RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics, Religion & other Controversies (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   no victim, no crime? (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22726)

mudsling3 December 19th, 2013 09:04

no victim, no crime?
 
an introduction to Jury nullification by Josie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7nqd…ature=youtu.be

Alrik Fassbauer December 19th, 2013 14:14

What's this about ? I don't quite understand it.

zahratustra December 19th, 2013 16:53

Soooo, after firmly stating that that she no longer participates in the political process, she than bursts into 8.31 minutes political rant on the YouTube? How very outlawish!

txa1265 December 19th, 2013 20:08

I get the basic tenet of self-directed vs. other-directed behavior, which says that the state has no right getting involved in anything that only impacts the adult person choosing that action. A single person sitting at home sniffing cocaine, for example. But once that person gets behind the wheel of a car, their choice of action constitutes a threat of violence beyond their control. Sort of like the person randomly firing a gun into the woods not realizing that there was someone hiking through those woods.

The case this 'no victim no crime' makes is that without demonstrated harm there is no crime. So for the person walking in the woods example, if they are shot there is crime, if they are grazed in a non-injurious way that harms property (jacket) I *think* most would see it as crime … but if it hit a tree two feet in front of the person and there was no injury … no crime. Even if it sent the person to therapy and they never hiked again.

It is a sort of controlled anarchy based on what I have heard, and would require a government about 4X the size of our current mega-structure to define, determine and defend what a 'victim' is and if there is one.

ChienAboyeur December 20th, 2013 20:34

It only takes to break the law to be a criminal.

mudsling3 January 22nd, 2014 09:54

indeed, without the G, who would provide justice, who would feed the poor, provide education, build the road? A convenient and necessary "GOV" worshipped by the citizens.

Well, just remember marginal and fringe stuff were for rightwing loonies only… those gun owners are just a bunch of trigger happy morons, shooting without knowing where the bullets are heading. No victim no crime advocates must be a bunch of potheads, why shouldn't anyone pay for high/slow speed tickets, rolling stops, illegal u-turns, jaywalking, parking outside one's house on the wrong hour, since your "GOV" minions depend on these extra incomes.

zahratustra January 22nd, 2014 14:28

Ah yes, the libertarian psycho-bubble all over again.

dteowner January 22nd, 2014 15:56

Indeed, why can't we have more leftie nonsense instead. Things like "Peace in our time", Executive Order 9066, and "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion" proved out so well, after all.

zahratustra January 22nd, 2014 16:28

Sure so much better to follow libertarian motto: "Happiness = no government + guns for everybody". And you know what? If libertarians would ever gain power I would want a gun. Preferably 50 cal machine gun…

dteowner January 22nd, 2014 16:44

You show your ignorance (or perhaps it's just blinding hate) with the way you misrepresent libertarian creed.

zahratustra January 22nd, 2014 16:49

Libertarians are just right wing anarchists. As simple as that.

txa1265 January 22nd, 2014 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by zahratustra (Post 1061236914)
Libertarians are just right wing anarchists. As simple as that.

I totally disagree - that might be many of whom have taken over the name, but it is clearly not the philosophy.

Libertarians take the personal liberty of the individual to the extreme. It sees government as a barrier to personal liberty, but also sees it as a necessary part of a federal and state functioning. So for the libertarian the challenge is where to 'draw the line' - they believe that there is a fundamental need or national defense, but definitely NOT 'nation building' like Bush did. They believe that protecting citizens from physical harm is necessary … but it gets murky when it comes to non-physical harm.

Libertarians believe that the government has the duty to provide education, but mostly all they agree on is the '3 R's' stuff, and much of the 'extra' stuff (like art, music, etc) is considered personal enrichment outside of the scope of governmental duty.

They don't think that the government owes anyone a paycheck. Period. If you cannot pay for your housing, you live on the street. If you cannot afford food, you die. If you cannot afford medical help, bleed out. If you cannot afford to feed your children, THEY die and while you should probably learn a lesson, that isn't mandated.

For me, who holds with many of these views, the biggest problem is how the neo-cons and tea-baggers have co-opted much of this to use as a weapon against anyone who isn't white, male, Christian and heterosexual. But again, that has nothing to do with the basic tenets of the philosophy.

As a nation we decided a very long time ago that we were NOT a libertarian country, and this isn't a 'liberal' thing … it is a 'pretty much the whole country' thing.

zahratustra January 22nd, 2014 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by txa1265 (Post 1061236927)
For me, who holds with many of these views, the biggest problem is how the neo-cons and tea-baggers have co-opted much of this to use as a weapon against anyone who isn't white, male, Christian and heterosexual. But again, that has nothing to do with the basic tenets of the philosophy

But that was my point. Libertarian movement was hijacked by the extremists quite a while ago and the true libertarians are a dying breed that (unfortunately) don't count for much anymore.

CrazyIrish January 22nd, 2014 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by zahratustra (Post 1061236952)
But that was my point. Libertarian movement was hijacked by the extremists quite a while ago and the true libertarians are a dying breed that (unfortunately) don't count for much anymore.

We never did. But we keep trying nonetheless.

dteowner January 22nd, 2014 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by zahratustra (Post 1061236952)
But that was my point. Libertarian movement was hijacked by the extremists quite a while ago and the true libertarians are a dying breed that (unfortunately) don't count for much anymore.

I don't know that "hijacked" is really the right word. I think the libertarians gradually moved right due to a need to differentiate from the republicans. Much like Nader's Greenies had to move pretty far into the leftie weeds to stand apart from the democrats.

I miss the days of Ross Perot. Sure, the individual was a nutjob (although much of that cropped up after the election rather than before), but he presented a rather tasty (and electable) mix of libertarian and conservative thought. Avoided some of the more "out there" libertarian stances such as rampant isolationism and love of the gold standard while also largely avoiding the morass imposed by the social conservatives.

Mike's summary is actually quite close. Only thing I'd tweak is that the libertarians aren't interested in throwing the downtrodden into the streets—they just feel that dealing with that issue is the duty of charitable organizations rather than government. I think you'll find that the concept of the community taking care of its own fits extremely well into the whole personal responsibility framework.

mudsling3 January 23rd, 2014 09:57

initiate no aggression against others/voluntary exchange is the core principle. Don't you distort it, lefties and righties.

"isolationism"? ha ha ha, it must have been on the neo-con standard field manual.

"non-physical harm" as in "hurt your feelings"? verbal assaults? Why are the softies keep attributing so much power to external/material things? guns kill, words hurt…worshipping too many false idols must have made them losing their minds.

dteowner January 23rd, 2014 19:10

I try to give you plenty of latitude, mud, since it's largely a leftie echo chamber around here, but when you show such poor knowledge of your own side that's a little tough.

You can get the isolationist approach to international relations (both political and military) off of Ron Paul in about 5 minutes and half the libertarians don't claim him because he's gotten "too mainstream".

pibbur who January 23rd, 2014 19:18

Subject of the thread reminds me of a Bob Marley song.

pibbur who won't say more than this on a P&R thread. But he still will find reason to regret it.

txa1265 January 23rd, 2014 20:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by dteowner (Post 1061237258)
I try to give you plenty of latitude, mud, since it's largely a leftie echo chamber around here, but when you show such poor knowledge of your own side that's a little tough.

Let's just say that he would lose by TKO in a shadow boxing match …

Pladio January 24th, 2014 00:20

I read the thread title and at first I thought it said :
"No Woman, No Cry" …


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:17.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch