I would say that my moral system is just far more agnostic than yours. I don't pretend to be able to really know right from wrong definitely or objectively, I see morality as being guesswork based on premises that are either accepted or rejected for whatever reason.
Cute. I don't pretend that morality is objective. In fact, I believe that it is subjective. But that doesn't stop me from having opinions about morality. But you never seem to state your moral opinions on anything.
This doesn't mean I cannot disagree with laws on moral grounds, it just means that I don't rely on moral objections to make legal arguments. I try to find case law/legislative statutes to support my opinion. If there are none, I make them up and hope they stick in other people's minds.
Could you give an example of a law you disagree with on moral grounds? When you were asked in another thread about laws on slavery, you just weaseled out of it.
In regards to case law, precedent can be found to support any opinion. There was a great article someone linked to going into detail about this, but I cannot find it now. Regardless, precedent can support anything. In regards to statutes...well there really isn't much to say about this. How can you disagree with a statute by citing it to support your opinion? You need to have some reason (typically based on morality or some sense of justice) to disagree with it.
Oh, so if you can't find anything, you just make a reason up? What are your reasons based on? And why can't you use these reasons to disagree with current statutory laws?
I maintain that moral systems are ultimately irrelevant if they haven't the power to be enforced. Thus might makes relevant the question of moral right or wrong.
Might does not make morality relevant. Something is either moral or it isn't. Having more might than someone else does not make your morality right or wrong. It certainly means you have the power to impose your own sense of morality on someone else, but again, this does not change whether something is right or wrong.
I would say that in legal terms might does make legal right as without might legal rights can only exist in the ethereal de jure sense rather than the material de facto sense. This means, in essence that while one can know what the law has been, one cannot necessarily know what the law will be until they're in court. Even then decisions are constantly being overturned, remanded, upheld at appeal but redefined.
You are just plainly wrong here. Only statutory law is based upon the principal of might makes right, and statutory law is only one type of law. Law itself is based upon the threat of force, but this is not the same as might makes right.
Again, our problem with this is that just because someone has the might to enforce a rule, it does not make that rule moral or just. What is so fucking hard to understand about this?
I think the issue of police murdering innocent people is outside the scope of this thread as it is only tangentially related to the cases presented by the OP and the second poster. If you want to talk about those I'd be glad to but only after we both acknowledge that they have nothing to do with the original thread.
No. It was in direct response to your ridiculous insinuation that because the moderators of this forum have the power to revoke our ability to post here that it is in any way similar to what the state does. Way to completely dodge my point about it being in line with the libertarian sense of justice.
gotlucky:But you never seem to state your moral opinions on anything.
Because I rarely get hung up on morality. I prefer to use other sources. Like case law or statutes.
gotlucky: Could you give an example of a law you disagree with on moral grounds?
Nothing comes to mind right now but that's because I don't usually think about the morality of laws.
gotlucky: In regards to case law, precedent can be found to support any opinion.
True. That's what I love about the law. You can make an argument for or against anything if you look hard enough.
gotlucky: How can you disagree with a statute by citing it to support your opinion?
I may like part of a statute but not the whole thing.
gotlucky:Oh, so if you can't find anything, you just make a reason up? What are your reasons based on? And why can't you use these reasons to disagree with current statutory laws?
Well yeah I mean that's last resort though. I would base my reasons on my values.
gotlucky:Might does not make morality relevant. Something is either moral or it isn't. Yeah but if you don't have any might to enforce your morals, your morals are irrelevant. Thus might makes relevant. What is so fucking hard to understand about that? How many times do I have to say this?
gotlucky:Might does not make morality relevant. Something is either moral or it isn't.
gotlucky:Having more might than someone else does not make your morality right or wrong. It certainly means you have the power to impose your own sense of morality on someone else..
You just said it yourself. If you have power you can impose your sense of morality, thus your morality becomes relevant. See? You're getting it.
gotlucky: Again, our problem with this is that just because someone has the might to enforce a rule, it does not make that rule moral or just. It makes the law relevant, what's so fucking hard to understand about that? If you don't have might, you can't enforce a rule.
gotlucky: Again, our problem with this is that just because someone has the might to enforce a rule, it does not make that rule moral or just.
gotlucky: No. It was in direct response to your ridiculous insinuation that because the moderators of this forum have the power to revoke our ability to post here that it is in any way similar to what the state does.
bloomj31: Because I rarely get hung up on morality. I prefer to use other sources. Like case law or statutes.
So then how do you know if you support a precedent or statute? You can't cite a precedent in order to decide if something is wrong. Same with statutes.
Well then, would you say you supported what the police did in the article I linked to a few posts up? In other words, when the officer tazed an old man in his own home when he broke no law? After all, the officer wanted to arrest the man because he didn't want to go to the hospital.
