Let’s Enforce The Law

Print Friendly

If it’s really wrong – ethically indefensible – to “speed,” then why not enforce speed limits to the letter? The law doesn’t spot shoplifters one pocketful of stolen stuff before action is taken. If you only pay some of the taxes you’re told you owe, they won’t overlook it. So how come we’re tacitly given license – most of the time – to ignore the speed limit, up to a certain point? Cops will sometimes openly say they won’t hassle us so long as we’re not traveling more than “x” MPH over the speed limit.oinky lead

It’s bizarre – if you take the position that the speed limit is not merely a number on a sign but quite literally the absolute maximum speed any driver may achieve before he puts himself and others in mortal peril. This, of course, is exactly the position taken by the cops – the same ones who “spot” us 5-10 MPH over the speed limit – when they decide it’s time to enforce the speed limit. At least, this is what they’ll tell you in court – and so will the judge. They’ll never tell you it’s ok to “speed”   – even a  little – and even though they do so themselves and know it. Appearances must be maintained.

But actions speak otherwise.

Everyone – almost – drives at least a few MPH over the posted lawful maximum as a matter of routine. In other words, almost everyone “speeds.” This strongly hints at the truth of the matter: That “speeding” – while certainly illegal – is not unethical. It’s not a violation of natural law to drive 45 in a 35 zone. Taking someone else’s property, hitting them over the head – those are always wrong. Violations of natural law. The system doesn’t “spot” offenders against natural law – or “cut them slack” – at least, not in theory. If you steal, you’re a thief and if a cop is around, he’ll bust you. Few would argue with the propriety of the cop’s actions. In fact, most of us would expect – would demand – merciless treatment of thieves and other offenders against natural law.oinky 2

Yet most of us sympathize with “speeders” – and are glad when we “get away” with doing so. When we “talk our way out of it,” or finagle some way to game the system so that the charge is dropped or reduced.

Unless we’re talking Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his literally starving to death children, few among us sympathize with thieves. Only a sociopath feels glad when he “gets away” with stealing or harming someone else. Normal people feel shame when they do wrong. Are disgusted when a thief games the system – and the ethically justified charges against him are dropped or reduced.

So, why not cut the crap?

Either “speeding” is ethically wrong – or it is another in a long litany of victimless crimes manufactured by statute but without any ethical basis.

If it is always and necessarily a violation of other people’s rights for any person to drive faster than “x” MPH as established by bureaucrats and politicians – then enforcement ought to be merciless. Every identified incident of “speeding” ought to be regarded in the same way as every instance of theft or assault.oinky 1

But then, most people would not like that. Because not only do they “speed” – they know in their hearts if not always their minds that it’s not always and necessarily a violation of other people’s rights to drive faster than “x” MPH as established by bureaucrats and politicians – and enforced at whim (selectively, arbitrarily) by cops and courts. They know, in other words, that “speeding” is in its essence a victimless crime manufactured by statute and without any ethical basis. The lack of outrage about those who commit this “offense” (and other victimless “crimes”) as a matter of routine ought to serve as a kind of ethical compass, yet few people stop to think about it much – and worse, go along with the victimization of people who’ve committed no crime.

Because if it’s not always and necessarily wrong – ethically indefensible – to “speed,” then it’s  exactly that (ethically indefensible) to arrest/cage/fine people who have committed no wrong.onky 4

And ought not to be tolerated.

Probably, it wouldn’t be tolerated – if people thought about it critically instead of accepting it supinely.

In terms of law – of cops and courts – the absence of a victim ought to be sufficient grounds for the vitiation of any charges leveled against a person. Not just for manufactured “offenses” such as driving faster than “x” MPH, either.

For everything.

It’s a tough climb, intellectually – precisely because the system has crippled the intellectual capability of so many millions of people such that they react and regurgitate rather than ponder, analyze – and conclude. At one time, not all that long ago, a working majority accepted the idea that people could be the lawful property of other people – and that it was an “offense” to aid/abet a person seeking to escape oink last2involuntary servitude. Closer in time, it was “the law” that brewing/consuming/selling alcohol was an “offense” against “the law.” That one didn’t last long – precisely because too many innocent victims were too obviously abused. Just as the 55 MPH speed limit was eventually done away with – for the same reason.

Why not go all the way – and get rid of all victimless crimes? Then we could go back to feeling good about prosecuting and punishing people who deserve it (people who harm other people) and even better about leaving those who don’t alone.

Throw it in the Woods?

 

Share Button

  135 comments for “Let’s Enforce The Law

  1. Ed
    February 11, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Ha! I’ve got a better idea. Let’s DON’T enforce the law and just say we did. Genius idea, eh?

    • February 11, 2013 at 2:20 pm

      I think I understand where you’re headed – and more or less agree.

      Natural law is the only real law. And any law that goes against natural law is unjust law.

      The practical problem is not everyone clearly understands what is meant, so there may be a need for codified natural law, if only to make it clear what is meant by “theft” (and so on) and to establish equitable (objective) ways of dealing with those who transgress these natural laws.

      But in all cases, a victim must be produced when it is asserted a crime has been committed.

      • Don Cooper
        February 11, 2013 at 3:15 pm

        I think any codification leads to abuse of that code.

        I don’t see it as being so difficult.

        There’s no need for society to be organized into large political entities. Communities should be resonsible for themselves: infrastructure, security and justice.

        Even a community doesn’t need laws just a justice mechanism be it insurance, arbitrators, contracts or even ostracization.

        Every home in the community can participate in as much or as little as they choose and bear the costs and benefits of their decisions.

        Say someone breaks into my house and I can prove who it is and others in the community agree. What to do now? We as a community can agree that he has to give my stuff back or the equivalent in cash but we cannot force him to do so. So what if he says “piss off” and doesn’t pay up?

        Well, first of all I can insurance to cover such theft and secondly that person will no longer have the support of the community in any way. He’ll either live a marginalized existence or eventually move out and now that we know we have a crook amongst us, we can take measures to better protect ourselves and our homes.

        If communities are not moral and civil enough to live like this than creating a gov’t to “force” them to live civily ( oxymoronic ) will not solve the problem. The problem is the social mentality of the people.

      • Tor Munkov
        February 11, 2013 at 3:38 pm

        “Signs and Symbols Rule the world, not rules and law” – Confucius.

        It seems these 26 Roman Alphabet letters needn’t behave the way we let them behave. Only through shared childhood “monarch trauma” have we all come to hear voices in our head when we encounter groups of these letters and submissively regurgitate the chosen “words” and “phrases” of the gods of the copybook headings’ hidden ideology.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          February 11, 2013 at 4:56 pm

          Dang Munkov, If you headed a male group that played percussion instruments, would you call it THE PHALLIC CYMBALS.

          • Tor Munkov
            February 11, 2013 at 5:37 pm

            Hah! Long ago, Male Japanese were taught the full Kanji pictures, while females were only taught easier hiragana symbols – which were only pieces of the “true” complex Kanji picture symbols.

            Likewise, Roman letters are simplified more accessible sound representatives of the original ancient oral languages.

            Thus English was “feminized” and “subjugated” when reduced into mere Roman letters. (And by the many other conquering occupiers of the island)

            Actual wheel > pictogram of wheel > the English word “wheel” or German word “Rad” or Dutch word “wiel”

            Written Japanese

            “The Chinese and Koreans who journeyed to Japan introduced a form of writing that used Han Period (206 BC – 220 AD) characters. This square printed writing style, was a prototype of today’s modern Kanji, and was established around 200 AD, using upwards of 50,000 characters.

            The Buddhist priest Kûkai (774 – 835) invented Hiragana as a simplification of this phonetic Kanji. This cursive script offered a simplified version of the entire Kanji. At the time, Japanese women were considered incapable of learning to write the complex Chinese characters.

            The introduction of Hiragana enabled women to finally express themselves in writing.

            http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Jta/Jp/JpLAN1.htm

            The Kanji of the concept “east”
            http://japanese.about.com/library/blkow29.htm

            The Hiragana of the 4 compass points
            http://japanese.about.com/blhirareview2.htm

            _ _ _ _

            Our Holy Roman subjugation includes using the Holy Roman alphabet of Rome as well as the Papist Christian aspects of our language.

            Islamic submission includes subjugation into using a version of “Arabic Script.”

          • Tinsley Grey Sammons
            February 11, 2013 at 10:02 pm

            Munkov, After becoming acquainted with some Nichiren Buddhists I became fascinated with Japanese more than thirty-five years ago. To this day I don’t know how they manage to learn their own language. I’ve seen it referred to as the Devil’s own tongue but that likely originated with Portugese Priests some of whom managed to become fluent. Or maybe I plucked it from Clavell’s SHOGUN.

            TGSAM

        • skunkbear
          February 13, 2013 at 2:38 am

          Tor, but could it not also be argued that what makes the English language superior is that it has the ability to be more specific than most other languages (disregarding of course the incoherent spelling rules)?

          Or does such specificity also limit the varied thoughts meant to be conveyed by the symbol(s)?

          I already have way too many intellectual irons in the fire but the understanding of the meaning of symbols and rituals is working its way up into my studies.

          • Tor Munkov
            February 13, 2013 at 11:44 am

            English tries to be all things to everyone, quite servile & accommodating. Unlike Spanish or French, it is perfectly happy being contradictory and inconsistent.

            - – - -

            Elon Musk

            1 Fled South Africa for Canada to avoid mandatory military stint “subjugating blacks.” Perhaps he will yet awaken to how public rockets & cars involve a type of subjugation and theft of individuals’ savings.

            2 In the Iron Man movies, Elon was Jon Favreau’s inspiration. He’s not living up to the hype of an iconoclast. Instead he is a suckup to George Clooney, Larry Page, Diane Feinstein, and all manner of public leaches.

            - – -
            Diane Feinstein’s Nasty Ass on a Tesla
            http://www.hewittphotography.com/tesla-motors/elon-musk-and-senator-dianne-feinstein-at-the-opening-ceremony-of-the-tesla-fremont-factory-s_401.jpg

            3 Elon is suing BBC for one of its reviews & and is about to release the data capture of the NYT test drive (he didn’t tell them it was activated). Kind of a statist creep move, he should never have dealt with these statist creep media whores in the first place.
            - – -

            4 His most promising idea is the hyperloop. A good idea if built for some type of private transport, and not as another public boondoggle. He proposes it as an alternative to California High Speed Rail, hasn’t he learned these grandiose public schemes are only wealth transfer projects and never result in real advances.

            Elon to propose a modified Lofstrom Loop that goes from A to B on Earth rather than going orbital.
            http://launchloop.com/slides/launchloop.pdf

            Elon’s promised Hyperloop paper is past its deadline while he “checks the math.”

          • February 13, 2013 at 1:17 pm

            I’m not up to speed on Musk’s background, but I’m assuming he’s a computer/gadget guy – not a mechanical guy. He figured out PayPal – but that doesn’t mean he understands cars. I suspect he misunderstands them. Or rather, he sees them through the eyes of a really rich guy who thinks electric cars are “neat” – which they are – but cannot see that “neat” doesn’t mean “makes sense.”

            I think Saturn V F1 rocket motors are neat.

            If I were a billionaire, I’d maybe indulge in having one installed on a test platform in my yard so I could hear/see/smell/feel the thing fire up every Friday night at around 10 p..m. just for the shits and giggles.

            But I know enough about mechanical things – and economic things – to know that an F1 motor is not the ticket for passenger car propulsion and would never make the mistake (and commit the ethical offense) of stealing other people’s money to finance my Dream Car powered by Saturn V F1 motors!

      • Ed
        February 12, 2013 at 1:08 am

        “But in all cases, a victim must be produced when it is asserted a crime has been committed.”

        Yes. Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables” details the end result of niggling enforcement of laws against non-crimes. Jean Valjean had served 19 years at hard labor for theft of food. He was released on parole, but he hung it up as we say these days, meaning he ditched supervision in one town and went to another where he got a job, then later bought the factory where he worked.

        As a factory owner he became a benefactor to his fellow man, but was hounded by a cop who recognized him as a parole violator. No one was victimized by his refusing to serve out the terms of parole, but he still had to flee.

        One of the early Virginians, John Tyler, I think, said that a law against behavior which produces no victim isn’t properly a law, it’s a money trap for government. That seems to be true for traffic offenses, generally as well as for laws against drug use, or any other of the so-called ‘vice’ laws. Vices harm only the person engaging in the vice, and so are different from actual crimes, which cause harm to another.

        Besides producing revenues for the state in the form of fines, it grants the state functionaries control over others. I think that they want control more than money, because they mistakenly see control as power.

      • Olaf Koenders
        February 12, 2013 at 1:09 am

        If they want to ignore or trample your 2nd amendment rights by banning “high powered” (whatever that means when it comes to the physics of flying lead projectiles at 1000ft/sec anyway) rifles etc, let them try to stop this:

        • dom
          February 12, 2013 at 1:40 am

          Excellent! Absolutely great video clip!

        • BrentP
          February 12, 2013 at 7:42 am

          It won’t stop shortages. rapid prototyping isn’t as fast as manufacturing from stamping tools, etc. The only difference is many people with the machines can do it.

          SLA decays pretty rapidly and is generally fairly brittle. FDM or SLS would be better choices. For tough real-world use I prefer SLS and the resins available for it.

          FDM can be done in real plastics but they tend to be weak. Those parts look more like FDM than SLA, maybe SLS. He says SLA but a lot of people use ‘SLA’ generically.

          • BrentP
            February 12, 2013 at 7:47 am

            the close up of the magazine at ~13:00 really looks like SLS.

      • embree smith
        February 12, 2013 at 2:04 pm

        You are thinking ” Court of Record ” here
        Courts of Inferior Jurisdiction, i.e. Administrative Courts, i.e. ” Traffic ” Court –
        Only look to violations of Statute

        and off to be sheared you go

      • rEVOLutionary
        February 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm

        Did you ever notice on TV that the District Attorney, or other prosecutor, always claims to be representing either “The People” or “The State.”
        Except for treason, I cannot think of any crime where “the State” would be the victim. Nor are “The People” ever the victim(s). There is a person, or multiple people, who are victims, but never “the People” as a whole. We need to do away with government courts and make all cases civil, where the victim (or his heirs, in the case of murder) brings suit against the perpetrator, in search of restitution.
        The prison system, which does no one any benefit except those employed there, and, in the case of ‘privatized’ locations, the owners, should disappear.
        Oh, wait! That’s the system the Bible calls for!

      • El Gordo
        February 12, 2013 at 11:40 pm

        But Eric!

        Victimless crimes are absolutely necessary!

        (…To habituate people to submission to unlimited arbitrary power.)

      • YoOleMe
        September 15, 2013 at 2:41 am

        In re: “Natural law is the only real law. And any law that goes against natural law is unjust law. “… The more apropos statement is:

        Natural law is the only real law and the only law that applies to the living soul people. And any “law” that goes against natural law is, by definition, “Equity” rule & regulation of CONTRACT, which cannot vitiate natural law and can only apply to the fictitious “PERSON” a living soul people has created, WITHOUT his/her natural law rights, to accommodate the particular terms within the 4-cornors of said CONTRACT.

        Within this context, our principal problem lies with our (elitist engineered) ignorance of Jural society vs. Civil society concepts, whereby; our original pre-1776 Declaration (and subsequent, till 1861) jural society state governance, functioned primarily at the county level, with law that was jurisprudence regulated within the petit & grand jury confines of our sovereign state peers. …

        Whatever the net result of the 1861~1865 blood-bath in this nation’s history — emancipation FREED NO ONE!!! IT SIMPLY TRANSFERRED SLAVE CHATTEL from the Southern plantation owner, to the D.C. Federal Plantation (READ the 13th & 14th defacto amendments CAREFULLY!!!): but its conversion of that Jural society state governance, with its Law/Equity venues & jurisdictions under petit & grand jury peer review, into this Roman Ecclesiastical Civil law, with its Admiralty/Maritime venue & jurisdiction, enforcing its subversive usurpation of rights under adhesion contract jurisprudence, was the bane of this nation’s uniquely created existence within Mankind’s history!!! … Albeit: IT IS STILL RECOVERABLE!!!

        IF ANY ONE IS STILL READING HERE: READ THIS:
        http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin260.htm AND ACT ACCORDINGLY!!!!

  2. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    February 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm

    Re: Routine slack cutting concerning speed limits.

    If it’s really wrong – ethically indefensible – to “speed,” then why not enforce speed limits to the letter? -Eric Peters

    Simply because cutting a little slack avoids time and resource consuming challenges. De facto revenue collectors make their lives easier – and therefore even more profitable – by avoiding challenges.

    The cop gave me a break.

    Sure he did. And the armed street thug stopped short of killing you and only took your money.

    As fines have increased far out of proportion to the seriousness of statutory “offenses” few Citizens see government for the organized legal extortion apparatus that it actually is. So, the plundering by law will continue to worsen until those of us outside the Establishment Curtain become sufficiently incensed to take corrective action.

    Establishment Curtain is my take on the Iron Curtain of yesteryear. An interesting read is, THE NEW CLASS by Milovan Djilas. Methinks a “new class” evolved in America during the twentieth Century. It happened so gradually that even most of the beneficiaries still have not recognized it for the extortion racket what it actually is.

    Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

    • liberranter
      February 11, 2013 at 9:20 pm

      Establishment Curtain is my take on the Iron Curtain of yesteryear.

      I actually prefer “The Red, White, and Blue Curtain” myself. It sends reich-wing war-worshiping pseudo-patriot types into a lathering frenzy of rage.

    • RB
      February 12, 2013 at 7:08 pm

      My former boss’s wife was a captain in the state highway patrol. She told me very clearly why they don’t tend to stop a highway speeder doing less than 10-15 miles over the limit – THERE’S NO MONEY IN IT! It takes just as much time and effort to fill out the paperwork from a $50 fine as a $300 fine, so they target the high speeders vs. the 5-10 mph group.

      Bottom line? It’s about revenue, not safety.

  3. BC Dad
    February 11, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    You think speed laws turning people into criminals is bad? Why not take a look at what happens to fathers in family court.
    To wit; loss of kids, possessions, assets, income, passport and freedom (yes, felony prison sentences without wrong-doing, charge or trial) is standard fare.
    Few people seem to recognize that the abuse of citizens who have done no wrong has been building for a long time, and traffic laws are in fact the benign tip of the iceberg.

    • Tor Munkov
      February 11, 2013 at 5:42 pm

      “Luke, I am your fodder”

      fod·der
      /ˈfädər/
      Noun
      Food, esp. dried hay or feed, for cattle and other livestock.
      Synonyms
      forage – feed – provender

      They encourage our kids to be “Fine Young Cannibals”
      Be a good little boy, and finish eating your Fodder.

      Good Thing – Fine Young Cannibals

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      February 11, 2013 at 7:34 pm

      “You think speed laws turning people into criminals is bad?”

      Yes, I do. And I think the laws supporting the unconstitutional Drug War are even worse.

      tgsam

  4. February 11, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    “… few among us sympathize with thieves. Only a sociopath feels glad when he “gets away” with stealing or harming someone else.”

    Not true in the least. I’d venture to say that a great many people either sympathize with the swarms of thieves all around them, or at least don’t actively resist them… the difference is that the thieves are called “government” in some fashion. If they call the theft “taxes” or “fees,” etc. then it is inconvenient and sometimes personally painful, but they don’t usually see it as the outright theft it really is.

    Same with all sorts of murder, torture, even rape and the absolute destruction of property and cultures… as long as it is done by that same government, with whatever excuse of the day people will buy. All that is needed is to paint a picture of entitlement, and suggest vague “threats” from the target victims. Then the yellow ribbons come out to welcome home the “victors.”

    And now that murder, torture, rape and destruction is increasingly being brought to our own towns and highways by that same government… people are actually starting to notice.

    I wonder how much longer it can go on… and how many will decide to ignore the laws against murder, etc. in the same way they now ignore the bogus speed limits. Could happen…

    • liberranter
      February 11, 2013 at 5:44 pm

      Not true in the least. I’d venture to say that a great many people either sympathize with the swarms of thieves all around them, or at least don’t actively resist them…

      Exactly. Clifford and Clara Clover are all too happy to take their cut of the state’s loot at someone else’s expense (and, in my wide-ranging experience, the older or more tightly tethered to the State professionally these two are, the more vociferously they defend their “right” to plunder their fellow citizens’ wallets). It’s only when they find themselves on the receiving end of Their Almighty Earthly Provider’s wrath, or when they get stuck with a bill for someone’s elses goodies (through higher taxes) that they start to complain. They never complain about the system itself, mind you. Just the fact that it happens to be screwing THEM over at the moment (“I’m a /veteran/senior citizen/teacher/cop/[insert other parasite class here].” I shouldn’t have to pay for this!”)

      • February 11, 2013 at 5:52 pm

        Mama & Lib,

        You guys know I know that; I was just trying to make a point!

        • February 11, 2013 at 6:22 pm

          I know you know that… :)

          It’s a reflex response… I can’t help it.

          Then again, some poor dumb idiot might wander in here who doesn’t know that. There are clovers all over the place.

          And liberranter, many people like me have been working for liberty for at least 50 years, wanting no part of the welfare loot. There are people of all ages, in every walk of life who are perfectly happy to live off stolen goods, and fight tooth and nail to retain it.

          • February 11, 2013 at 7:08 pm

            No worries! And, you’re right in re the Clovers.

          • liberranter
            February 11, 2013 at 9:18 pm

            Mama:

            No offense meant. I didn’t mean to “broad brush” in referencing the “older” category of Clovers (especially not applicable to anyone who regularly visits here – and since I’m about to teach that age group myself). I was thinking more of people like my own parents, being reminded of the statement my late father (an practicing CPA for over 50 years, no less, as well as one of the original neocons) made several years ago when I brought up the fact that his beloved Social Security would soon vanish and be only a cherished memory: “That’s impossible! The government CAN’T go broke! Besides, they’ve promised us these entitlements and they’ll have hell to pay if they take them away!”

            I’m just glad that Cloverism isn’t hereditary.

  5. Shazaam
    February 11, 2013 at 4:51 pm

    Indeed.

    When you observe the normal flow of traffic, folks seem to naturally adjust to a safe and sane speed in inclement weather. Natural selection takes care of the outliers. i.e. the idiots always seem to be parked in a ditch somewhere as a rather direct lesson that they are not immune to the laws of physics. The cops just pick-off a few here and there as an exercise in roadside taxation to keep the cop-shop till topped-off.

    Selective enforcement is a better description. Friends and relatives of cops are never ticketed. Those who are not deferential enough are guaranteed a roadside taxation bill.

    It’s not just speed limits though. If, for some reason, you pop-up into “law-enforcement’s” undivided attention, you are just plain screwed-for-life.

    Aaron Shwartz had the misfortune to encounter a federal prosecutor looking to carve some more notches in her prosecutorial gun. Even though the so-called the “victim”, MIT, declined to file a complaint, the FBI and federales hounded Aaron mercilessly as they just wanted him to plead guilty to a “crime” so they could tally another “win”.

    Then in the news we have the 67 year old Amish minister Samuel Mullet, Sr. being sentenced to 15 years in prison for cutting a parishioner’s beard and shaving a bald spot (tonsure) as a religious punishment. The prosecutor was larding on additional charges including kidnapping and false imprisonment (they held the guy down) in attempt to forcefully coerce a plea bargain. The prosecutor was seeking a term of life imprisonment for the “hate crime” of beard cutting!!!

    Most people in this country have little contact with the Amish. And as such, it’s not a surprise that no one questioned who filed the complaint. The Amish “victims” would sooner kiss the devil than file a complaint with any government representative. And the prosecutor was obviously ignorant of the fact that an Amishman will never lie under oath and plead guilty to a non-crime if he felt he was guilty of no such “crime”. So the larding on of additional charges could not and would not coerce a plea bargain.

    Thus this travesty went to trial, and they sentenced him to 15 years in prison for a non-crime that involved his particular Amish sect’s religious practices. Hair grows back, the “victims” were not permanently harmed. However 15 years for a 67 year old man might indeed be the life sentence the federal prosecutor so earnestly desired.

    The Amish are very good at staying silent and that was likely interpreted by the federales as contempt for their authoratah. I would speculate that the interrogation room intimidation drill was pretty intense. Nothing in their world (Amish community) could possibly prepare them for the reality of being browbeaten by FBI thugs for hours on end in a small interrogation cell. Maybe those ever-so-diligent FBI “investigators” should have sought a confession for masterminding 9-11 while they were at it.

    Hell, I know for a fact that the FBI was dropping investigations into real criminal complaints to concentrate their resources on chasing Amishmen with scissors…

    What a farce.

  6. liberranter
    February 11, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    Why not go all the way – and get rid of all victimless crimes? Then we could go back to feeling good about prosecuting and punishing people who deserve it (people who harm other people) and even better about leaving those who don’t alone.

    First of all, to eliminate positivist law and all the sanctions that have evolved around it would mean shutting down entire statist institutions that have been created to enforce those sanctions – and which employ millions of otherwise useless speed bumps-with-pulses who would be unable to find gainful private sector employment.

    Second, and on a more serious note, even if positivist law and all of its accompanying institutions were to be done away with in an ideal world, prosecution of actual crimes against the natural law (i.e., crimes with an actual victim) could only be prosecuted through voluntary means (i.e., through non-governmental means). It has been proved repeatedly over the last several centuries that the institutional coercive entity know as The State cannot dispense justice. Prosecution and punishment of crimes would have to be the province of some aspect of the private sector.

    • methylamine
      February 12, 2013 at 4:27 am

      which employ millions of otherwise useless speed bumps-with-pulses who would be unable to find gainful private sector employment.

      Exactly…of course, using a loose interpretation of the word “employee”.

      Yes, they’d be jobless; but even if they landed squarely on the welfare rolls, they’d STILL cost less there than they do in their lard-assed current positions. There, they cost us their inflated salaries, their grotesque pensions, and their interference in productive life. On welfare their “salary” would be halved at least, no more pension, and they’d be out of the way.

      In fact perhaps we should start a program of buying them out; a one-time severance payout to leave government “service” forever. Most of them are so delusional about their abilities they’d think they’d be employed immediately in the private sector.

      I don’t know if you guys are following the fedgov union’s wage negotiations; listening to these gibbering jabba-the-hutts bellowing about their inadequate pay raises is rich, indeed.

      • Myles
        February 12, 2013 at 5:59 pm

        Don’t you find it odd that government employees are unionized? I could never get my mind around that one.

        • liberranter
          February 12, 2013 at 6:21 pm

          That this was ever have been allowed to occur in the first place has me thinking that it was a small, deliberate step in implementing the tyranny-by-bureaucracy under which we now live.

        • rEVOLutionary
          February 12, 2013 at 6:24 pm

          Yes, on one hand the leftists claim that unions are necessary to protect employees from corporate bullies. Then on the other hand, they claim that the gunverment is here to protect us. So why do those employed by (I won’t say working for) the gunverment that ‘protects’ us need protection from it?

          • Myles
            February 12, 2013 at 7:07 pm

            Precisely. They can’t have it both ways.

        • BrentP
          February 12, 2013 at 7:18 pm

          Government employee unions are huge hypocrisy with statists. The government is supposed to look out for the little guy yet is such an evil that its employees must be unionized to protect them from it.

          • Douglas
            February 12, 2013 at 7:55 pm

            Just as the (former) personal staffers of any rich liberal bitch like Babs or Marlo Thomas (Mrs. Phil Donohue). Ever wonder WHY these folks have to sign a non-disclosure and arbitration agreement? Virtually all these limosine liberals treat their minions wore than ever the late Leona Helmsley (aka “Queen of Mean”) ever dreamed of.

  7. Ross Nelson
    February 12, 2013 at 12:13 am

    Actually, the fact that cops don’t strictly enforce speed limit laws is encouraging. If enough people enough of the time ignore a given law, cops find it nearly impossible to enforce. This could be happening with state marijuana laws and maybe with any future gun restrictions.

    • February 12, 2013 at 12:28 am

      Hi Ross,

      That’s true –

      It helped de-legitimize the 55 MPH NMSL.

      Now it’s just a question of getting enough people to see the broader principle.

      • BrentP
        February 12, 2013 at 12:35 am

        The NMSL speed limit did not collapse because people did not obey it alone. The NMSL is still the law in some states, including the one I live in. Statistically nobody obeys it. Getting on 20 years after repeal it is still with us, unchanged since the 65mph patch of the 1980s.

        Yes, more than a decade into the 21st century, IL speed limits are lower than they were when Ike was in office. Probably lower than when FDR was in office.

        The NMSL collapsed because it was a federal law blackmailing highway funds. Every year states had to do a BS calculation showing compliance. Nobody ever complied. It was such a useless exercise of lies the federal government finally dropped it. After all it didn’t get cut of the revenue. So the entity that got the least out of it let the entities that got the most out of it set the number on the sign.

        That’s it. More criminal governments kept everything the same, less criminal ones let up a bit.

      • Olaf Koenders
        February 12, 2013 at 10:43 am

        Here are some pages that everyone should read until they understand them. They cover how the fact you didn’t understand (were lied to) that getting a driver’s licence signed away your Constitutional Rights of free and unencumbered travel on public roads, including forced registration, insurance etc. It also allowed the State’s police to enforce pretty much whatever statute they want upon you:

        http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml

        Similar but a bit more for the layman:

        http://www.soveriegn.freeservers.com/bulletin.htm

        The bottom of that last page has some interesting links that should be followed up as well.

        Do not despair though, the “licence” you signed up for, although considered a “contract”, is null and void as a contract because it was made with dishonesty.

  8. BrentP
    February 12, 2013 at 12:15 am

    Making sense of law and its enforcement is often difficult when trying to reason it out from the whys and what fors. I think that’s because it can’t be reasoned out that way.

    Law and its enforcement makes sense when viewed from a perspective of power. Even the most stupid laws make perfect sense when viewed from how they benefit the so called power elite and sometimes just plain ol’ Boss Hogg.

    Speed limits are not about safety. Sure for some people they are and that is how they are sold to people, but without the real purposes they wouldn’t exist.

    Proper engineering practice is to set a speed limit at the 85th percentile of free flowing traffic unless there is some hidden hazard etc that the lower speed limit can serve as a warning for. The thing about the 85th percentile method is that the speed distribution hardly shifts upward if there were no speed limit at all. So a proper speed limit has no use but to serve as a warning of road conditions ahead, a function that has been all but destroyed because of so many underposted speed limits.

    So what are speed limits for?
    How are they used?
    1) To stop anyone at anytime. (A driver is either speeding or suspicious)
    2) For revenue.

    Power and money for those who are in, close to, and operate government. The way the laws end up to serve that is based upon how people can be manipulated to consent to it.

  9. dom
    February 12, 2013 at 1:02 am

    “Why not go all the way – and get rid of all victimless crimes?”

    There’s too much money to be made enforcing them!

    • liberranter
      February 12, 2013 at 5:11 am

      “Why not go all the way – and get rid of all victimless crimes?”

      There’s too much money to be made enforcing them!

      Exactly. One of our goals should be to force TPTB to admit this truth.

    • Michael Price
      February 12, 2013 at 10:35 pm

      Or rather it is too good an excuse to take money. Our masters, sorry I mean Representatives, could just as easily raise our taxes to take the money. It would be cheaper, thus allowing them to spend more of the money on useless aircraft carriers, bank bailouts, and other stuff they like. But of course they lack the excuse to do this, although they’re working on it.

  10. Brandonjin
    February 12, 2013 at 1:11 am

    When debating this with someone, they will say that the recklessness of going over ‘x’ mph increases the risk of killing someone, a violation of natural law, and the offender therefore warrants punishment.

    What is a good way to respond to this? Thanks

    • Peter M. Gruhn
      February 12, 2013 at 6:59 am

      Is that per trip or per incident or what? If per incident am I allowed to multiply that by my miles per incident history? That is the increase, but over what base? Do you, in short, actually have even the slightest understand of what you are talking about?

      What specific wrong has the speeder done to whom?

      What other potential, yet non-existent harms do you propose punishing people for? How do you draw the line between punishable non-wrongings and non-punishable non-wrongings? Is your arbitrary selection of that line available for consideration as a punishable non-wronging? I mean think of the children you could save by setting the bar even lower you heartless beast! Indeed, doesn’t driving at all grossly increase the likelihood for most of us thy we will kill someone. In far greater proportion than does the relatively minor difference in speed options once we commit to the vehicle in the first place? In short, do you have even the slightest idea about which you purport to talk and lecture me on?

      In that case we should raise the limit to 107 mph because then almost nobody would ever go x miles over the limit and we’d all be safe.

      Go away, fool.

      • February 12, 2013 at 10:45 am

        Hi Peter,

        Brandon’s a good kid – and was just asking a question – no need to call him a fool. Save that for the Clovers!

        • Peter M. Gruhn
          February 13, 2013 at 7:39 am

          Hi Eric,

          Maybe I should have put quotes around them all. It was an answer to his question, not a comment to him. Sorry, guys.

    • BrentP
      February 12, 2013 at 7:58 am

      ‘risk’ allows the state total power. It’s not an actual act it’s an opinion. Everything has a risk and the government socializes so much that there ‘other person’ becomes part of every decision. It’s a gateway to total power.

      Sure most people will say ‘reasonable’ or something, but it’s still their opinion. It’s not a real act.

    • Olaf Koenders
      February 12, 2013 at 9:18 am

      @Brandonjin

      There’s nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it’s carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it’s as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.

      It’s the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)

      “The automobile is not inherently dangerous.” Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532

      When debating whether “x” MPH is more dangerous or risky than Y, it’s the manner in which any speed is controlled. Ask them if their beloved speedo has ever foretold them of impending doom.

      Ask them if staring at the dashboard at any time is somehow safer than ignoring it altogether. I could watch my oil light all day and be just as unsafe as if I was watching my speedo, irrespective of speed.

      Speed is always a “factor” in crashes, but only a “cause” in around 3% of crashes, not the 30% that the authoritais proclaim. After all, parked cars don’t crash.

    • February 12, 2013 at 10:30 am

      Hi Brandon,

      “When debating this with someone, they will say that the recklessness of going over ‘x’ mph increases the risk of killing someone, a violation of natural law, and the offender therefore warrants punishment.”

      This is an example of prior restraint – a vicious doctrine that justifies controlling (and punishing) everyone before the fact – before any specific individual has actually done anything – because “someone” might cause harm. It’s the way the police state justifies the TSA: “Someone” might be a terrorist – so everyone gets treated as if they were in fact a terrorist.

      Prior restraint is a doctrine aimed at the heart of a free society in which individual rights are respected.

      Also, check your premises. Traveling over “x” MPH is nothing more than traveling over “X” MPH… it is not “reckless” – at least, not necessarily.

    • Ed
      February 12, 2013 at 11:41 am

      “What is a good way to respond to this? Thanks”

      My response to such a comment would likely be that there’s no natural law standard of recklessness, but the prohibition of prior restraint by government edict is grounded in natural law.

      If the person you’re debating comes up with that kind of nonsense, they’re grasping at straws and you have them on the ropes.

    • toldev
      February 12, 2013 at 11:53 am

      The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of speeders do not kill or injure people. Why not just punish those who actually do?

      • February 12, 2013 at 12:51 pm

        Exactly.

        But pre-crime is the new standard in the USSA.

    • Brandonjin
      February 13, 2013 at 1:32 am

      Thank you, everyone, for the replies and knowledge regarding the subjective words “reasonable” and “reckless”, manner in which speed is controlled, true objective of prior restraint, ect.

      And its good to know I have my opponent on the ropes, Ed. :)

      Eric, thanks for the defense. Not the first time I’ve been misunderstood :/

      • February 13, 2013 at 10:16 am

        You bet!

        New people sometimes make the error of going after regulars without taking the time to read the regular’s posts first.

