You may have heard libertarians say that governments tend to threaten and employ violence against peaceful people. When they say it like that, they are usually candy-coating the issue to avoid offending you because they know that most of you have deep-seeded presumptions that law should be used for whatever whimsical matters "The People" can imagine to address. Not all law comes from a government. If you live in the US, most of the law governing your civil interaction(that is your interactions with non-government-agents) is derived from English Common Law which has in common with Roman Civil Law that it was not created by a legislature or any other political process, but evolved over time by disputes(between two parties) being brought before some tribunal(a town moot, a judge or panel of judges (often where the tribunal is agreed upon by both disputing parties)), and decisions(complete with written opinions of why the decision was thought to be just) accumulate over time to form a Body of Law. To explain the thread title: Jane owns a house and operates a lemonade stand out of her front yard. Jane doesn't like guys named "Dick". She finds them icky. The state has enacted a law which says that no one may refuse service to anyone on the basis of their name, mandating a fine for anyone who does so. Dick goes to Jane's lemonade stand wanting lemonade, but she doesn't sell him any. She tells him to get off of her lawn. Dick calls the police. At first, they say "so what? Just stay off her lawn.", but after his lawyer explains the statute to them, the police go to Jane and tell her she must sell lemonade to Dick if he wants it. Jane is indignant. She doesn't believe that they have the right to force her to serve Dick, so she refuses. The police issue Jane a citation. Jane is still convinced that they, the state, and Dick are in the wrong. She refuses to pay. The police return to Jane's house, telling her that she may no longer operate her lemonade stand. Still convinced that they are all in the wrong, Jane insists on keeping her lemonade stand open. The police begin to take down her stand themselves, and attempt to apprehend Jane, herself. The ensuing physical struggle over Jane's body and lemonade stand ends up resulting in the death of Jane. Now, since that law was the only reason for the police having interacted with Jane at all, her compliance with them at any point in the story would have been compliance with the law they were there to enforce. Remember, that law is the only reason they commanded her to do anything. They were there to compel compliance, and that's the way it has to be, right? What, after all, is a law if it is not enforced? You can say that Jane was stupid, you can call her a bigot, you can say that the story sucks and I made it up and you hate it. What you cannot say is that that law was not the efficient cause of Jane's death. Paying the fine would have been compliance with the law, since that is the stipulated statutory consequence of a violation. Closing down her business would have been compliance with the law, since that was the only option offered her by the state agents in their effort to compel compliance. Yielding her physical body to the police would have been compliance with the law, since enforcing that law was the only reason they were there in the first place. Obviously, death is excessive punishment for refusing to do business with people on then basis of their name. Since the only options available to one to whom any given law is applied are comply(at some point) or die, LAW SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR TRIVIAL THINGS!
Law has to be used for both large, and trivial things. Without such people will simply cause conflict, more often than with it. Also, there are other options than death. Including imprisonment.
How trivial of a thing must law be used for, in your opinion? Should raising one's middle finger to another be criminalized? What about giving a dirty look? How, exactly, does a law requiring one person to serve another reduce conflict? Either you didn't read the OP, or you don't understand what you read. All legal mandates are to be enforced. One will either submit to the mandate before the point of enforcement, during enforcement, or never. Because the mandate is a prerequisite of its enforcement, submitting to enforcement of the mandate is submission to the mandate. Submitting to imprisonment is submission to whatever mandate stipulated imprisonment for its violation. The ultimate consequence of not submitting to a legal mandate at any point is always death.
No, death is not the only consequence. There is also imprisonment. Are you trying to suggest that if you eventually grow old and die in prison that you died fur not obeying the law? What are you getting at? Are you denying there are alternative punishments to crime than death?
Do you even read, or do you just see a post and start responding with whatever random thoughts enter your mind at the time?
It said all law is a "death threat", it did not say that the only consequence was death. Your interpretation is interesting, but belongs to you alone, not him.
If for some strange reason that it made it through both legislative house, and was not vetoed by the President, then I think that someone would challenge it in the courts. I believe that it would be ruled, as it should be, unconstitutional. But I could only see that happening in some liberal state like California.