And what's the point of arguing for or against something if you believe morality and justice are irrelevant? You can't argue for or against something if you don't have a reason why.
Could you give an example? Also, what is your reason for only liking part of it?
And why can't these values be used from the beginning? After all, why would you argue for or against a statute if your values had nothing to do with it...
Yeah but it if you don't have any might to enforce your morals, your morals are irrelevant. Thus might makes relevant. What is so fucking hard to understand about that? How many times do I have to say this?
You keep saying your opinion is might makes relevant. So what? You are gonna have to keep saying it until you actually decide to put forth an argument. Just saying your belief is might makes relevant doesn't argue for anything. So what if someone has the power to enforce his rules? That doesn't make it right. You never offer your own opinion on a statute. In fact, you always seem to agree with the current statutes. So I think you are full of it when you say might makes relevant. You are just trying to not say might makes right.
And what of it? You are just trying to not say that you believe might makes right. You never provide an example of when the state is wrong, and you always coming out and saying that you support its rules, no matter how immoral and unjust the rule may be.
Might makes relevant says nothing about any idea of what the rules should be.
It makes the law relevant, what's so fucking hard to understand about that? If you don't have might, you can't enforce a rule.
The law is always relevant. That does not make it moral or just. That is our problem. Statutes by definition are either superfluous or unjust. I don't support statutory law. You do. You do because you believe that might makes right. You can keep repeating that you believe might makes relevant, but that is not what you actually believe. When you say you support statutory law, you are saying you support might makes right. So quit lying to everyone. You aren't fooling anyone.
No, it was a trollish comment designed to conflate the case cited in the thread to another slightly related case. I know your tricks though.
It was not a trollish comment. I assume that yours was though. The only reason you had to bring up the power of the mods was to prove that might makes right (or is it relevant?). But guess what? The power of the mods to do what they want here is perfectly in line with libertarianism...but even better, I can still think that whatever the mods do (or don't do) is wrong! But there is no consistent analogy between the mods here and the state.
Maybe you'll want to stop lying. I won't hold my breath.
gotlucky:So then how do you know if you support a precedent or statute? You can't cite aprecedent in order to decide if something is wrong. Same with statutes.
gotlucky:Well then, would you say you supported what the police did in the article I linked to a few posts up? In other words, when the officer tazed an old man in his own home when he broke no law? After all, the officer wanted to arrest the man because he didn't want to go to the hospital.
gotlucky:And what's the point of arguing for or against something if you believe morality and justice are irrelevant? You can't argue for or against something if you don't have a reason why.
gotlucky:Could you give an example? Also, what is your reason for only liking part of it?
gotlucky:And why can't these values be used from the beginning? After all, why would you argue for or against a statute if your values had nothing to do with it...
gotlucky:Just saying your belief is might makes relevant doesn't argue for anything. So what if someone has the power to enforce his rules? That doesn't make it right.
gotlucky:You are just trying to not say that you believe might makes right. You never provide an example of when the state is wrong, and you always coming out and saying that you support its rules
gotlucky: no matter how immoral and unjust the rule may be.
gotlucky:Might makes relevant says nothing about any idea of what the rules should be.
gotlucky: Statutes by definition are either superfluous or unjust.
gotlucky:I don't support statutory law. You do. You do because you believe that might makes right.
gotlucky: The only reason you had to bring up the power of the mods was to prove that might makes right (or is it relevant?). But guess what? The power of the mods to do what they want here is perfectly in line with libertarianism...but even better, I can still think that whatever the mods do (or don't do) is wrong! But there is no consistent analogy between the mods here and the state.
I just want to add that I think part of the confusion here is that you seem to think that I need to think I'm in the right or that a law is right in order to support it. This is not always the case. Sometimes for me the ends justify the means.
I don't necessarily think that just because I want something that it's right or because I don't want something that it's wrong and vice versa. Really I'm more focused on finding ways to achieve my desired ends. I can never be sure if my desired ends are right or wrong.
Often I support laws that may be morally wrong because I think they might achieve ends that I desire. For all I know drug laws could be morally wrong but I'll still support them because I think they help to achieve a desired end of mine.
I also don't require a law to be one hundred percent effective to support it. I accept that some people will always find a way around the law.
I also accept that some laws will have undesirable side effects.
I think the officer probably overstepped his legal bounds. The old man can probably sue for damages.
So do you support the officer's actions or not? Why or why not? Whether or not the officer overstepped his legal bounds is irrelevant to the question I asked of you.
I have not said that morality and justice are irrelevant. I have simply said that without might, morality and justice are irrelevant. First you need might, then you can worry about morality and justice. Seriously, how many times do I need to repeat this same answer to you?
