What is a 'Crime'? [Archive] - Gold-Silver Forums

madfranks

30th May 2014, 12:13 PM

Vices are Not Crimes, by Lysander Spooner (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm)

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In vices, the very essence of crime --- that is, the design to injure the person or property of another --- is wanting.

It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.

For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth.

iOWNme

30th May 2014, 01:15 PM

Heres how easily you are destroyed with this premise of yours.

Does it matter?
Both the governments and your personal interpretation are.....................scribbles of man!

So by your own standards you destroy yoursef.

Where have i scribbled words on paper and then pionted to those scribbles as my justification to steal from you or murder you? And if i did do this, would you obey me or resist me?

Are you being dishonest AGAIN? Remember you pm'd me and then turned around and posted about our pm and LIED straight to all of these members? Should i go dig up the pm and post it?

THAT is the very definition of 'Government', which you advocate for, cheer on and condone. And then you IMAGINE that the problem witrh the world is other people, not YOU.

You reply to all of my threads, yet you are to cowardly to debate me live where you know your position will be intellectually destroyed. Im still ready to debate you ANYTIME.

Ponce

30th May 2014, 02:03 PM

I guess that I am the only one that said "other".....why?......if a cop hurts anyone in my family I would find and kill the SOB, I did not commit a crime...........only did justice.

V

singular_me

30th May 2014, 06:56 PM

not harming oneself = respect for others ? I like to work in reverse :)

well the other answers are too black/white

I also feel like "other" may be a better rational option

kiffertom

30th May 2014, 06:57 PM

Vices are Not Crimes, by Lysander Spooner (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm)arent whores a vice? how does one hurt themselves with whores? how is this accomplished?

Cebu_4_2

30th May 2014, 07:05 PM

arent whores a vice? how does one hurt themselves with whores? how is this accomplished?

Disease? Whores are free, escorts and prostitutes are not.

iOWNme

31st May 2014, 05:37 AM

I guess that I am the only one that said "other".....why?......if a cop hurts anyone in my family I would find and kill the SOB, I did not commit a crime...........only did justice.

V

What you are describing is the just Right to self defense, which is 100% compatible with morality. In this scenario you are not committing a 'crime' by defending yourself. In other words, do you agree that the only way to commit a 'crime' is to be the initiator/instigator of aggression towards another? If so, then i think you agree with the other posters who said 'Harming another mans person or property'.

iOWNme

31st May 2014, 05:38 AM

arent whores a vice? how does one hurt themselves with whores? how is this accomplished?

Unless the 'whore' is using force, fraud or malice to get her 'John' to sleep with her, she is merely trading with what she owns (herself) and this CANNOT ever be made into a 'crime'.

iOWNme

31st May 2014, 05:46 AM

singular_me

31st May 2014, 06:05 AM

iOWNme

31st May 2014, 07:42 AM

(Harming another individuals person or property)

while I can agree with that nothing is neither completely true nor false... and so is 'harm' by definition. Thats why I didnt choose that option but "other" , have some flexibility in my stance.

example: abortion is unethical but what do we do when the woman could die during pregnancy or pregnancy is the result of a rape/abuse? ... I could come up with 1000's examples like this. Laws will always be blured as there always are exceptions. Laws cannot be 100% right.

So what your saying is that a 'crime' is undefinable?

The next logical question is "Is there such a thing as Right and Wrong?" - How you answer this question directly effects how you answer the above question. One answer is logical, the other answer is contradictory.

I believe in Truth/Lies, Just/Unjust, Moral/Immoral, etc. I believe these things exist in reality. I believe these things can be accurately determined using reason, logic and evidence. However, i DO NOT believe these things are to be arbitrarily determined. They are not to be discussed on the floors of the 'State'. They are not to be decided in the halls of 'Government'. They are not to be determined by the 'majority'. Scribbles, costumes, pseudo-religious ceremonies and magical ink cannot alter these things, no matter how much people IMAGINE that they do.

EE_

31st May 2014, 09:18 AM

So what your saying is that a 'crime' is undefinable?

The next logical question is "Is there such a thing as Right and Wrong?" - How you answer this question directly effects how you answer the above question. One answer is logical, the other answer is contradictory.

I believe in Truth/Lies, Just/Unjust, Moral/Immoral, etc. I believe these things exist in reality. I believe these things can be accurately determined using reason, logic and evidence. However, i DO NOT believe these things are to be arbitrarily determined. They are not to be discussed on the floors of the 'State'. They are not to be decided in the halls of 'Government'. They are not to be determined by the 'majority'. Scribbles, costumes, pseudo-religious ceremonies and magical ink cannot alter these things, no matter how much people IMAGINE that they do.