    • Tre Deuce
      February 13, 2013 at 11:21 am

      Brandonjin: Speed limits are subjective and arbitrary.
      Is Oregon’s max 65MPH on the freeways safer then Washington’s 70MPH, Utah’s 80MPH, or Texas’s new 85MPH, and Germany’s ‘No Limit’*? Only empirical evidence will supply that answer.

      A few of the Western states use to have a ‘Basic Rule’ law for highways, and the posted MPH signs were advisory guide lines. Not so anymore, so exceeding the new ‘Speed Limits’ is a violation of the law, not necessarily a violation of common sense and reasonable driving practices.

      From the current Oregon Traffic code.

      Speed Regulations
      The speed at which you drive determines how much time you have to
      act or react and how long it takes to stop. The higher the speed you are traveling, the less time you have to spot hazards, judge the speed of other traffic, and react to conditions.

      The Basic Rule Law
      The basic rule states you must drive at a speed that is reasonable and cautious for existing conditions. The basic rule applies on all streets and highways at all times.

      To obey the basic rule, you need to think about your speed in relation to other traffic, pedestrians, bicycles, the surface and width of the road, hazards at intersections, weather, visibility, and any other conditions that could affect safety. Use posted speed signs to help you determine what is a reasonable and prudent speed for present conditions.
      If you drive at a speed that is unsafe for existing conditions in any area, at any time, even if you are driving slower than the speed limit, you are violating the basic rule. Speed Limits

      In addition to the basic rule, Oregon has maximum speed limits inside city limits, school zones, and on interstates. A speed limit is the maximum speed considered safe for the area under ideal driving conditions. You may be cited if you drive at a speed above those limits. Fines are higher and your driving privileges may be suspended if you drive more than 30 miles per hour over the speed limit or 100 miles per hour or greater.
      The following speeds are set in law for the specified areas, whether
      posted or not. They apply unless some other speed is posted. Speed signs may or may not have the word LIMIT on them.

      ‘The basic rule does not allow you to drive over the speed limit’.

      …………………………………………………………..

      ‘Speed limit’ and the last part, never used to be part of the code.

      By the way, I’m a habitual offender of speed laws… in corners, and in wide open spaces, but exceedingly cautious, in urban areas or situations that warrant it, just like the old ‘Basic rule’.

      *German autobahns have no general speed limit, but the advisory speed limit (Richtgeschwindigkeit) is 130 kilometres per hour (81 mph)… wiki

      • February 13, 2013 at 12:13 pm

        The fixation on speed (and only speed) is emblematic of the emoting that drives policy in this country.

        It’s of a piece with the emoting about guns – especially guns that have a certain appearance.

        An inept/careless driver operating at 40 MPH can be a greater hazard to himself and others than a skilled and attentive driver operating at twice that speed. Even on the same road.

        Just as a .22 magnum fired from a revolver can kill you just as dead as a 7.62×39 fired from an “assault rifle.” Indeed, if handled carelessly, a .22 revolver can be far more dangerous than the “assault rifle.” But emotions target the “assault rife.” Just as emotions roil over “speeders.”

        People are conditioned to think in collective terms – the tiresome “we” – rather than in terms of individuals. Thus we have collectivized policies that take no account of individuals but rather presume collective guilt. And which assume the lowest common denominator.

        In terms of guns, if one person commits a crime using an “assault rifle” then – according to the collective – everyone who owns (or wishes to own) such a gun must be presumed criminal as well. That no one can “handle” it.

        It’s the same as regards velocity.

        The speed laws are based (leaving aside the issue of revenue for the moment) on the lowest common denominator. A cop once told me so openly. It was said in the context of a question raised about what to do when one finds oneself stuck behind a senior driver operating significantly below not just the speed limit but the flow of traffic. As in, 25 in a 40. The cop stated, “we’ll all be old one day” and that we should be patient – and not attempt to pass.

        The law accommodates the least common denominator – and punishes anyone who rises above it and dares to assert it.

        Punishment does not correlate to harm done – or even plausibly threatened. It is enough merely to fail to abide by whatever collectivized, least-common-denominator edict is promulgated by the authorities.

        Most people accept this as reasonable and equitable- which only demonstrates that they have no conception of either.

        They’ll say to a cop who pulled them over: “I know I was speeding, officer…” as their preface to some hopefully exculpatory excuse that will soften the cop’s heart and result in him giving them a “break.”

        They almost never ask: “What harm have I caused?

        In court, it’s pointless (legally) to argue that one’s driving was faultless. It would not matter if you got the cop to agree with this, openly. Because your driving capabilities are not at issue. The only thing that’s on the table is: Were you in fact driving “x” MPH faster than the law says you may?

        • Tre Deuce
          February 13, 2013 at 6:43 pm

          Reg; ” lowest common denominator.” Yes! I wanted to include that, but that was edited as the comment was a bit long. It also applies to the ‘lowest common denominator’ of vehicles.

        • Badger
          February 14, 2013 at 2:21 am

          @Eric, who writes:

          “The law accommodates the least common denominator – and punishes anyone who rises above it and dares to assert it.”

          This is universally true and it extends well beyond the topic of driving. Taxing the rich is an example of the same behavior.

          But in the context of passing the old man, there needs to be some defense of the cop who advised patience; he was right to say you need patience, it isn’t always safe or even sane to pass an old duffer or somebody in an RV. This point is lost on the young, dumb and full of spit crowd.

          Yesterday I was trailering home three horses on a stretch of narrow, winding mountain road at around 7 pm when a fellow in a shiny new Mazda RX8 got behind me. There were no turnouts so I had no opportunity to let him by, but I was making a left turn off the main road in about a half mile so I didn’t sweat much. The loon decided to pass me on a blind corner.

          If he hadn’t gotten lucky his error in judgement might have cost the lives of myself and whoever was unfortunate enough to get into a head on collision with him at a combined speed of 90 miles an hour. Personally I’ve been there, done that and got the shirt so I have very little sympathy for morons who pull stunts like that. Given a chance, I’d take my turn drowning them at birth.

          Just my two cents.

          • Olaf Koenders
            February 14, 2013 at 4:08 am

            “If he hadn’t gotten lucky his error in judgement might have cost the lives of myself and whoever was unfortunate enough to get into a head on collision with him at a combined speed of 90 miles an hour.”

            The vast number of accidents/crashes are caused by errors in judgement. Most studies of actual causes discover it’s not travelling over an arbitrary limit, but simple incompetence. The main one being “failure to give way”. Second is usually “inattention”. “Excessive speed” being some 16th on the list of some 22 causative factors.

            It’s plainly obvious that if everyone drove like a clover, there’d be more crashes because clovers do exactly the right things to cause them on a REGULAR basis. Non-clovers can easily cause crashes through ignorance, but very rarely because they routinely push themselves, learn from their mistakes and know their limits.

            But, as Mythbusters have confirmed, a combined speed of 90MPH would cause no more impact damage than 45 to each car.

            Maybe that driver was being a fool as per your experiences, but through either his own judgement, experience, visibility or capability nothing went wrong.

            Whenever something’s happening around you that feels uncomfortable, be ready as it’s your best defence. When something DOES go wrong, you have the right to expect full force of the law to come down on the perpetrator if damage occurs.

          • February 14, 2013 at 11:46 am

            Hi Badger,

            “But in the context of passing the old man, there needs to be some defense of the cop who advised patience; he was right to say you need patience, it isn’t always safe or even sane to pass an old duffer or somebody in an RV.”

            Italics added.

            I think I qualified my statement in the same way. Of course it’s not always safe to pass. I would never advocate a blind pass or any other unsafe pass. But it’s not unsafe to pass just because it’s not legal to pass. I refuse to “just be patient” when I can clearly see there’s enough room/time for me to get around a Clover – double yellow or no double yellow.

            The cop stated one should just sit and stew – and I have no doubt that, had he seen a perfectly safe pass (no oncoming traffic, plenty of sight distance) but nonetheless illegal (double yellow) he’d go after the passer and do nothing about the Clover doing 27 in a 45.

            That’s what’s infuriating!

  11. methylamine
    February 12, 2013 at 4:34 am

    Tagged so I get email followups…

    • Tre Deuce
      February 13, 2013 at 6:45 pm

      Same here, thanks for the reminder, methylamine.

  12. Rex
    February 12, 2013 at 5:02 am

    Just to prove that speeding laws are nothing but revenue collection and not a public safety issue, I always point out that if it’s so wrong, why not make the penalties so onerous that no one would even consider doing it. For example, if you get caught exceeding the speed limit by even one mile an hour, regardless of what your speedometer says (which would encourage people to drive under the limit, just in case), you go to jail for five years, pay a $100,000 fine, have your car confiscated, and you never get a driver’s license again in your life – all this for endangering yourself and the publec. Would anyone, other than a desperate criminal, ever speed? I don’t think so. It’s racket.

    • liberranter
      February 12, 2013 at 5:13 am

      …you go to jail for five years, pay a $100,000 fine, have your car confiscated, and you never get a driver’s license again in your life

      This is probably what they already have in mind for all of us anyway, whether or not we violate one of their idiotic fiat laws.

  13. Olaf Koenders
    February 12, 2013 at 9:33 am

    The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected.

    But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.