Except that talking about morality and justice is a good way to get people side with you and therefore gain might. So I think we can all worry about morality and justice. Education is a powerful tool.
Well they can, but without might the values don't matter. Again: first power then values.
Someone's values went into the making of the statute. Values were a factor before might. Without values, there cannot be action. Values come before action, which comes before might.
Actually I think it argues that might makes morals relevant. Power doesn't make a rule morally right but it does make the values underpinning the rule relevant. Without power morals are irrelevant.
Circular reasonings are not arguments. Might makes relevant therefore might makes relevant isn't an argument. It's a statement. Without values, might is irrelevant. Without values, there cannot be action. Without action, there cannot be might.
That's because I do not believe that might makes morally right. I think might makes morally relevant. The reason I tend to agree with the state is because I tend to share the same values.
I will address this further down when you contradict yourself and say that you support statutory law, which is a system based solely on might makes right.
That's just your opinion. You can't say for sure if a rule is immoral or unjust you can just say that you think it is based on your values.
No. It is not just my opinion. Statutes are by definition either unnecessary or unjust. Since you are confused, I will expand upon this. First, they can be unnecessary because the rules would have occurred in a customary law society (which is the default state of law). Murder is a great example of this. Having laws against murder are superfluous because the laws against murder would have occurred anyway in a customary law society. Second, they can be unjust because it is the only other option. Statutes are either unnecessary or unjust. There is no third option.
Customary law can have unjust laws, but they are not superfluous, because customary law is default. Now, you might say, "why is customary law default and not statutory law?" For that, I direct you to A Praxeological Account of Law. Well, you can search, I'm not gonna bother linking here as I usually do.
That's correct. It only describes the relationship between power morals and rules.
And what good does it do us when we are talking about what the law ought to be?
I support statutory law because I think it can be an effective means to achieving my desired ends. I don't necessarily think that just because a statute is being enforced that it must be right or wrong. I just think that the values captured in a statute are relevant because they have might backing them.
You support a system based on might makes right. You support might makes right.
The fact that the moderator's power is justifiable along libertarian lines is merely coincidental. What matters first is that they have power. It wouldn't matter if their use of power was justifiable or not, they'd still have power. And that's the point. Their power makes their values relevant. I couldn't ban you even if I wanted to because I don't have the power to enforce my values. Therefore my values are irrelevant.
This is all quite irrelevant to what the law ought to be. Or what the system of law ought to be. Those are what we keep talking about in threads like these, and you keep bringing up your might makes right stuff. Or in this case, relevant, but it's all irrelevant to the actually topics we discuss.
bloomj31: I just want to add that I think part of the confusion here is that you seem to think that I need to think I'm in the right or that a law is right in order to support it. This is not always the case. Sometimes for me the ends justify the means. Often I support laws that may be morally wrong because I think they might achieve ends that I desire. For all I know drug laws could be morally wrong but I'll still support them because I think they help to achieve a desired end of mine. I also don't require a law to be one hundred percent effective to support it. I accept that some people will always find a way around the law. I also accept that some laws will have undesirable side effects.
Again, you are just finding different ways of saying that you believe in might makes right.
gotlucky: So do you support the officer's actions or not? Why or why not?
I really don't know. I'm indifferent.
gotlucky:Except that talking about morality and justice is a good way to get people side with you and therefore gain might.
If you say so. Hasn't had much effect on me. If anything, it's turned me off of libertarianism. I'd prefer a demonstration of power to a conversation about morality and justice.
gotlucky: Values were a factor before might. Without values, there cannot be action. Values come before action, which comes before might.
The causal chain is irrelevant. What matters is the relationship between might and the ability to make your values relevant to others. Without might your values are only relevant to yourself.
gotlucky: Without values, might is irrelevant. Without values, there cannot be action. Without action, there cannot be might.
I think I see the confusion now. When I say might makes relevant I mean relevant to others as opposed to just oneself. Without might, your values are simply your own and you have no way of imposing them on others. With might, you can make your values relevant to others because they'll have to listen to them.
gotlucky: which is a system based solely on might makes right.
No, it's a system based solely on the idea that one can make a decree if one has enough power, it says nothing about the objective righteousness of the act, simply that it will be done.
People do not have to believe they are morally right to act, they simply need to have a perceived need.
gotlucky: Second, they can be unjust because it is the only other option. Statutes are either unnecessary or unjust. There is no third option.
Something can only be universally unjust if it violates that which is universally just. How do we know what is universally just?
gotlucky: Customary law can have unjust laws, but they are not superfluous, because customary law is default. Now, you might say, "why is customary law default and not statutory law?"