What is a crime, Truth/Lies, Just/Unjust, Moral/Immoral
These are deep subjects that are very hard to answer. Too many gray areas and variables.
Most of the answers are influenced by religious beliefs that go back to the beginning of time. Only under Gods law can they be defined.

iOWNme

31st May 2014, 10:14 AM

What is a crime, Truth/Lies, Just/Unjust, Moral/Immoral
These are deep subjects that are very hard to answer. Too many gray areas and variables.

This is 100% Marxism. Karl Marx said "there is no such thing as right or wrong". Marx and Engels both argued that different classes have different moralities. This is a self contradictory viewpoint.

Marxist-Leninists believe that the morality of these two classes is totally different, and when the proletariat finally destroys the bourgeoisie, a new morality will reign—a new morality for the new social system. - See more at: http://www.allaboutworldview.org/marxist-ethics.htm#sthash.R90hLZwq.dpuf

Most of the answers are influenced by religious beliefs that go back to the beginning of time. Only under Gods law can they be defined.

So man cannot be trusted to figure out right/wrong, truth/lies, just/unjust, or moral/immoral? But, an all powerful man in the sky can? And who invented this all powerful man in the sky? Man did. The same species you said couldnt be trusted to figure out the world. This is a GIANT contradiction.

If you think right/wrong is a 'gray area' then i have some questions for you:

Example 1:
Can i come steal your stuff? No? Will you resist me? Why? Could it be because you think it would be wrong for me to do that?

Can i come assault and kidnap you for no reason? No? Will you resist me? Could it be cause you think it would be immoral for me to do that?

Example 2:
I believe that stealing (taking from an innocent individual without their consent) is immoral.

Can you give me a scenario where stealing (as defined above) can be made into a virtuous act?

If you truly think morality is a 'gray area' then you should be able to give me examples where doing something wrong is right.

(Can you see a contradiction yet?)

EE_

31st May 2014, 01:21 PM

This is 100% Marxism. Karl Marx said "there is no such thing as right or wrong". Marx and Engels both argued that different classes have different moralities. This is a self contradictory viewpoint.

True to life, the different classes do indeed have different moralities. We can see that every day.
It also depends if you're an atheist, or have belief in a higher power

Marxist-Leninists believe that the morality of these two classes is totally different, and when the proletariat finally destroys the bourgeoisie, a new morality will reign—a new morality for the new social system. - See more at: http://www.allaboutworldview.org/marxist-ethics.htm#sthash.R90hLZwq.dpuf

What kind of morality do we have today? It's all over the place isn't it?

So man cannot be trusted to figure out right/wrong, truth/lies, just/unjust, or moral/immoral? But, an all powerful man in the sky can? And who invented this all powerful man in the sky? Man did. The same species you said couldnt be trusted to figure out the world. This is a GIANT contradiction.

You are very much correct, man is imperfect and cannot be trusted!
Did man invent the creator? Do you know who it was, because I'd love for you to clue me in.

If you think right/wrong is a 'gray area' then i have some questions for you:

Example 1:
Can i come steal your stuff? No? Will you resist me? Why? Could it be because you think it would be wrong for me to do that?

You being the thief may think you are morally right and entitled to take my stuff...pretty much like government does.
For me it is wrong and I will resist.

Can i come assault and kidnap you for no reason? No? Will you resist me? Could it be cause you think it would be immoral for me to do that?

Do you mean like the government thinks they are morally right to do that?
I guess that would make us both morally right...or wrong. It's for each individual to choose I guess?

Example 2:
I believe that stealing (taking from an innocent individual without their consent) is immoral.

Can you give me a scenario where stealing (as defined above) can be made into a virtuous act?

You really don't like government do you. All your examples are of government in action.

If you truly think morality is a 'gray area' then you should be able to give me examples where doing something wrong is right.

There again, depends if you believe we might be judged one day by our creator for our actions.
If you're an atheist, don't worry about it. You choose what is right for you. Pretty much like all of society and the government does.

(Can you see a contradiction yet?)

Life on earth and the whole universe are one big contradiction...and with no real answers.
Maybe if you believed in our creator, things would make a lot more sense?

palani

31st May 2014, 03:49 PM

What is a 'Crime'?

In one word .... fact.

fact (n.)
1530s, "action," especially "evil deed," from Latin factum "event, occurrence," literally "thing done," neuter past participle of facere "to do" (see factitious). Usual modern sense of "thing known to be true" appeared 1630s, from notion of "something that has actually occurred."

In the appeals process facts and law are both considered. Facts are 'evil deeds'.

Libertytree

31st May 2014, 05:26 PM

By and large I believe iownme to be correct and the logic says so. Yes, there are some blurred lines, such as the huge elephant in the room, concerning abortion but otherwise I don't think anyone can mount a debate against voluntaryism/anarchy etc.

Ponce

31st May 2014, 06:32 PM

In what is to come I would trust more a "criminal" because I would know who is a criminal but not a law enforcer who could be a criminal........in the other hand.....most, if not all, law enforcers would be criminals because they will be looking to save their own and not yours.