  14. TimurTheLame
    February 12, 2013 at 10:13 am

    On the general theme of entrapment a neighbour came by not long ago and as we were chatting he told me that his sister was caught for a DUI the other day. It seems that she dropped into a roadhouse not two blocks from her apartment for literally a drink. It was the day before New Years.

    After consuming exactly two drinks, she paid and left. As soon as her car got onto the road, a stealth mini-van pulled up behind and flashed her a light show. After the normal Q & A they asked her to blow into a screening device. Being terrified she refused at first so they towed her car away and took her down to the station. About an hour later she finally blew and the device recorded a .010 reading. Unfortunately if she had have blown initially she might have blown under because the drinks would not have entered her bloodstream. On such a low reading, being tired and/or missing a meal makes a big difference, assuming the device was not rigged. ( would they have to un-tow the car is she blew under?).

    She is a single mother of two, going through a divorce and holding down a relatively low paying job. She now faces an automatic loss of license for 90 days (not yet convicted), car impounding fees, a court case, a lawyer if she can afford it, and if convicted a fine, loss of license for a year,
    having to attend ‘booze college’ at a cost of $500.00, installing a ‘blowjob’ machine for $1,500
    and the doubling or tripling of her insurance.

    This is literally a life ruining situation for her.

    I do understand the need for laws regarding impaired driving but surely they could have a humane element to it as it once was. Repeat offenders, high BAC’s, accidents etc resulting
    in more serious consequences and so on.

    To add insult to injuries, the doughnut brigade made a press announcement after the festive season saying that they were “greatly disappointed” that the number of DUI arrests were up from the previous year! No wonder if the above is an example on how they increase ‘business’.

    On an added note, the august organization MADD had it’s books exposed some years back and it seems that they use about 16% of their donations for it’s stated mandate. The rest went for high end salaries and other infrastructure costs. The article disappeared within a couple of days.

    This is in Ontario Canada. Another day, another racket.

    • February 12, 2013 at 10:42 am

      Hi Timur,

      America (and, apparently Canada) has a bad habit of going from one extreme to the other. When I was a kid, drinking and driving – and I mean really drinking – was looked upon as harmless and funny. “One for the road”… and Dean Martin in Cannonball Run.

      Now it’s at the other extreme – de facto Prohibition via the preposterous, over-the-top criminalization of even trace amounts of alcohol in one’s system and irrespective of one’s actual driving.

      I’ve never defended impaired let alone drunk driving. But that doesn’t mean I also believe that a person is “drunk” (or even impaired) after having consumed a drink or two over the course of dinner.

      I’m very sorry to hear about your neighbor’s sister – another victim of hysteria and the police state a ‘borning.

      • liberranter
        February 12, 2013 at 6:30 pm

        I’ve never defended impaired let alone drunk driving. But that doesn’t mean I also believe that a person is “drunk” (or even impaired) after having consumed a drink or two over the course of dinner.

        And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that the currently accepted “minimum safe” BAL (0.08, if I recall correctly) is also an arbitrary number, one that affects different people in different ways – if it affects them at all. Human bodies are as unique as individual humans in the way (and rate at which) they metabolize alcohol.

        A six foot-four inch, 300 pound man (or woman) with a BAL of .08 might hardly be affected at all, even after consuming a 12-pack of beer or a fifth of whiskey within a two-hour period, whereas a 95-lb, five-foot tall woman (or man) who has consumed half of that or less within the same period might be almost comatose at that same BAL. In other words, it all depends on the individual in question. But of course since the State deals in “one size fits all,” a blanket sanction is applied to everyone, regardless of whether or not they’ve committed harm against anyone else.

        • February 12, 2013 at 6:37 pm

          Absolutely.

          Impairment is hugely variable.

          We all have different baselines, for one. A person with superior physical reflexes and vision who is an excellent driver will almost certainly still be better able to control his car – especially in an emergency – even if he’s got four or five drinks in his system than a sober but marginally competent driver with poor vision and slow reflexes.

          Accordingly, it’s unfair to punish people absent some objective criteria – and as I see it, the only such criteria is evidence of inability (or incapacity) to control one’s car. That’s how it used to be. If a cop saw a person driving erratically, it was probable cause to stop them and check it out. But he had no legal power to stop people at random, absent probable cause.

          Back when it was still a somewhat free country.

          • Douglas
            February 12, 2013 at 8:13 pm

            Though I can understand the frustration at the seemingly arbitrary BAC threshold of .08 (Federally mandated, BTW, no ninth and tenth Amendments anymore), but at least BAC is measurable and does compensate for body mass. Of course, there are some drivers who are a menace cold sober, and others DO drive (or shoot) better when they’re a tad pickled. The real problem is that the BAC levels for both “could be impaired” (.04) and “presumed impaired” are too low for most healthy adults. And the ninnies at MADD want to lower it to .025 and .05, respectively. Shit, my Scoutmaster would drove us boys to Camporee and slugged down a six-pack on the way (50 miles) would nowadays be pilloried. We need to get over the moral panic.

          • February 12, 2013 at 9:00 pm

            Hi Doug,

            BAC is theoretically objective. The problem is that other variables factor in – such that a given BAC may (or may not) translate into a meaningful degradation of driving ability.

            That isn’t to say “x” quantity of alcohol in the blood doesn’t reduce human performance. The issue – as I see it – is whether a given person’s driving has caused a problem (or appears imminently likely to, based on observation of such things as weaving/over-correcting and so on).

            In a previous post I mentioned differing baseline ability. An excellent driver, with superior vision and reflexes – but with some booze in his system – vs. the sober but marginally competent driver with so-so vision and reflexes.

            The marginally competent driver causes a wreck – and it’s written off as an accident. The excellent driver doesn’t wreck – but blows a .08 at a “sobriety” checkpoint. And has his life ruined.

            Does it make sense to you?

          • Dan M.
            February 12, 2013 at 9:57 pm

            Have you ever been to one of those bars way out on a country road, miles and miles from anything else? A cab to and from the place would cost more than the night out itself. There’s no public transportation and it’s way too far for most of the patrons to walk. The only way to get there is to either drive or get a ride.

            Why don’t the police just camp on the side of the road at these establishments and pull over everybody who leaves? It’s because they know that doing so would impact business so badly that the bar would probably have to close. Therefore, they balance what’s good for the local economy against the dangers of drunk driving.

            Last summer, I was rear ended at a traffic light by a 19 year old girl who froze when a yellowjacket flew into her car. Nobody was hurt and the damage was relatively minor, but I think it emphasizes Eric’s point that competence and experience (or lack therof) behind the wheel is at least as much of a determining factor as alcohol and speed when one considers the likely causes of an accident.

      • rEVOLutionary
        February 12, 2013 at 6:36 pm

        the national BAC limit of 0.08% is being enforced by the same means the old 55MPH national speed limit was – by threat of losing federal highway tax dollars.
        Many people are capable of driving safely at that level. Some are not. Yet this is also still a ‘pre-crime’ because no damage has been done.

    • Lew Rothbard
      February 12, 2013 at 3:50 pm

      “I do understand the need for laws regarding impaired driving . . .”

      Read this and see if it doesn’t change your mind:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

    • methylamine
      February 12, 2013 at 4:49 pm

      Timur,

      That woman has an extremely good chance of being exonerated–IF she gets the right lawyer.

      The Breathalyzer is notoriously inaccurate. Their calibration is based on a “typical body”–and that body’s partition coefficients. Different tissues–fat, muscle, blood–distribute alcohol differently, and affect the gas concentration in the lungs…which is only moderately related to brain concentration.

      In other words, it’s a crapshoot.

      In addition, if she had just finished her drinks, there’s the risk of inhaling a burp. The highly concentrated EtOH fumes get sucked into the lungs, and your next blow is much higher; cops are supposed to wait 30 minutes after the subject has burped.

      She NEEDS to fight this, or she’ll forever be on the “electronic plantation”. Yes Massah!

      • liberranter
        February 12, 2013 at 6:36 pm

        The Breathalyzer is notoriously inaccurate. Their calibration is based on a “typical body”–and that body’s partition coefficients. Different tissues–fat, muscle, blood–distribute alcohol differently, and affect the gas concentration in the lungs…which is only moderately related to brain concentration.

        In other words, it’s a crapshoot.

        EXACTLY. When my wife and I lived in Northern Virginia years ago, she was arrested one evening on bogus charges of DUI. One of the steps our attorney took in court (she refused to plead out and we demanded a Circuit court criminal trial) to prove the sheer idiocy of the charges was to bring in an expert on the breathalyzer machine. After reading the detailed arrest report, as well as the breathalyzer results, he tore the State’s case to shreds during testimony by providing that not only was the machine not properly calibrated to begin with (apparently most cops don’t have a clue how to do this and don’t have anyone readily on hand to do it either), but that even if it had been properly calibrated for measurement purposes, the operator did not take my wife’s risk factors (weight, height, etc.) into account before administering the test.

        The jury took less than 20 minutes to acquit my wife of the charge. Needless to say, the judge and prosecutor were furious, just adding further icing to the victory cake.