I will look into this. I'm sure it's based on some premise but we'll see.
gotlucky: And what good does it do us when we are talking about what the law ought to be?
Might makes relevant tells you that unless you have power, your values are irrelevant to others, so your opinion about what the law ought to be is irrelevant to me unless you have power, which you don't.
gotlucky: You support a system based on might makes right. You support might makes right.
No. Statutory law merely demonstrates how power can make values relevant to others. It doesn't necessarily say anything about the righteousness of those values. The values underlying the action aren't necessarily based on moral conviction, they're just based on a perceived need or desire.
gotlucky: This is all quite irrelevant to what the law ought to be. Or what the system of law ought to be. Those are what we keep talking about in threads like these, and you keep bringing up your might makes right stuff. Or in this case, relevant, but it's all irrelevant to the actually topics we discuss.
The analogy simply demonstrates the importance of power in making values relevant to others. Moderators have the power to make their values matter to the other posters because they can ban them. Without that power their values would simply be their own. I cannot ban moderators because I have no power over them. So it really doesn't matter whether or not I think they're right or wrong, I can't do anything about it.
In regards to talking about what the law ought to be; I see it as a waste of time. No one on this forum has the power to say one way or another authoritatively. Their values are merely their own. No one has any reason to listen to them unless they choose to. That's not power. Therefore I try not to worry myself with such things.
gotlucky: Again, you are just finding different ways of saying that you believe in might makes right.
No I'm not. But frankly I don't care if that's what you think because you're just another internet nobody and I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over to you. I dunno why I chose to make you so relevant. Consider yourself on ignore from now on. I have the power to ignore you so you will cease to be relevant to me.
bloomj31: I really don't know. I'm indifferent.
There you go again. I suppose I should have been even clearer in my question and asked if you thought the police officer was acting morally or immorally. It would be a harder to dodge question.
That's fine. There are amoral people in this world. However, the libertarian movement is growing because of education and not violent action.
Blatantly false. There are many people who hold other people's values and ideas in high regard without being violently coerced. Whether it's someone who is world famous like MLK or someone famous only to libertarians like Rothbard, might is not the only means of making values relevant.
Why must values be imposed upon others? Ron Paul certainly doesn't impose his values on anyone. In fact, he has helped lead people to libertarianism without resorting to making his values "relevant by might".
No, it's a system based solely on the idea that one can make a decree if one has enough power, it says nothing about the objective righteousness of the act, simply that it will be done. People do not have to believe they are morally right to act, they simply need to have a perceived need.
Law is the nonviolent resolution of disputes. In private law, people resolve their disputes to a mutually agreeable solution or it remains unresolved. When two parties resolve a dispute, they have decided that the resolution is mutually agreeable, even if they would prefer it to have been different. Statutory law goes ahead and says that the solution they have agreed upon is wrong. Whatever the person with the most power says is the resolution is the resolution.
Statutory law says that the solution the parties to the dispute would or have come up with is wrong. Statutory law says that its solution is right. I am not talking about objective morality. I do not believe in objective morality. I am saying that the parties to the dispute have decided upon a solution that is mutually agreeable, or moral to them. In statutory law, a third party comes along and says that he has a different solution, one that the parties would not find to be moral.
Unless, of course, they agree. But then it would be superfluous, as I previously stated. Regardless, statutory law is very much about might makes right.
I am not talking about objective justice or morality. If the parties to the dispute resolve it, that was the just or moral solution to them. Statutory law is either superfluous (i.e. the third party has a resolution that the parties to the dispute would have come up with) or unjust (i.e. it is not a solution the parties to the dispute would have come up with). This has nothing to do with universal or objective justice.
More specifically, I should have said the default is whatever the parties to the dispute come up with. Customary law is just based on custom, which arises from what people agree to. They are closely related but not synonymous.
As I explained above, statutory law is about overriding what the parties to the dispute believe to be the morally correct solution for themselves. It is very much about defining the correct resolutions are to disputes.
Sure it matters. If enough people speak up about the moderator's behavior (or lack of), it could influence the way things are run. It may not necessarily influence, but it can. And if enough people were unsatisfied, they could easily move to another forum. You might say it's a love it or leave it argument, but the difference is the state aggresses while the mods of the Mises Forum do not. And that is an important distinction to libertarians.
So then why are you here? Why do you come to a forum where people are actively talking about what things ought to be? We certainly don't see it as a waste of time. There are upwards of 2,000 lurkers online at peak hours. Not only are we possibly convincing at least 2,000 lurkers, but we can practice here what we say in real life. Education starts somewhere. Not only that, but there are some forum members here who create videos that are seen by thousands of others. None of us see it as a waste of time, but you do. So, are you trolling us when you post here? Why are you here?
bloomj31: No I'm not. But frankly I don't care if that's what you think because you're just another internet nobody and I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over to you. I dunno why I chose to make you so relevant. Consider yourself on ignore from now on. I have the power to ignore you so you will cease to be relevant to me.