V

milehi

31st May 2014, 06:36 PM

My brother didnt finish a 22oz IPA I brought for him to his BBQ today and dumped out half. That's a crime in my kingdom. He's used to the older brother beat down and its coming. The fucker didnt even say thanks. For the beer or the .223 I brought him.

singular_me

31st May 2014, 08:06 PM

I am not going to engage in any righteous discourse... examples are best:

several hundreds years ago, dissection was prohibited... thanks to the courageous doctors who practiced it in secret and risked their lives, because without them, we still wouldnt know about the human body.

the problem is that laws can never be adjusted to the level of knowledge. it too often is the lack of knowledge that dictates the laws.

is it ethical to monetize someone's ignore? I think not as it will cause harm down the road, yet many call this competition and competition is lawful :) I regard ignorance as very harmful to society on the other hand.

another field is stem cell research that split many because of the fetal stem cells, yet it can save lives...

there are areas that are very grey in term of harm.

before being able to define "crime", one has to debate "ethics"... discussion will be endless, guaranteed, as cultural and spiritual beliefs cannot be left out.

EDIT:
Several years ago, I watched a show on Al Jazeera, with two women arguing about the burka, two sides of the spectrum opposing. Who was right? The one in the burka surely made her point to voluntary wear it. From a western standpoint, oppressing women is wrong.

what to think of India where so many women get an abortion as soon as they know that the fetus is female because the dowery laws?

Most laws are deceptive, and I can agree with you here but the environment is what it is. When I think of it, I see a huge storm gathering on the horizon.

I am a voluntaryist because I recognize my powerlessness to change what it is. Allowing people to self-organize according to their belief system, their own sense of what is right/wrong is what should matter most, people will always hypnotize themselves with what they "perceive" to be right/wrong.

My definition of crime = level of coercion vs benevolence

So what your saying is that a 'crime' is undefinable?

The next logical question is "Is there such a thing as Right and Wrong?" - How you answer this question directly effects how you answer the above question. One answer is logical, the other answer is contradictory.

I believe in Truth/Lies, Just/Unjust, Moral/Immoral, etc. I believe these things exist in reality. I believe these things can be accurately determined using reason, logic and evidence. However, i DO NOT believe these things are to be arbitrarily determined. They are not to be discussed on the floors of the 'State'. They are not to be decided in the halls of 'Government'. They are not to be determined by the 'majority'. Scribbles, costumes, pseudo-religious ceremonies and magical ink cannot alter these things, no matter how much people IMAGINE that they do.

Blink

31st May 2014, 08:38 PM

If there ain't no victim, then there ain't no crime.......

Hitch

31st May 2014, 09:51 PM

I noticed none of the members who constantly defend the actions from the 'police' and 'law' have come forward to vote on what they think a 'crime' is. Surely if you advocate for the need of a 'State', 'Police', and 'Laws' you would be able to back up those claims with reason and logic.

Hitch, 7th Trump, Joo-Book, and others, what say you?

Crime is more than just harming another's individual person or property. I voted other.

I'll explain. Trespassing for example. Say, sui I sit on your front porch every morning and eat my breakfast burrito. I'm not harming you I keep to myself, I clean up after myself so I am not harming your property. Is that a crime? If you ask me to leave I leave, but come back the next morning with a fresh burrito. Do you think trespassing is a crime if no harm is done?

Another example. Say, each night before you go to bed. You see me standing across the street, on public property, but I am wearing all black clothes, wearing a black ski mask, and carrying a crow bar. I'm am staring at your front door. Is that a crime? If not, what do you do? Do you stay up and wait for me to commit a crime against you, or go to sleep hoping I will go away?

Granted these are extreme examples, but crime is more than just damage to another person. Intent has to be there, whether the crime itself is actually committed. Also, complete gross negligence that could harm others too.

You are asking for claims with reason and logic. Reason and logic, I have provided you. I hope, if you respond, you do not twist this post around. You respond directly, with the very same reason and logic you asked of me.

iOWNme

1st June 2014, 06:53 AM

True to life, the different classes do indeed have different moralities. We can see that every day.

So there is a class of people who think it is good to be bad? Can you show them to me?

What kind of morality do we have today? It's all over the place isn't it?

I dont know one single person who thinks its good to be bad. Do you?

You are very much correct, man is imperfect and cannot be trusted!
Did man invent the creator? Do you know who it was, because I'd love for you to clue me in.

Man created the idea of a creator. Whether that creator exists or not, the entire idea of one is a man made idea. So you agree that man is imperfect, but your not an anarchist? What species is going to be in this 'limited Government'?

You being the thief may think you are morally right and entitled to take my stuff...pretty much like government does.
For me it is wrong and I will resist.