  15. Olaf Koenders
    February 12, 2013 at 10:53 am

    “Now it’s at the other extreme – de facto Prohibition via the preposterous, over-the-top criminalization of even trace amounts of alcohol in one’s system and irrespective of one’s actual driving.”

    Just wait until they do the same to the tobacco smokers..

  16. Kevin McCune
    February 12, 2013 at 10:57 am

    Old Folks”Senior Citizens” aren’t parasites,in a decade or so I’ll be joining thier ranks according to AARP,I could now,but that is beside the point.
    The trouble with laws,is that there are too many of them(thats why there are so many criminals) talk about abberant behaviour,there are things that occur around here that torture people and wreck families,but there are no civil penalties for these actions.(blatant infidelity,being an asshole or bully,etc;) While the afore mentioned “victimless” crimes sends people to the pen and ruins thier future and family.
    Our busybody “General Assembly” and legislature need to take a deep breath and count to 10,before they retire to thier chambers for thier refreshment and saddle the good people of this nation with more BS and Pablum.

    ” We the People made the Land Great,the Land didn’t make the People Great”-Kevin

  17. Ed
    February 12, 2013 at 11:49 am

    “,but there are no civil penalties for these actions.(blatant infidelity,being an asshole or bully,etc;) ”

    That reminds me of the film “Idiocracy”. One of the charges leveled at the hero during his trial was “being a dick”.

    • February 12, 2013 at 12:53 pm

      He’s actually wrong in re infidelity. Prove that in divorce court and it’s sufficient grounds (IIRC) to dump the cheater without having to pay her (excepting child support).

      • liberranter
        February 12, 2013 at 6:58 pm

        Well, not quite. Yes, it should logically (and legally) be grounds for instantaneous “no fault” divorce for the offended party, but whether that happens or not in practice in today’s Amerika’s travesty of a justice system depends largely on the sex of the offended victim.

        In actual practice, if a husband cheats on his wife and she files for divorce, chances are he’ll be completely destroyed in the divorce proceedings, she’ll get everything she wants, and he’ll wind up living in poverty for years, if not the rest of his life (which, one might argue, are his just desserts). OTOH, if it’s the wife who cheats and the husband files for divorce (or if the wife cheats and then decides to dump the husband for her new “boy toy”), odds are that the husband will STILL get raped nine ways to Sunday by the courts, winding up living in poverty for years, if not the rest of his life, losing everything he ever worked for.

        I have it on very good authority from close friends and colleagues who’ve “been through the meat grinder” that this is the default MO of the family/divorce courts today.

      • Douglas
        February 12, 2013 at 8:23 pm

        Not so, Eric. As a practical matter, “no fault” is everywhere, which in practice means the bitch can misbehave to whatever outrageous low she’ll stoop to, and the family courts still punish the man for saying “I do”

        • February 12, 2013 at 9:02 pm

          Yeah, that’s true… unfortunately!

        • Olaf Koenders
          February 12, 2013 at 9:46 pm

          Agreed!

  18. Texas Chris
    February 12, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    What is the logical outcome of victimless crime?

    If the speeder is violating no natural law where there is no victim, and the police impose a fine, then that fine is theft, and the implied force behind the flashing lights, badge, and gun is as unjustified as if a thief robbed you at gunpoint.

    It is morally justifiable to resist the non-uniformed thief. At what point does it become justified to resist the UNIFORMED thief?

    Regulations that institutionalize victimless crime undermine the rule of law, and jeopardize the sacred “officer safety” that the police claim is priority one.

  19. toldev
    February 12, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    This article made me think of the movie Minority Report. In that movie,a future police force uses the services of 3 psychics to predict who will murder whom. On the basis of that information, the police arrest the perpetrators before the crime takes place and charge them with the PreCrime of murder. At the end of the movie, it is reveled that the police have arrested and imprisoned many innocent people.

    Things like speed laws, DUI laws, and assault weapon bans are laws against PreCrime. It is not about the PreCrime itself but the crime that might happen as a result of the PreCrime. And, often times the crime that may happen is a remote possibility or even implausible.

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      February 12, 2013 at 1:59 pm

      What would be the consequences of repealing DUI statutes?

      tgsam

      • February 12, 2013 at 2:06 pm

        Justice, for openers!

        I mean: Does it matter why someone hits you? Whether they’re drunk – or just not paying attention – what matters, as I see it, is that they hit you. That’s the harm. Punish that.

        If someone doesn’t hit me (or anyone else) then what harm has been done? They might have? Well, dandy. What could be better than punishing people based on might?

        • liberranter
          February 12, 2013 at 7:03 pm

          Does it matter why someone hits you? Whether they’re drunk – or just not paying attention – what matters, as I see it, is that they hit you. That’s the harm. Punish that.

          Yep. And punishment in this case should consist of compelling the offender to make just and proper restitution to the victim – not, as a matter of course, jail time. The former, if done properly, restores the victim to the state in which they were prior to the accident or offense. The latter simply imposes costs upon everyone –including the victim– forced to support the institutions of the State. It has nothing to do with righting the actual wrong committed.

          IOW, no more punishing people based on the idea that they’ve committed some infraction against “society,” the term being a meaningless abstraction.

      • toldev
        February 12, 2013 at 3:33 pm

        From a traffic safety standpoint, probably not much. At any given time about 1 out of every 7 vehicles on the road is being operated by a legally impaired person anyway. Also remember that the same safety Nazis who so zealously advocate for draconian drunk driving laws are the same people who told us an additional 5,000 to 10,000 people were going to die on the highways per year when the nationally mandated speed limit was repealed.

        From a financial standpoint, many struggling municipalities are going to struggle a whole lot more.

        • liberranter
          February 12, 2013 at 7:04 pm

          From a financial standpoint, many struggling municipalities are going to struggle a whole lot more.

          One word: BRAVO!

      • methylamine
        February 12, 2013 at 4:56 pm

        Probably very little, TGS.

        Inveterate drunk drivers aren’t deterred by today’s laws anyway. Those who venture over the ridiculous .08 by a few percent are still better drivers than their textin’, talkin’, stylin’ counterparts.

        Tort law will take care of the ones who DO cause accidents…and as Eric points out, who cares why they hit you?

      • BrentP
        February 12, 2013 at 6:42 pm

        It depends on what is done in their place. However at present the form one’s incompetence or recklessness harms another person determines the punishment.

        Many years ago a 16 year old kid crossed the center line and side swiped my car. Why? He decided to clean the windshield while driving. To the cops, the judge, everyone this was just an accident and I was unreasonable for being angry about this act of incompetence that my car has never been ‘right’ again because of. I could have been killed, but it still would have been just an accident.

        However, had this kid been drunk or even not a kid and drunk, that is legally drunk, 0.08BAC or higher, the punishment would have been severe. Same damage to me, but suddenly there would have been punishments.

        Sober people can drive around incompetent on bald tires, with faulty brakes, with all sorts of risk that have nothing to do with BAC and it’s just an accident and maybe a traffic ticket which the judges will just dismiss if insurance covers the damages.

        So what happens if BAC returns to just another “accident”? Not much really. But if we are going to have this punishment-enforcement model, there is no good reason to have different punishments for different causes of bad driving. All bad driving hurts the same. But for some reason as a victim of bad driving I am supposed to be upset with a drunk but not some teenager doing something stupid. They even call it ‘road rage’ if someone gets upset about bad -sober- driving.

        It’s warped.

  20. Eric
    February 12, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    So if a cop sees a car weaving down the road, are you saying the car should not be pulled over? Let’s wait and see if they hit something first and then deal w/ the consequences?

    No. DUI is often not a victimless crime. I don’t want to be on the road w/ drunk idiots. It’s dangerous enough to drive w/ idiots.

    wanton endangerment is not a minor crime

    • embree smith
      February 12, 2013 at 3:25 pm

      You are now speaking of a Public Nuisance, or a Breach of the Peace
      not a fair comparison

      and

      Per Se DWI is most often a victimless crime, unless you are referring to the Driver

    • toldev
      February 12, 2013 at 3:38 pm

      I do not have a problem with the police stopping a car that is weaving down the road. When the police set up a check point and start checking sobriety and my papers, then I fell like I am in Europe during the second world war.

      • February 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm

        Nor I.

        That (weaving) constitutes evidence of impairment. The why is immaterial.

    • February 12, 2013 at 3:57 pm

      Hi Eric,

      If someone gives evidence they’re reckless/inept behind the wheel, then I’ve got no issue with a cop stopping them to investigate. That’s what used to be known as probable cause.

      What we’re discussing is hassling people who’ve done nothing – and given no reason to suspect them of anything.

      That pisses me off.

      Treating me as a presumptive “drunk” until I demonstrate otherwise. It’s exactly like treating people as presumptive “terrorists” at the airport – and so on.

      Since anyone might be doing something they shouldn’t, then everyone is a presumptive criminal until they’ve been “checked out” and proved “clean.”

      That’s the very definition of a police state.

      I’d rather live in a society where a few drunk drivers slip through than one in which we’re all “caught” for things we haven’t even done.

      • Eric
        February 12, 2013 at 8:30 pm

        DWI hits close to home for me. I have seen 1st hand what an idiot – drunk behind the wheel – can do to the small body of a child. Not the idiot. The idiot’s behavior + car.

