The Wire: 1/7/2013
TIPS, COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS AND SNIPPETS Welcome to today’s editions of the wire … our pYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
TIPS, COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS AND SNIPPETS Welcome to today’s editions of the wire … our pYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
33 comments
Templeton – thanks for the video, now my fantasy has been busted because I wouldn’t want to kiss that mouth or listen to that voice. Otherwise, she may be on the right track but I still believe the two divisions should be separated. If opportunities for promotion/advancement for employees is opened, that would be a good thing. If the top deadwood is dismissed but re-hired (as I understood previous articles) in other positions, that may not sit well with others. There are other aspects to this intrigue, but I’ll keep following the story – let’s see how it looks in six months from now.
Wow, she has gotten big. Used to be pretty.
I thought she would be classy.
Well, Johnny, you thought wrong. A silk purse cannot a sow’s ear make.
FITS, you need to learn the difference between “malum prohibitum” and “malum in se” before you shoot your mouth off about law enforcement being a core function of government and siding with the pigs in every instance. Malum prohibitum is a thing that is wrong because it is prohibited (like getting drunk and not bothering anyone or going 80 mph on a deserted Wyoming interstate highway). In contrast, malum in se is a thing that is wrong in and of itself (like murder or child molesting). If the kid didn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights or freedom, then he should not have been arrested for something he chose to ingest while young. Get your libertarian head on straight.
His fundamental understanding and ideological positions are all over the map. I think he glosses over Cato excerpts now and then to inform himself, which would explain a lot
At the end of the day when you are for even “limited gov’t”, which is a definition that means different things to just about every single person you have to also acknowledge that you are a statist, or “for” gov’t-just your notion of how it should exist differs slightly from other statists.
This argument is in its essence is no different from any of the political parties in the United States. The argument the is really just a matter of degrees of such.
As a result, we will hear in perpituity the complaints about gov’t on every level and in different areas with the solution always being the right combination of laws and/or people as needed to “fix” gov’t.
It will never be “fixed”. Thinking it can be reformed is really Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown to kick over and over again. I find the arguments for “better gov’t” getting stale and more importantly lacking in any real objective truth as to the reality of what gov’t represents.
I appreciate this site for keeping us informed…but the arguments as to what constitutues “core” gov’t and how it should function and/or be reformed are in essence no different from those of Democrats, Beltway Libertarians, Republicans, etc. et al
I feel like I’m watching the same reel of tape being looped back over and over again over the last 100 years.
Not that I argue your basic point, but in this particular case he was drunk in public at an airport and being disorderly and disruptive. That’s pretty clearly wrong, even if you want to argue the consumption of alcohol by a minor part is only “wrong because it is prohibited.” Hard to give Willie grief on this instance.
Perhaps I could have chosen a better example to make my point, but it was the best I could do on short notice. On another point, if he got too obnoxious, somebody should have just bitch-slapped him. Arrest, fingerprinting, mug shots, Miranda warnings, police incident report, bond hearing, pre-trial detention, assignment to prosecutor, retain defense attorney, pre-trial motions, discovery, jury summons, jury selection, trial or plea bargain, sentencing (if guilty), service of sentence. There’s a lot of paperwork and manpower in all that. More trouble than it is worth. No vale la pena.
“At least with government, there is due process. Even if the game is rigged to some extent, you are still entitled to a trial by a jury of your peers.”
Due process against a litigant with unlimited resources to prosecute you? At least warlords are only going to go so far as it costs them something that they don’t have unlimited sources of(time & money).
:)
At least you admit the game is rigged, but let us remember a “jury of your peers” represents those too stupid to be able to get out of jury duty or perhaps worse, those that actually want to be there-whether it’s out of boredom, desire for power, noseyness, or sadomasochism.
Not exactly a great set of traits from individuals judging your “guilt” or innocence.
Please ignore the above response, it was meant for below.
Being drunk and disorderly infringes on the public’s right to be free of nuisance.
? — are you against all government? Or do you believe it’s a necessary evil to some extent?
I think if you have like-minded people, with similar culture and values, anarchy could work on a small scale. Otherwise, though, people are too self-interested, and unscrupulous people will take advantage of the power void if government ceased to exist.
You take out the unscrupulous. There is no safety but in doing good.
What happens when someone “takes out the unscrupulous,” then becomes drunk on his power and believes he’s the righteous one who knows right from wrong, and who should hang and who shouldn’t.
No thanks.
“people are too self-interested”
Yea, but do you think there’s some magic line where that stops once they get into gov’t?
In fact, is it really that much of a stretch to say those seeking office are probably the ones that shouldn’t hold it?
“? — are you against all government? Or do you believe it’s a necessary evil to some extent?”
I can’t answer your question at this time. I know that I’m for voluntary interaction, which by its defintion rules out gov’t as we know it today.
“I think if you have like-minded people, with similar culture and values, anarchy could work on a small scale.”
You make what I think is a valid point, there is a successful business man/investor who also happens to dabble in philosophy from time to time that has written on the point you make:
caseyresearch.com/cwc/doug-casey-phyles
There are some random efforts about the globe right now to bring this notion forth in various stages of movement.
From floating boats/platforms out on the sea to “in border” agreements with S. American gov’ts to keep their “hands off”, almost on a lease basis from certain members of a voluntary society within a leased plot of land.
