used in place of 'the people'. I don't sign onto the social contract because I've read the fine print. My freedom has to be bartered away for law to exist, but law renegs on it's side. It doesn't protect me: it only protects itself and law's existance is the cause of many societal wrongs and ills.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4eyedbuzzard

---

Why prohibitive rather than protective law? Because the infringement on the right of any one person is an infringement on the rights of all The People. Take speeding as an example. We believe speeding infringes upon the lives individual citizens as speeding has been linked to increased traffic fatalities. Under a protective law, there would be no crime if no individuals rights were violated by getting hit by a speeding car. Yet absent any prohibitive law, people would be free to speed so long as they didn't violate another's rights. So instead we prohibit the act itself as a matter of public policy. We legislate and enact laws by the will of The People to this end - the protection of each individuals rights by prohibiting acts themselves, not just end results.

---

I wonder if my calling my proposed system 'protective justice' might be obscuring your understanding of it. Perhaps the better term might be 'reactive justice'. A Law continuously exists as a 'rule' (made to be broken). Wheras a protection would lie dormant behind the protected people, until they are wronged. Then the protection pops up to do 'in protection of society', what the law used to do 'in punishment'. The effect is similar--but far better and Rousseau's quote would become obsolete.

Russ, you seriously need to have a drink, get laid, or something. Personally, I don't give a shit. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but these good people (and gigirle :p) are really starting to get annoyed.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Personally, I don't give a shit. You have the right to believe whatever you want,

---

Yes I do, but the un-law I believe in is a poison pill for the law that you believe in. Don't you think it would be prudent to discuss a viable alternative to law, as a hedge against when more people want freedom from the wrongfullness of law? Law is a crime against humanity: it caused Virginia Tech.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

but these good people (and gigirle :p) are really starting to get annoyed.

---

Get used to it because unless the admin bans me from the board, I'm not going anywhere.

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

Get used to it because unless the admin bans me from the board, I'm not going anywhere.

---

Don't tempt him. :p

Russ, why not join in on the fun in Banter?

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Russ, you seriously need to have a drink, get laid, or something.

---

All of the above, but don't we all and there is more commonality between us than that. We both want a strong and healthy police/court system to keep us safe. We both want a good government to provide the necessities of society. Where we differ, is that I see a different avenue for attaining that. I can also see the irreparable potholes in your street. I think you can't--because you want to see it as paved with gold.

Twyce is the penname I chose after drowning in a SCUBA accident.

Russell, drowning means death by water.

So, are you dead?

Quote:

---

Quoting Twyce

---

Here is a murder as is under law.

[The soon to be killer exists in a bracket of law that tells him what he must/mustn't do. Like many in society, he has a growing resentment for his chains. He vents his rage.]

(((The law against MURDER))) - I've placed it in ((())) so it looks like a bull's eye.

He commits the murder, but WHY?

A) Did the murderer hate the victim enough to break the law?
---or---
B) Did the murderer hate the law enough to kill the victim?

If A is true, then the law provided no barrier or protection and a person died.
If B is true (as it was at Virginia Tech), then the law was the target but a person died.

After the wrongful death, society is vengeful towards the killer, and law says that his punishment will deter him and others in the future--but an unprotected person still died.

Here is a murder as it is under protective justice.

The soon to be killer exists in a state of personal freedom. Perhaps he is still frustrated about some things but a (((LAW))) doesn't exist to put a red cape in front of his eyes. We can be fairly certain now that the answer to the WHY question is A, he hates the victim enough act against society's )))PROTECTION((( against murder.

After the wrongful death, society is NOT vengeful, BUT it still offers a deterence. Jail time for the just rationale of protecting others, and jail time given out in punishment are both still jail time.

---

well, at least you finally have made some attempt to exlplain your position. Not that I agree with it but you have made some attampt.

So now, you attempting to differentiate the two reasons does define your point but the truth is, it matters not which of those two reasons were the cause. The fact is, he killed.

You seem to believe that the fact he killed because he believed the law was unjust or whatever mindset was behind this that it makes a difference. In your situation, the fact that you punish a person for killing, even though you have de-criminilzed murder, still demands that there is a law naming murder to be illegal and punishable.

So what makes your law so much less intrusive;

he kills, he is punished. Pretty simple.

He is punished in either situation. Now while you want to wander through your world beleiving that your un-law is somehow different is simply delusional.

What would prevent a person becoming enraged with your law that somehow failed when it came to the laws we now have? There would still be a law naming murder illegal.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Twyce is the penname I chose after drowning in a SCUBA accident.

Russell, drowning means death by water.

So, are you dead?

---

Seemingly, you would rather have the discussion go anywhere--except the debate's subject matter. Are you worried that your cash cow is sick and dying? You should be, because it is