Ive went over this with you 100 times. After the thief steals your stuff, will he allow you to steal it back? Or will he defend it? If the thief had no morals he wouldnt care if you tried to steal it back. If he is willing to defend it then he understands right and wrong, its just that he is willing to subvert his own morality when it suits him; otherwise known as a criminal.

Do you mean like the government thinks they are morally right to do that?
I guess that would make us both morally right...or wrong. It's for each individual to choose I guess?

Really? If the 'Government' thought it was morally ok to steal my stuff, then logically they would think it was morally ok for me to steal their stuff. And they dont. Morality is based on principles, and principles are applied across the board equally. Its called Philosophy.

You really don't like government do you. All your examples are of government in action.

You told me morality has gray areas. Can you please give me a scenario where a immoral act can be made into a virtuous one?

There again, depends if you believe we might be judged one day by our creator for our actions.
If you're an atheist, don't worry about it. You choose what is right for you. Pretty much like all of society and the government does.

You dodged my question. (imagine that!) Im going to ask it again:

If you truly think morality is a 'gray area' then you should be able to give me examples where doing something wrong is right.

Life on earth and the whole universe are one big contradiction...and with no real answers.
Maybe if you believed in our creator, things would make a lot more sense?

Did you just suggest that if i believe in a self contradictory idea that the world will 'make sense'? LOL

I am not an atheist. I believe there is much more to the universe than evolved monkeys. However, i do not follow any man made religion as they are created to control your mind and enslave you. Just like 'Government' is a religion.

iOWNme

1st June 2014, 06:56 AM

In one word .... fact.
In the appeals process facts and law are both considered. Facts are 'evil deeds'.

Did you miss this part?

I dont care what the 'Government' says it is, i want to know what YOU PERSONALLY think is the criteria for a 'Crime' to be comitted.

Palani do YOU PERSONALLY have any opinions about what criteria it takes to be considered a 'crime' to be committed?

iOWNme

1st June 2014, 07:02 AM

(Harming another individuals person or property)

while I can agree with that nothing is neither completely true nor false... and so is 'harm' by definition. Thats why I didnt choose that option but "other" , have some flexibility in my stance.

Can you please give me a scenario where it would be good to be bad? Can you please give me a scenario where doing something Evil can be made into doing something Virtuous?

example: abortion is unethical but what do we do when the woman could die during pregnancy or pregnancy is the result of a rape/abuse? ... I could come up with 1000's examples like this. Laws will always be blured as there always are exceptions. Laws cannot be 100% right.

In this scenario lets say you had to terminate the pregnancy early in order to save the mother. Do you think it was a 'virtuous act' to kill the baby? Of course not. Again, human morality is not altered in this or any other scenario. The only way your premise is true is if we would all recognize it as being a good thing that the baby died.

palani

1st June 2014, 07:05 AM

Did you miss this part?
I provided the connection between FACT and EVIL DEED. The government had no hand in making that connection.

do YOU PERSONALLY have any opinions about what criteria it takes to be considered a 'crime' to be committed?
My personal opinion?

The elements of a crime are
1) A right must exist.
2) A trespass upon that right must occur.
3) The trespass must be factual *
4) The right must be articulated.

* evil deed

iOWNme

1st June 2014, 07:16 AM

Crime is more than just harming another's individual person or property. I voted other.

I'll explain. Trespassing for example. Say, sui I sit on your front porch every morning and eat my breakfast burrito. I'm not harming you I keep to myself, I clean up after myself so I am not harming your property. Is that a crime? If you ask me to leave I leave, but come back the next morning with a fresh burrito. Do you think trespassing is a crime if no harm is done?

Ummm......WTF? Holy contradictions batman. Tresspassing = harm done. LOL

Another example. Say, each night before you go to bed. You see me standing across the street, on public property, but I am wearing all black clothes, wearing a black ski mask, and carrying a crow bar. I'm am staring at your front door. Is that a crime? If not, what do you do? Do you stay up and wait for me to commit a crime against you, or go to sleep hoping I will go away?

No its not a crime. I might go outside (armed) and ask you nicely what is going on, and then go from there. What would YOU do Hitch?

Granted these are extreme examples, but crime is more than just damage to another person. Intent has to be there, whether the crime itself is actually committed. Also, complete gross negligence that could harm others too.

Typical 'Cop' answer. Intent. LOL "We showed up at his house with a tank and a SWAT team, but we didnt intend to kill their baby." You see you were told that intent has to be there, but you have never actually thought about it yourself.

Here's an example: Im coming over to rape your wife. My intent is to have a good time. I really dont mean her any harm.

You are asking for claims with reason and logic. Reason and logic, I have provided you. I hope, if you respond, you do not twist this post around. You respond directly, with the very same reason and logic you asked of me.

Reason and logic is not coming up with the most obscure non-sensical mathematically miniscule examples to try and justify your own contradictions. I turned every example around using your own principles to show you that without a set of unchanging morals, you are left with a contradictory belief system.

singular_me

1st June 2014, 07:20 AM

I said all I had to say in this thread

My definition of crime = level of coercion vs benevolence

while there is a "relativity theory aka Objective Reality" to define crime, the prime obstacle is that Objective Reality is composed of an infinite number of Subjective Realities.

Thats why the world is such a mess. The NWO will continue maniplutating the game as long as people do not recognize Objective Reality. No one can teach this, as everything needs to be experienced first.

This justifies voluntaryism... live and let live. IMHO

All laws are bunk, thats why we have global criminals running the show

palani

1st June 2014, 07:23 AM

All laws are bunk

If you have no law then you lack existence.

Court activities are a wager of law. Facts are irrelevant.

singular_me

1st June 2014, 07:35 AM

nope, I think Natural Laws enamating from Objective Reality will always put back everything into perspective at some point. The problem is that it may take centuries...

edit:
all laws we have in place now are based on man's perceptions, hence coercive
Natural Laws are based on what can never be changed

a big difference

If you have no law then you lack existence.

Court activities are a wager of law. Facts are irrelevant.

EE_

1st June 2014, 08:20 AM

So there is a class of people who think it is good to be bad? Can you show them to me?

Trick question...you should have asked "So there is a class of people who what I may think is bad, they think is good? Can you show them to me?"

In which case I can provide you with literally thousands. Clinton, Soros, Kissinger, Netanyahu, Blankfein, Rockefeller, Obama, to start.
Many of the people we think are committing immoral acts don't see them as bad, they actually think they are doing good.

I dont know one single person who thinks its good to be bad. Do you?

I agree, but I can point out many people that think they are doing good when only you and I think it is bad.

Man created the idea of a creator. Whether that creator exists or not, the entire idea of one is a man made idea. So you agree that man is imperfect, but your not an anarchist? What species is going to be in this 'limited Government'?

You use the term "create/created" quite frequently...it inplies there is a "creator". Something had to create man first, no?
Maybe you need to find another word to replace "create"?
Man was indeed "created" as an imperfect being. Do you not think this is true?
I do think I'm an anarchist to some degree, especially in regard to federal government. A limited government should exist with men appointed by actual citizens of states. Man will always live by some kind of laws, starting with the laws of nature, gravity, etc.

Ive went over this with you 100 times. After the thief steals your stuff, will he allow you to steal it back? Or will he defend it? If the thief had no morals he wouldnt care if you tried to steal it back. If he is willing to defend it then he understands right and wrong, its just that he is willing to subvert his own morality when it suits him; otherwise known as a criminal.

The thief may defend what he stole from you, not because he thinks it's wrong for you to take it back, or for moral reasons, but because he believes he is morally entitled to your stuff and believes he is right to have it. Look at government.

Really? If the 'Government' thought it was morally ok to steal my stuff, then logically they would think it was morally ok for me to steal their stuff. And they dont. Morality is based on principles, and principles are applied across the board equally. Its called Philosophy.

Principles go out the window with government.
The government belives they are entitled to your stuff and the same does not apply to you!
I do not understand how principles are applied equally when some people have no principles and are not moral people in our eyes.

You told me morality has gray areas. Can you please give me a scenario where a immoral act can be made into a virtuous one?

I'm merely stating that I believe each individual has his own standard of morality. Only religion comes close to standardizing the definitation, and each religion has different standards of what is moral.

The scenario depends on who's set of morals we are talking about.
Take the gay agenda for instance. The homosexual promoting liberals believe a man ejaculating into another man's rectum is a normal, natural, and beautiful expression of love...virtuous even.
Do you think this is a virtuous act, or an immoral act?

You dodged my question. (imagine that!) Im going to ask it again:

If you truly think morality is a 'gray area' then you should be able to give me examples where doing something wrong is right.

Your questions on morality are starting to come across to me as a gray area.
I think you are wrong, you think you are right.

Did you just suggest that if i believe in a self contradictory idea that the world will 'make sense'? LOL

I am not an atheist. I believe there is much more to the universe than evolved monkeys. However, i do not follow any man made religion as they are created to control your mind and enslave you. Just like 'Government' is a religion.

No, I'm suggesting you (in your words) "using reason, logic and evidence" to determine there is a higher power. Maybe this will help you make sense of our very short lives here.

I think man was given something special by our creator, like love and critical thinking. Is this evidence? Religious teachings have a historical history. How far back it truely goes is anybody's guess.

Logic tells you the universe is really really big! Logic tells you in order for something to be created, something has to create it.

Reason is when you put evidence and logic together and we realize we are so insignificant in an infinate universe, that maybe we only only significant to our creator?