Let's say that the SCOTUS declared it Constitutional. Then what? Is the law legitimate? [/quote] Sure, that sort of forced service would be the favorite among authoritarian liberals. Authoritarian conservatives, however, are rarely against conscription when it suits their agenda. Both "sides" exalt the state.
If a bill is passed by both houses, is signed into law by the President, and there either is no court challenge or is ruled Constitutional by the SCOTUS, then yes it is legitimate. Now, if you want to see what life is like without laws, then I suggest that you take a trip to Somalia sometime. I can guarantee that you won't like it. You think a law is a death threat, wait until you see a society without any laws. Your life expectancy is much shorter. BTW, it is not the law itself that is the death threat. It is someone deciding that they are above the law that is the threat. In the OP you stated that Jane was a homeowner. Therefore we are not talking about a child setting up a lemonade stand to supplement her allowance. Your talking about a full grown woman running a business on her front lawn. So, she has to have passed the zoning criteria, and met the Health Code standards. She also would have obtained business license. Having done all that for a stand in her front yard seems well pretty dumb. It becomes completely absurd when it is interjected that Jane is refusing to sell lemonade to Dick solely because she did not like his name. Who would go to the extremes of meeting all the criteria of setting up a business to turn away customers based on a name. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that if Dick called the police because Jane refused to see him some lemonade, they would arrest Dick not Jane. The situation described in the OP is a civil matter. Not a criminal matter, and not a matter for the police. So, the whole thing is just proof that some people have too much time on their hands, and want to create a philosophical discourse when they obviously have never even taken a civics lesson.
He didn't write the OP. If it does get through all the "checks"(Judges appointed by one of two parties, a president and congress nominated by at least one of the same two parties) and "balances"(at least one of the two parties wants it), then what? Does it become just at that point? Is its obedience then worth threats against the lives of all to whom it may apply?
See, you have things wrong. It is not that the question makes me uncomfortable. It is that the asking of the question shows that the asker failed to educate themselves on our system of government. Further, the question was asked in response to a comment that was made in jest in response to a really dumb OP. The topic of the OP is in support of anarchy. If you believe in anarchy then I suggest you take a trip where anarchy rules. I have been to Somalia. In 92, we would transport food out to the starving villages. Then return to port for a dinner of steak and lobster. Those villages were not starving because there was a lack of food in the country. They were starving because of there was no central government. The different regions were ruled by various warlords. I asked one of the warlords why they were attempting to block the aide to one of the villages. He told me that a starving people are easier to control. That is what happens when you have no laws. To borrow from Genesis: In the beginning, July 4, 1776, the Founding Fathers declared their Independence thus creating a state. But the State was without form and void. The Founding Fathers then stated, "Let there be Government". And the US Constitution framed that form of government. Since then all laws have come from that government. I return you to Somalia as a case in point. The state existed, but when the central government failed, all laws went with it. They were replaced by warlord rule. So, I completely disagree with you on this point. While the state might establish some framework for the government, all laws come from, and are enforced by the government. My bad. I actually caught that before I posted, but forgot to change it. In actuality, the bakers will sell a cake to anyone. They only restrict those that will be used in a ceremony that their religion considers religious in nature, and even then only those that are clearly engaging in activities that are not allowed by their religion. The First Amendment of the Constitution gives them the right. If you equate our country's to those of North Korea, then you really are completely delusional. My statement about Somalia was not cliché. It was based on your comments, and your lack of understanding. So, then only response that you have come up with is complete stupidity.
Read the last part of the OP, you clearly didnt. It says you either comply or die. And i quote "Since the only options available to one to whom any given law is applied are comply(at some point) or die, LAW SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR TRIVIAL THINGS!". Pay attention please. You are the problem with America, uniformed people thinking their ignorance counts as much as someone elses knowledge.
His interpretation of what I wrote is correct. Yours is wrong. I know because I'm the one who wrote it. His reading comprehension skills are sharp. Yours are deficient. Any lack of knowledge or problem with America is coming from your end.
What you said required no interpretation. It was a direct statement, which was completely incorrect. Work on your ability to portray your thoughts better, as well as your critical thinking. THe problem here is with you.