Self defense is still a problem(on a large scale), but as technology moves forward that will probably change in the next 50 years….if we already have individuals able to create nuclear reactions the implications towards the ability of small communities to defend themselves from big ones is self-evident long term via tactical nukes, etc.(or whatever technology brings forth)
I was posting when you made this note to the earlier commenter:
“What happens when someone “takes out the unscrupulous,” then becomes drunk on his power and believes he’s the righteous one who knows right from wrong, and who should hang and who shouldn’t. ”
It is all a matter of perspective though, no? Really, this is how much of the world operates today…with gov’ts all over serving this role…some more tyrannical than others but all tyrannical none the less.
With nothing to keep a gov’t in check the end game is the same…and we can all see now “voting”, picketing, protesting, suing, etc. et al is a mostly ineffective check against gov’t power. Anyway saying otherwise is really fooling themselves.
The American experiment is a miserable failure. It is bankrupt, tyrannical structure that assumed the mantle of empire at the prodding of England.
The “tree of liberty” argument is interesting and I think mostly correct…but I personally find the notion of a good round of killing every 20 years to be distasteful(when confronted with the violence of money theft you are left with little choice)…it’s time man moved the idea of the American experiment FORWARD and not backward.
The notion was “anarchy”, but not in the sense of the word as most know it. Unfortunately we moved towards gov’t, not away from it-breaking with the notion as to why we wanted gov’t small to begin with.
Jefferson talked about anarchy honestly, British propaganda in relation to it, etc. Though most just take a sentence or two out of context it is a light read and says it all:
monticello.org/site/jefferson/tree-liberty-quotation
Thanks for the reply. Seems like you are an anarchist but aren’t quite willing to admit to it. ;-).
As to the argument that US government is just as dangerous as that theoretical leader “drunk on power,” I disagree. At least with government, there is due process. Even if the game is rigged to some extent, you are still entitled to a trial by a jury of your peers. That is much less scary than a warlord (or mob) who dishes out whatever punishment he (or they) feel is appropriate.
“At least with government, there is due process. Even if the game is rigged to some extent, you are still entitled to a trial by a jury of your peers.”
Due process against a litigant with unlimited resources to prosecute you? At least warlords are only going to go so far as it costs them something that they don’t have unlimited sources of(time & money).
:)
At least you admit the game is rigged, but let us remember a “jury of your peers” represents those too stupid to be able to get out of jury duty or perhaps worse, those that actually want to be there-whether it’s out of boredom, desire for power, noseyness, or sadomasochism.
Not exactly a great set of traits from individuals judging your “guilt” or innocence.
While a jury of your peers is not a perfect way to have your innocence judged, it’s better than every other alternative.
For all the imperfections of our government, I would much rather have a right to counsel, a right against self-incrimination, a right to a jury trial, a right to appeal, etc. than to be judged summarily on the whim of one person (or mob).
“it’s better than every other alternative.”
lol…I have to disagree with that. We can’t even count how many alternatives there might be.
“than to be judged summarily on the whim of one person (or mob).”
But that is exactly what the judgement is, based on a “mob”…of 12 people…who meet the traits I outlined above…lol
Well, give me a better alternative. If there are countless alternatives, I would be interested in hearing about them. Because having some dude or his posse decide my fate does not sound fun. With our current system you have the right to counsel, right against self-incrimination, right to appeal, and rules of evidence and procedure — things you would likely NOT have if tried by a warlord or mob.
Our government is very imperfect. But our due process rights and procedures could be a LOT worse.
” If there are countless alternatives, I would be interested in hearing about them. Because having some dude or his posse decide my fate does not sound fun.”
First, I worded my sentence to suggest there are more than I, you and others might realize.
That aside, the ADR/Arbitration models work well. You also have old tribal standards which are also at least voluntary(think old wise men).
In those formats you have people chosen on the basis of their merits in resolving greivances/crimes, not based on the earlier mentioned attributes of a jury pool that are again picked through by attorney’s before seated based on less than noble principles.
Arbitration is fine for civil trials (unless you are a plaintiff’s lawyer :)), but I would much rather trust my criminal fate to 12 jurors than a single arbiter. The benefits of arbitration — quicker procedures, informality, relaxed evidentiary and procedural rules — are NOT benefits in the criminal context. But the good thing about current criminal procedures is if you really want a single man rather than 12 to decide your fate, you can choose a bench trial. With arbitration you lack that option. Arbitration is far inferior from the accused’s perspective.
As to the “wise old man” thing, that sounds ideal assuming you actually get a “wise” man. There are plenty of old men who are thought wise but really aren’t. So, again, it’s very imperfect, and would depend entirely on having a fair judge to decide your fate, rather than at least giving you standard fair procedures and rights to ensure that you get as fair a trial as reasonably possible.
And like I said above, if you really just want a wise old man to decide your fate, you can choose a bench trial. The judge is trained in the law. And if you know the judge is the lenient type, you might be better off having him, instead of a jury, decide your fate. But, again, I would want that option.
One DHEC? How long Sid it take them to come up with tht lame slogan?
Lillian McBride? Jean Toal said it’s okay to go by Dick Harpo’s office and get the check now. It’s all over. Oh, and she said thanks.
So what’s the deal with the Lexington Mafia… already swept under the rug? I thought charges were supposed to be presented in late December.
Danny says alot of people are gonna be shocked.
Yeh,yeh,yeh.
Nothing happening here. Danny Frazier lies yet again. This ain’t news folks….
A guys grandson got drunk on a plane and acted out while being underage. Who cares.
That really ranks right up there with more than one of our electeds’ offspring dealing the white powder. The snow vein runs deep in this state and it makes you wonder who really gets to keep the cash at the end of the day.
I’d bang her.
I bet her husband is pissed!
Kinsley Wentzky has just announced to the world that she is a whore.
Ok by me. One hot bitch!