Religion doesn't necessarily control. Immoral men (using my definition of moral) use religion to organize, control and enslave people that they call sheep, the herd or flock.

Santa

1st June 2014, 08:29 AM

Imagine millions of sadomasochists adhering to the golden rule.

palani

1st June 2014, 08:50 AM

I think Natural Laws enamating from Objective Reality will always put back everything into perspective at some point.

So you don't view Natural Laws as law?

Shortsighted in my opinion.

singular_me

1st June 2014, 09:16 AM

sorry but you must have read too fast... I do recognize Natural Laws... I stated: nope, I think Natural Laws enamating from Objective Reality will always put back everything into perspective at some point.... meaning that I endorse them.

Our current global laws have little, if nothing, do to with Natural ones... but are designed to benefit "the cliques".

So you don't view Natural Laws as law?

Shortsighted in my opinion.

Hitch

1st June 2014, 09:34 AM

Ummm......WTF? Holy contradictions batman. Tresspassing = harm done. LOL

No its not a crime. I might go outside (armed) and ask you nicely what is going on, and then go from there. What would YOU do Hitch?.

Now we are getting somewhere. We both agree those situations are crimes. However, no harm has been done in both those examples. Yet a crime occured.

On to intent. Crimes can happen without intent, however intent itself can be a crime. For example, if someone throws a rock at your head and misses. Have you been harmed? No, has your property been harmed? No. Yet, the intent was to harm you. That makes intent, in itself, a crime in that example.

Libertytree

1st June 2014, 09:54 AM

Now we are getting somewhere. We both agree those situations are crimes. However, no harm has been done in both those examples. Yet a crime occured.

On to intent. Crimes can happen without intent, however intent itself can be a crime. For example, if someone throws a rock at your head and misses. Have you been harmed? No, has your property been harmed? No. Yet, the intent was to harm you. That makes intent, in itself, a crime in that example.

Throwing a rock at someone is attempted assault, just sayin.

Hitch

1st June 2014, 09:55 AM

Throwing a rock at someone is attempted assault, just sayin.

Exactly. Attempted assault is a crime. However, no harm occurred. That's the point I was trying to make.

Libertytree

1st June 2014, 10:14 AM

Exactly. Attempted assault is a crime. However, no harm occurred. That's the point I was trying to make.

Yes, harm did occur! The person throwing the rock caused me to fear for my well being.

Hitch

1st June 2014, 10:26 AM

Yes, harm did occur! The person throwing the rock caused me to fear for my well being.

Good point. Let's dig a little deeper into this. So fear, an emotion, along with intent, can dictate what could be a crime. What about guy standing in an alley giving you the evil eye? That would instill fear for a person's well being, but would that be a crime?

What causes people fear, is different, for each one of us. This is where things get a bit 'gray' when it comes to crime and laws. It is based upon what is 'reasonable' for a person to interpret, ie what would a normal person feel about it.

Cebu_4_2

1st June 2014, 10:33 AM

A guy staring at me can install fear but no crime until he throws something at me, then I draw and take care of the problem and he will never get to install fear again.

Hitch

1st June 2014, 10:41 AM

A guy staring at me can install fear but no crime until he throws something at me, then I draw and take care of the problem and he will never get to install fear again.

I'd say it's reasonable that staring at a grown man, may not instill fear, however to a little old lady, it likely would. Could be some form of harassment. So, the elements of some crimes that no harm has actually been done, include instilling fear, and intent to cause harm.

But do you actually need a victim, for there to be a crime?

For example, say you pick your kids up at school. You see a guy driving 100 miles per hour past the school. He doesn't hit any kids, but, we would all agree that his actions have a high probability to do so. He's acting in complete gross negligence. Eventually, if he keeps up with his behavior, he most likely will kill a kid. Should this be a crime? To prevent kids from being injured, or is it only a crime after he hits a kid?

Libertytree

1st June 2014, 10:58 AM

I'd say it's reasonable that staring at a grown man, may not instill fear, however to a little old lady, it likely would. Could be some form of harassment. So, the elements of some crimes that no harm has actually been done, include instilling fear, and intent to cause harm.

But do you actually need a victim, for there to be a crime?

For example, say you pick your kids up at school. You see a guy driving 100 miles per hour past the school. He doesn't hit any kids, but, we would all agree that his actions have a high probability to do so. He's acting in complete gross negligence. Eventually, if he keeps up with his behavior, he most likely will kill a kid. Should this be a crime? To prevent kids from being injured, or is it only a crime after he hits a kid?

Is it wrong to drive 100mph where there are kids getting out of school?

palani

1st June 2014, 11:04 AM

meaning that I endorse them
Is your endorsement necessary?

Our current global laws have little, if nothing, do to with Natural ones... but are designed to benefit "the cliques". I know of no global laws. Can you cite an example?