You are so adorable. The ends justifies the means and using aggression as a means to achieving your desired ends are both might makes right. Please, continue to try and wiggle out of it. It's cute.
Makes me think of Rucka Rucka Ali's "Go Cops".
I'm done with this conversation. Moralizing over this nonsense is a waste of my time.
The bottom line for me is that I really don't care much if the police power to detain is moral or not or where the state gets its rights from.
Makes no difference to me whatsoever. To me the public interest is best served by giving police the power to stop people for speeding. If that leads to abuses then those abuses must be handled on a case by case basis. If you disagree then that's ok, do something about it.
People can take precautions when getting pulled over to try and keep themselves safe but obviously there's no way to guarantee people won't get taken advantage of. I still don't see this problem as warranting a reduction of the police power to detain drivers for traffic violations.
To me, it's not worth the trade off and I do not care if you don't think I have the right to make that judgment. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong so be it. I hope that all the people who matter, whoever they may be, come to the same conclusion as I do.
If you do think this warrants the reduction of police powers then fine. Rile up all your libertarian buddies with your power of education and get the rules changed.
If you can use the power of education to get the rules changed then that'll really be something and if you can't then it will just be more evidence to me that the libertarian mission of educating the masses is a waste of time.
I won't be holding my breath.
Delete.
bloomj31:To me the public interest is best served by giving police the power to stop people for speeding.
What's this "public interest" you speak of?
bloomj31:If you disagree then that's ok, do something about it.
Apparently trying to reach out to others on the internet is not "doing something about it"?
bloomj31:To me, it's not worth the trade off and I do not care if you don't think I have the right to make that judgment.
I don't care that you don't care. But I'm curious as to what you think the "trade off" is.
So basically, no, Bloom, I don't think you're done with this conversation.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos:No, Bloom, I don't think you're done with this conversation.
bloomj31: I have no idea, I'm not God so it's not my place to say. I could only express an opinion which would be irrelevant because I have no authority whatsoever.
I have no idea, I'm not God so it's not my place to say. I could only express an opinion which would be irrelevant because I have no authority whatsoever.
Nice dodge. Earlier in the thread you made it clear that your opinion was worth something. In fact, your exact words to Clayton were, "Let's be honest you're trying to disregard my opinion on this particular case because it doesn't agree with yours." So, I guess Clayton's argument has finally convinced yet, eh?
I suppose that's true. Might isn't the only relevant factor to some. Perhaps they'll become powerful someday and become relevant to me too.
It's incredibly relevant what the community feels. If the community is morally okay with might makes right, then no amount of force by libertarians will create a libertarian society. I don't believe that most people truly feel might makes right is morally correct. I think that most people haven't really thought about the moral implications of might makes right. After all, look at all the conservative Christians in America. They are okay with bombing and killing, but they believe God makes right (of course, it's just whatever their interpretation of God is). Most people don't understand that democracy is just another might makes right system. They just clam up and claim anarchy is chaos. Education is key.
That's true. But to actually take those ideas and make a difference in this world, at least with the way things are, one needs power. Perhaps in another world, power wouldn't be necessary to be relevant. But in ours it seems to be.
Sure. If you want to end the state, you need to make sure it's power is less than the community's. But getting to that point requires education.
I suppose they don't have to be. There do seem to be people who care about other things than power. They're seemingly a minority but they do exist. Might makes relevant isn't an absolute. It's just a guideline that fits the context of the times. With power one can become relevant. As you've said there are other ways. I suppose the best way to summarize my position is that might makes relevant to me.
It's kind of a sad position, really. You will only consider the morality of an issue if someone else has the power to do violence to you? Fortunately, most people are not like this.
Why is their decision just?
Justice and Morality are subjective. You can say that their resolution is just and moral relative to them. What a statute does is override what they have concluded for themselves. The statute says, "Your resolution is not just and moral. This is the resolution you will have to abide by."
A statute just says which outcome is desired by those who made the statute. They aren't saying they're right, just that this is the outcome they prefer. Now it's possible that the people who wrote the statute thought their solution was right. But so what? That doesn't change the nature of statutory law.
If the third party does not feel that their outcome is right, they would not have forced it upon the interested parties to the dispute. The third party may not feel that their solution is perfect, but we are not talking about perfection. The third party says, "This is the way to resolve this dispute." They are saying that they are right by their very actions
Who cares? That doesn't mean they were necessarily right. .
Who cares? That doesn't mean they were necessarily right.