Santa

1st June 2014, 11:51 AM

I'd say it's reasonable that staring at a grown man, may not instill fear, however to a little old lady, it likely would. Could be some form of harassment. So, the elements of some crimes that no harm has actually been done, include instilling fear, and intent to cause harm.

But do you actually need a victim, for there to be a crime?

For example, say you pick your kids up at school. You see a guy driving 100 miles per hour past the school. He doesn't hit any kids, but, we would all agree that his actions have a high probability to do so. He's acting in complete gross negligence. Eventually, if he keeps up with his behavior, he most likely will kill a kid. Should this be a crime? To prevent kids from being injured, or is it only a crime after he hits a kid?

Is it a crime to send your kids off to school, knowing the probability that an armed cop on duty might snap and throw a stun grenade at a kid?

singular_me

1st June 2014, 11:54 AM

Palani, dont turn it around, you didnt read me well to start with.

Natural Laws derives from Objective Reality... put all the points of views in the same basket, from there what isn't interchangeable can be used to as guidelines. By endorsement, I meant that go along with those lines to shape my thinking.

No global laws, that isnt what the UN is trying to do?

however, nowhere in this thread, I speak of global laws, but laws in general

Is your endorsement necessary?

I know of no global laws. Can you cite an example?

palani

1st June 2014, 01:06 PM

dont turn it around, you didnt read me well to start with.
Your words were poorly chosen. Rather than all disregarding all law you appear to have changed your stance to recognizing only law consistent with your nature.

Natural Laws derives from Objective Reality... put all the points of views in the same basket, from there what isn't interchangeable can be used to as guidelines. By endorsement, I meant that go along with those lines to shape my thinking. Your nature. Your basket. Your lines. Your law.

No global laws, that isnt what the UN is trying to do?

however, nowhere in this thread, I speak of global laws, but laws in general
The UN is just another trust that is foreign to me. As the laws of the Brownies don't apply to Boy Scouts the laws of the UN don't apply to any entity other than beneficiaries of the UN and to their servants known as fiduciaries.

EE_

1st June 2014, 01:10 PM

Is it wrong to drive 100mph where there are kids getting out of school?

I drive 100mph past the school all the time, but I'm very careful ;)

Doesn't seem we have crime, whats moral and right and wrong nailed down yet?

But we're doing pretty good on gray!
http://www.wessexscene.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/gray_textured_wallpaper_by_davidjrc-d399x2x.jpg

Libertytree

1st June 2014, 01:26 PM

"I drive 100mph past the school all the time, but I'm very careful ;)

Doesn't seem we have crime, whats moral and right and wrong nailed down yet?

But we're doing pretty good on gray!"

No, you don't drive 100mph past a school or anywhere else. Be real.

Maybe we would have a crime? If someone caught you doing such, laws or no laws, there might very well be an assault.

You're gray just got very black and white.

EE_

1st June 2014, 02:40 PM

No, you don't drive 100mph past a school or anywhere else. Be real.

Maybe we would have a crime? If someone caught you doing such, laws or no laws, there might very well be an assault.

You're gray just got very black and white.

So if someone/anyone caught me doing such, that gives them the right to physically assault/harm me?
Is that a crime?
And fyi I have ridden my Harley at 105 past a school...it was on a freeway, but I could see the school in the distance. :)

Libertytree

1st June 2014, 02:55 PM

You're playing semantics but that aside...

To answer your question, yes, I would assault you and or your vehicle to put a stop to your reckless, stupid actions. That would qualify as a crime.

So if someone/anyone caught me doing such, that gives them the right to physically assault/harm me?
Is that a crime?
And fyi I have ridden my Harley at 105 past a school...it was on a freeway, but I could see the school in the distance. :)

Cebu_4_2

1st June 2014, 06:13 PM

You're playing semantics but that aside...

To answer your question, yes, I would assault you and or your vehicle to put a stop to your reckless, stupid actions. That would qualify as a crime.

What's fukt here is you would end the situation over a crime that didn't exist. Which is based on your opinion. This gets deeper and deeper as we go here.

EE_

1st June 2014, 06:53 PM

What's fukt here is you would end the situation over a crime that didn't exist. Which is based on your opinion. This gets deeper and deeper as we go here.

Yes, this is getting more gray!
So someone will cause physical harm to another in what is a perceived crime where no one is/was hurt, and it is justifiable.
So have we determined that someone being, or acting reckless is commiting a crime and deserves to be assaulted?
Is someone that is drinking and driving being reckless and deserving of a severe beating too? And how much would one have to drink for it to become a crime and deserving to be assaulted?
What about texting or talking on a cell phone and driving?