For someone who claims to understand that morality is subjective, you really have a hard time of actually realizing it. It is right relative to themselves. If it wasn't, they would not have agreed to it.
Who cares about what they think is right for themselves? Why does that matter at all? Those are just their values, there's no way to know if they're really right or wrong. They haven't demonstrated any kind of objective right or wrong and neither has a statute that settles the dispute in a different way. They've just got different desired ends, there's no way to know who's right and who's not.
There is no way to know who is objectively right, but we can know that the resolution the parties to the debate came up with is right relative to themselves. A disinterested third party who forces them to do otherwise is by his very actions demonstrating he believes that their resolution is wrong. He then proceeds to demonstrate what he believes is the right resolution by forcing it upon the parties by violence. He may not necessarily think it is a perfect solution. He may feel there is a better solution. But he feels that he is right.
The distinction is irrelevant to the point that in both cases, without their power, they couldn't make their values relevant. Unless ofcourse you'd be inclined to listen to them regardless which you could do I suppose.
There are other members of this forum who have convinced me to do/not do certain things through pms.
I certainly don't come here for the moralizing that's for sure. Thankfully, this website is not actually dedicated to libertarianism and moralism it's dedicated to the value-free science of Austrian Economics. Austrian Econ doesn't proscribe ends it simply deals with means to various ends. It makes no value judgments and it's because of that that I enjoy this site. I participate in the threads that I think I can add to. I try to avoid the moralizing and stick to the facts. Somehow I always end up in these silly discussions anyways.
So then I can expect that you will never again join a debate on what ought to be? You will stick only to Austrian Economics threads?
bloomj31: Btw when you're talking about our customary law system, do you mean our common law system? If so, would you care to discuss how that process actually works?
Btw when you're talking about our customary law system, do you mean our common law system?
If so, would you care to discuss how that process actually works?
I'm not talking about an American customary law system. American common law grew out of English common law, which grew out of Anglo-Saxon customary law. If you would like to read more about customary law, there is a section on wikipedia about it.
I do not support a common law system, but it is better than statutory law, in my opinion.
I realize now we are conflating moral right with legal right. So this debate has in fact been simply a semantic one. I do believe that might makes legal right as might is necessary to make/enforce laws, at least in our system. I'm describing here a process, not whether or not that process ought to be done some other way. I have no idea if it ought to be done another way or why anyone would want to do it another way. But that's a moral question. Moral right seems to me to be entirely personal but because I spend so little time studying ethics and morals I really can't say what I believe. Should we have a system where might makes legal right? I have no idea.
gotlucky: I do not support a common law system, but it is better than statutory law, in my opinion.
Well we don't just have a common law system. We have a common law system combined with a statutory law system that exists on a federal level as well as a state level all backed by the US Constitution and checked against the Constitution. Courts possess the power of judicial review, they can strike statutes if they find them to be unconstitutional. There are several levels of courts, beginning at the state level and moving to the federal level. Some are said to have original jurisdiction whereas others have appellate jurisdiction. The SCOTUS has both original and appellate jurisdiction.
Do you know where the police power is derived from in the constitution?
bloomj31: I realize now we are conflating moral right with legal right. So this debate has in fact been simply a semantic one.
I realize now we are conflating moral right with legal right. So this debate has in fact been simply a semantic one.
No, the two are separate things, though they sometimes overlap. When I say that the parties to a dispute have reached a decision and that decision is morally right for them, I am talking about morality. It may end up not being legal, such as in a statutory law system. I am saying that in that particular case, it should probably line up. In other words, if the parties to a dispute believe that their resolution is mutually agreeable without a third party enforcing through violence its own separate belief, then that is the right solution in regards to those particular parties. When a third party comes along and says that it has a different solution, and it imposes it upon the parties to the dispute, I am saying that it is not a moral solution in regards to the parties to the actual dispute. I am saying that the morality of the third party should have nothing to do with the morality of the parties to the dispute.
The two categories are often interrelated, even if they can be thought of as separate.
I do believe that might makes legal right as might is necessary to make/enforce laws, at least in our system.
Well that is only correct insofar as you are talking specifically about the American statutory and common law systems (or other systems based on statutory or common law). Law in general does not require a might makes right approach. Not only can we conceive of such a system, but the various customary law systems that have existed/do currently exist demonstrate that it is the case that law does not necessarily require a might makes right approach.
I'm describing here a process, not whether or not that process ought to be done some other way. I have no idea if it ought to be done another way or why anyone would want to do it another way. But that's a moral question. Moral right seems to me to be entirely personal but because I spend so little time studying ethics and morals I really can't say what I believe. Should we have a system where might makes legal right? I have no idea.
Okay. Obviously, I am of the opinion that it should be done a different way.
Well we don't just have a common law system. We have a common law system combined with a statutory law system that exists on a federal level as well as a state level all backed by the US Constitution and checked against the Constitution.
Yes, I am aware that we have both common law and statutory law. The Constitution is irrelevant. No one actually enforces what is written in it. What we have is a system of might makes right backed by...might.
Courts possess the power of judicial review, they can strike statutes if they find them to be unconstitutional.
Yes, just as the executive branch can ignore what the judiciary branch decides.
No, nor do I really care. The constitution is not a document that anyone actually enforces. The vast majority of the rules in the constitution are not enforced as they were originally intended/written, nor can we always know for certain original intentions, though various founding fathers have written about in different documents what they were getting at.
gotlucky:In other words, if the parties to a dispute believe that their resolution is mutually agreeable without a third party enforcing through violence its own separate belief, then that is the right solution in regards to those particular parties. When a third party comes along and says that it has a different solution, and it imposes it upon the parties to the dispute, I am saying that it is not a moral solution in regards to the parties to the actual dispute. I am saying that the morality of the third party should have nothing to do with the morality of the parties to the dispute.
Ok fine so how is that applicable to these cases? Only one case even involves a clear justiciable issue. I'm referring to the potentially wrongful seizure of that bag of cash. He looks to have clear standing to sue.
The alleged police impersonator cases are far from fully investigated.
The issue of police power isn't even a federal issue, it's a state issue and would most likely have to be changed by a state legislature, not a judicial ruling.
The roads these people were driving on aren't private, so there's no discrepancy between a private road owner and a speeding driver. The traffic code is state statute. It too would have to be changed by a state legislature.
So where are these disputants with standing to sue?
gotlucky: Law in general does not require a might makes right approach. Not only can we conceive of such a system, but the various customary law systems that have existed/do currently exist demonstrate that it is the case that law does not necessarily require a might makes right approach.
Ok.
gotlucky: The Constitution is irrelevant. No one actually enforces what is written in it. That's certainly true to an extent but the Constitution and its amendments do actually serve as a framework for legislation and for judicial review. That's why I brought up police power.
gotlucky: The Constitution is irrelevant. No one actually enforces what is written in it.
gotlucky: Yes, just as the executive branch can ignore what the judiciary branch decides.
It can happen but usually the executive branch enforces judicial rulings (think forced desegregation following Brown v Board.) Frequently entire statutes are rewritten simply to comply with judicial rulings (The Affordable Health Care Act, for instance, may require extensive rewrite if the individual mandate is struck.)
gotlucky: No, nor do I really care. The constitution is not a document that anyone actually enforces.
Well the police power is a reserved power of the states under the tenth amendment. Each state has guidelines for police officers about what they can and cannot do. Likewise traffic codes vary state to state. Most of the civil protections found in the Bill of Rights and other amendments have been applied to the states through the 14th amendment. But this was not always the case. So you see the Constitution does come into play it's just been expanded on significantly over time.
Depends which cases you mean. If you are talking specifically about the man whose money was stolen by a fake cop, that's a pretty cut and dry case. The dispute is between the thief and the victim. If you are talking about some of the points Clayton was making, "The fact is that any form of stopping, detaining or arresting is a kind of kidnapping and imprisonment. No one has the legitimate right to tell anyone else "you must stand here and not move", let alone bind the person in handcuffs or cage them in a prison cell," then again, I think the dispute would be pretty clear. It is between the officer (kidnapper) and the victim. Maybe you are asking something different?
I don't really care how it gets dealt with, only that it does. Well, I would prefer it get dealt with by the state receding on its own because of people wanting to do without it, because the only other option is a violent uprising, and I would prefer less violence to more violence in this particular case.
Part of the problem is that it is state owned. If roads were private, there would be a great more variation in rules regarding speed limits and the enforcement of such rules. Maybe there would be speed bumps on less travelled and suburban roads and higher speed limits on highways. Maybe not. But when you have centralized control, there is far less experimentation and you get far worse results. That and I have a moral problem with the state.
With standing to sue in regards to which system? The police officers who are guilty of crimes are largely protected against being sued individually in the current statutory system. In a private law system (or even if the state somehow decided to abide by unlimited strict liability), police officers who are guilty of kidnapping and false imprisonment would be able to be sued. So the disputants would be anyone who was falsely imprisoned.
That's certainly true to an extent but the Constitution and its amendments do actually serve as a framework for legislation and for judicial review. That's why I brought up police power.
It's a general framework that is ignored when the Powers That Be wish to ignore it, and they abide by it when it suits them. The rest of us are screwed.