Hitch

1st June 2014, 07:14 PM

Yes, this is getting more gray!
So someone will cause physical harm to another in what is a perceived crime where no one is/was hurt, and it is justifiable.
So have we determined that someone being, or acting reckless is commiting a crime and deserves to be assaulted?
Is someone that is drinking and driving being reckless and deserving of a severe beating too? And how much would one have to drink for it to become a crime and deserving to be assaulted?
What about texting or talking on a cell phone and driving?

This is where the term 'reasonable' comes into determining if a crime is afoot. It may be reasonable to drink and drive on some country backroad, but may not be reasonable to drink and drive near a playground with kids.

If someone causes another physical harm to stop a crime from happening...how do you feel about that? Who committed the crime?

This is a good discussion, folks.

Libertytree

1st June 2014, 08:52 PM

What's fukt here is you would end the situation over a crime that didn't exist. Which is based on your opinion. This gets deeper and deeper as we go here.

I guess I would commit a crime if I knew those actions would likely save others lives, I'd also man up and take the punishment. Likewise, if I was going 100mph through a busy school zone and your kids were there and you caught up with me I would expect you to commit a crime against me as well.

singular_me

1st June 2014, 09:13 PM

like I state much earlier, objective reality is the understanding that changing what cannot is counterproductive, hence bring about peace. Subjective reality (NWO tool #1) is a cause of conflicts. It is not my conclusion that but teachings that have been around for millennia, Socrates first comes to mind, and Id rather follow such guidelines than anything else.

I have not much time to debating man-made laws vs Natural Laws. It is too fastidious for the amount of time I can spend on here.

Okay, I just saw that I spoke of "global laws", sorry, I meant 'all laws of all countries'.

your rejection of the UN, while entirely justified, wont make that monster go away.

Your words were poorly chosen. Rather than all disregarding all law you appear to have changed your stance to recognizing only law consistent with your nature.

Your nature. Your basket. Your lines. Your law.

The UN is just another trust that is foreign to me. As the laws of the Brownies don't apply to Boy Scouts the laws of the UN don't apply to any entity other than beneficiaries of the UN and to their servants known as fiduciaries.

Hitch

1st June 2014, 09:20 PM

I guess I would commit a crime if I knew those actions would likely save others lives, I'd also man up and take the punishment. Likewise, if I was going 100mph through a busy school zone and your kids were there and you caught up with me I would expect you to commit a crime against me as well.

This is the challenge of LE, in a nutshell. Committing crimes because you may think worse crimes may happen if you don't. For example, bursting into a home unannounced, breaking and entering, because you have cause to believe a women is getting assaulted (yes personal experience).

This is the gray area of the law. That is where we are, in this discussion.

palani

2nd June 2014, 03:58 AM

your rejection of the UN, while entirely justified, wont make that monster go away.
That's nothing. I also reject the teachings of Mohamed and Earl Butz (among others).

Horn

2nd June 2014, 09:25 AM

The exception to the rule of harming another person property is operating heavy machinery while intoxicated.

Remedied by drugging establishments invoking a designated 2 dose min. driver law, or breathalyzer starters installed by first time offenders at their own cost.

Horn

2nd June 2014, 09:30 AM

breaking and entering, because you have cause to believe a women is getting assaulted (yes personal experience).

This is the gray area of the law. That is where we are, in this discussion.

Anyone has the right to enter when someone is asking for help, belief shouldn't be a factor.

iOWNme

3rd June 2014, 03:55 PM

Well only 4 members voted for 'other' and out of those 4 only 2 of them have tried to back up their position. For that, i commend both Hitch and singular_me.

Another interesting statistic noted is that out of the 4 members who voted 'other', only singular_me is an open anarchist. Hitch, Hoarder and Ponce are all 'minarchist'. The reason this is important is because if you think the definition of a 'crime' is a 'gray area', how could you possibly advocate for the same species of man who is 'undefinable' to decide what a 'crime' is?

?

(Im not trying to be a dick, im actually trying to get you to see the inherent contradictions in the belief in 'Government'.)

singular_me

3rd June 2014, 04:47 PM

in most cases, crime is crystal clear...

Can you please give me a scenario where it would be good to be bad? Can you please give me a scenario where doing something Evil can be made into doing something Virtuous?

when an evil act forces a criminal into absolute redemption for a greater good. What is quite seldom but it does happen. Some criminals are able changed their lives completely after serving jail time and become dedicated to goodness.

In this scenario lets say you had to terminate the pregnancy early in order to save the mother. Do you think it was a 'virtuous act' to kill the baby? Of course not. Again, human morality is not altered in this or any other scenario. The only way your premise is true is if we would all recognize it as being a good thing that the baby died.

a choice needs to be made... letting the women die (and possibly along with the baby), where does it lead us? One death or two? What if the woman has kids already? A good thing that the mother dies?

I stand by what I say and why I chose "other":
crime = level of coercion vs benevolence/consent

edit: on the other hand, many crimes are committed in the name of rightnousness/being virtuous