In general, the various branches of the state do not work against each other. There is some interdepartmental quarrelling, but yes, by and large it works together. The point is that the state enforces what it pleases to enforce, and doesn't enforce what it doesn't. The lack of consistency is both good and bad. It's good to the extent that some people who shouldn't be punished are fortunately spared on occasion. The bad is that gives the police an incredible amount of power to do what they wish (i.e. they get even more power with which to threaten citizens).
That the constitution can be so easily rewritten in practice (why bother with ammendments if you can just write a law and not enforce the constitution?) should demonstrate that it coming into play is not a meaningful statement. Sure, you have a right to free speech, except when we say you don't. Sure, you have a right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, except when we say otherwise. There's not much point to a document that says whatever you want it to say whenever you want it to say it.
gotlucky:In a private law system (or even if the state somehow decided to abide by unlimited strict liability), police officers who are guilty of kidnapping and false imprisonment would be able to be sued. So the disputants would be anyone who was falsely imprisoned.
Ok well maybe they'll bring suit. If not it's a non-issue. At least from a judicial perspective.
I think because of the current qualified immunity thing, this would have to be dealt with by a legislature first before cops could be sued for detaining people.
gotlucky: Part of the problem is that it is state owned. If roads were private, there would be a great more variation in rules regarding speed limits and the enforcement of such rules.
You're probably right and maybe roads will be privatized.
gotlucky: I don't really care how it gets dealt with, only that it does. Well, I would prefer it get dealt with by the state receding on its own because of people wanting to do without it, because the only other option is a violent uprising, and I would prefer less violence to more violence in this particular case.
Or perhaps it blows over because it doesn't bother enough people.
gotlucky: The point is that the state enforces what it pleases to enforce, and doesn't enforce what it doesn't.
Are you talking here specifically about police officer immunity or something else?
gotlucky: Sure, you have a right to free speech, except when we say you don't. Sure, you have a right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, except when we say otherwise.
Which rulings are you referring to?
Here, I've found a ruling that irks even me.
This is the sort of thing that might make me angry if it happened to me.
It's even kind of related to police power but more specifically to unreasonable searches.
Ok well maybe they'll bring suit. If not it's a non-issue. At least from a judicial perspective
Well that's kind of the point we've been trying to make. It should be a legal dispute only if the parties involved press charges. The problem with statutory law is that this is not what happens. Some third party says that there should be a dispute, even when the parties involved don't want there to be one.
Another possibility would be if a judge decided that a lawsuit had merit regardless of the immunity and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It's less likely than the legislature changing the law, but don't forget that judges in MA are the ones who made gay marriage legal here and not the legislature.
I hope that with education, it will bother enough people.
No, the state just isn't consistent with the enforcement of its rules. Look at the drug laws. Some people get arrested for underage drinking, some people aren't. Some people are arrested for cocaine, some people aren't (Charlie Sheen, I'm looking at you). Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that some people aren't arrested and imprisoned for these "crimes", but the point is that the state wields even more power when it is not consistent. Its agents hold even more power over citizens because they can choose whether or not to enforce rules. In a sense they are like judges and can try you on the spot. They can choose to "convict" you (read arrest) or exonerate you.
One example might be the McCain-Finegold Act, where free speech is limited in regards to elections a certain number of days before the election.
Yeah well I have to say I think all that campaign finance reform law is nonsense.
I believe some of the provisions of that act were struck in the Citizen's United ruling though.
gotlucky: Another possibility would be if a judge decided that a lawsuit had merit regardless of the immunity and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It's less likely than the legislature changing the law, but don't forget that judges in MA are the ones who made gay marriage legal here and not the legislature.
Actually after doing some digging I'm thinking it's pretty likely a legislature would have to act first. A challenge based on qualified immunity would most likely be sustained in a suit over a traffic stop where states have used their reserved powers to give cops the right to perform them. They'd probably first need to remove those powers. Still I'll keep looking for more relevant cases.
"In analyzing whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, a court undertakes a two-step process. The first step asks the question: Did the officer’s conduct violate the constitution? If the answer to this question is no, then the officer is not liable and the case is over. During this analysis the court looks at all the facts in the light most favorable to the person suing the police officer. If the answer to this first question is yes, the officer’s conduct did violate some right then the court proceeds to a second question. The second question is: Was the right so clearly established that a reasonable police officer would know that his or her conduct violated the right? If the answer to this question is “no” the officer again escapes liability because he or she did not know that the conduct in question was bad. Only if the answer is that a reasonable police officer was on notice that the conduct was bad, could the lawsuit proceed."
Saucier v Katz
It may be more likely that it could come from the legislature, but all it takes is one judge to say the case has merit, even if there is precedent against it.
I read that police in Canada are required to show 3 pieces of ID on request.