        However, I do agree, I do not like the idea of check points. This is just fishing for ways to search in someones vehicle.

        I do believe if someone is dumb enough to be caught, the full weight of the law should come down on them.

        I sat on a jury for a murder case. A woman ran down a little boy on his bike. I’ll never get the medical examiner’s pictures out of my head. The drive was given the stiffest penalty in our state. She was given no “special treatment” for being drunk. No excuses were entertained. She was convicted of murder + wanton endangerment. No parole eligibility for 20 years.

        The saddest part of all this… the killer had several previous DUI convictions. Slap on the wrist, lost license for 30 days, etc. This is why so many people are upset and letting the lawmakers no it.

        Bottom-line: Not all increase police presence – re DUI – is at the whim of the police. Politicians have a lot of pressures placed on them to stop DUI fatalities. The irony…. the drunk almost always lives…

        • BrentP
          February 12, 2013 at 10:47 pm

          If she was sober, stayed at the scene and said the magic words she wouldn’t have even received a ticket. They would have blamed the dead kid and called it an accident.

          Because she was drunk she was punished, but sober the exact same thing is practically a legal way to murder someone.

          magic words = “he darted right out in front of me” or “I didn’t see him” or other such phrases.

        • Tor Munkov
          February 13, 2013 at 12:57 pm

          Disturbing Accident Photos On The Net. Note: I haven’t looked at any of these, and never would. But for those of you who think viewing this kind of shocking material helps you make better decisions – have at them.

          http://www.bestgore.com/road-accidents/porsche-girl-nikki-catsouras-carcrash-photos/

          Roughneck Oil Drilling Accident Photos
          http://www.flickr.com/photos/roughneckcity/sets/72157613381698920/

          Air Disaster Photo Sets
          http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/

          Packaging these type of photos and claiming they offer a useful narrative seems ridiculous to me.

          The crime discussed by capital-E-Eric occurs because in an Idiocracy, young children are forced to live and play within a few feet of roadways where vehicles weighing thousands of pounds might potentially be careening by as fast as 100 mph with no barrier.

          • BrentP
            February 13, 2013 at 2:50 pm

            Tor, NSFW tag. Use it. Please.

  21. Don Cooper
    February 13, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    I got a speeding ticket a couple weeks back for doing 45 in a 40. Court date is for tonight.

    I call the clerk to see if I can reschedule and she says – in the most monotonic, robotic voice – “we don’t reschedule”

    Don: “what about extenuating circumstances?”
    State drone: “we don’t reschedule”
    Don: “what if someone is sick or has to go out of town on business?”
    State drone: “we don’t reschedule”
    Don: “there must be a policy for situations that are out of the persons control.”
    State drone: “we don’t reschedule”

    I just hung up. Even when you’re talking to a human you’re still talking to a machine.

    • liberranter
      February 13, 2013 at 8:23 pm

      Even when you’re talking to a human you’re still talking to a machine.

      Exactly. Can you imagine how devoid of talent, ability, personality, and self-respect you have to be to “work” at a “job” like the one that state drone has? I can’t imagine having one of these creatures as a friend, relative, or (God forbid) spouse.

      BTW, just out of curiosity, do you plan on showing up to court at the appointed time and date, or do you plan on unilaterally “rescheduling” your hearing for a date and time of your own convenience?

      • Don Cooper
        February 14, 2013 at 1:16 pm

        I went and here’s how those proceedings went:

        Magistrate: “how do you plead”

        Don: “not responsible”

        Magistrate: “officer Dickhead, present your evidence”

        Officer Dickhead: “this, that, the other, blah, blah”

        Magistrate: “Mr. Cooper present your evidence”

        Don: “I’m not from Detroit, I’ve only been here for a couple months and from where I entered the highway to where officer Dickhead pulled me over there are no speed limit signs so I exercised the “Basic Speed Law” (which is the foundation of all speed limits in Michigan and other states) and drove at what I considered was a reasonable and prudent speed given the conditions.”

        (Here’s where we went down the rabbit hole)

        Magistrate: “not in Michigan”

        Don: “Not what in Michigan?”

        Magistrate: “that highway was built in 1940 and for years it was the model for a national … ” (I actually stopped listening)

        Don: “how was I expected to know the speed limit when there are no signs? It would be impossible. How would you do it?”

        Magistrate: “I find you responsible”

        Don: “can I appeal?”

        Magistrate: “Yes, you have to post a $120 bond to appeal.”

        And then I went to drink,and play kissy face with a married lady I’m seeing.

        How do you argue against IMPOSSIBLE? Are we expected to be able to do the impossible now as well because the safety of others depends on it?

        I’ll pay the $120 for the privilege (not a right) of a formal hearing so that what I say will be recorded and on record unlike the informal hearing last night. Then I’ll say everything I want to say and tell the old fart in the dress behind the bench what I really think.

        Even if I win the case, I still have to $100 to get my license back ( which I won’t. I can order a new one on the GA. DDS website for $5 ) AND I have to pay court costs.

        Court costs for something I didn’t initiate. Something I was forced to do. That’s like being forced to pay for your neighbor’s party because you’ve been accused of living next to him: it makes no fucking sense.

        The best part about dating a married women? You’re not expected to do anything special for Valentines Day!

        • Olaf Koenders
          February 15, 2013 at 1:58 am

          The system’s corrupt Don, as we all know. They just want your wallet. It may be a hard fight because of this but if you don’t admit to any offence then it’s up to the prosecution to prove you have committed one.

          They rely on your licence to fall under their control, as a “contract”, which we all know that if a contract is made with dishonesty, is null and void. You can’t be held responsible for speeding when there’s no “posted” limit. You can’t be liable for something that’s “inferred”, it must be clearly written.

          Have a good read of these and let us know what you think:

          http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml
          http://www.soveriegn.freeservers.com/bulletin.htm

          Look up:

          Black’s Law definition of “driver” and “traveller”.

          Black’s law definition of “statute” versus “law”.

          • BrentP
            February 15, 2013 at 2:21 am

            I know in c(r)ook county in Illinois the traffic court judges would just laugh at such things. The written law doesn’t exist. The operation runs on clover law. That social law based on power and what came down by word of mouth.

            Trying to get a traffic court judge to consider written law outside what was passed down to them is fruitless, and that’s if it’s one of the better judges.

            I have yet been able to get a ‘judge’ traffic or admin court consider the written law. They get angry, they get insulting. The bailiff wakes up from his nap. In other words the gun in the room comes out. I’ve been ‘escorted’ out of the courtroom with the bailiff literally breathing down my neck to show me who had the physical power. Why? Because I presented a written law case based upon the MUTCD being incorporated into the Illinois vehicle code. The judge called me a liar by saying I made it up.

            I keep hearing these arguments of written law and precedents work but not in this county.

        • dom
          February 15, 2013 at 2:03 am

          Too Funny!

          “play kissy face”

          I’ve lost my license three times already. There is one thing I know for certain about traffic court. Listen to the Borg.. “Resistance is futile”

          • Tor Munkov
            February 16, 2013 at 12:26 am

            Weird fact. The Borg were at least workers and value producers, albeit in a jacked up system with little individuality.

            The Federation were a bunch of candyass new world order homos in matching costumes seeking out new worlds to “invite” into their nanny state fuckhole where no one had any individual property.

            Why did these space bureaucrats call themselves “Enterprise”? They never sought to produce value and trade with other worlds. They were dirtbag rentseekers who made a beeline for whatever tyrant made a claim on a planet. Like Ralph Nader, they “just knew” when a ruler was good, by emoting and magic.

            End the Federation.

          • February 16, 2013 at 11:09 am

            Outstanding, Tor – as always!

            The world of Star Trek struck me as suffocating and anesthetic as well. Very much of a piece with the “civilized” people depicted by Huxley in Brave New World. I am a savage. As I suspect are many here. If only they’d leave us be on a reservation someplace, as in Huxley’s book….

          • Chas
            February 16, 2013 at 12:42 pm

            Excellent Tor! LOL!

            I never liked watching any TV because it always bored the heck out of me. I liked F-Troop and House MD…That’s about it.

            If I was forced into the Federation Collective, I would just end up killing myself out of pure boredom and vapidity…Not even Synthehol or 7 of 9 would do it for me.

          • February 16, 2013 at 12:44 pm

            Fire water!

            Chief get it for you wholesale!

          • February 16, 2013 at 1:59 pm

            Dear Tor,

            Interesting observation about the Federation in Star Trek.

            Never thought about the implied advocacy of a NWO in Star Trek before. But now that you mention it, I see it. It’s actually fairly explicit.

            A much more appealing anarchistic “universe” was depicted in Joss Whedon’s SF TV series “Firefly” and SF film “Serenity.”

            Too bad Fox canceled it. I wonder if the libertarian politics of the series motivated the cancellation?

            Hitler Finds Out Firefly Was Canceled

            Incidentally, I just read that Dorner died in a shootout in Big Bear CA.

          • Chas
            February 16, 2013 at 6:58 pm

            Fire Water + Young Melody Patterson – I could maybe put up with the Federation Collective.

            Agarn: “How did the Hekawis get their name?”
            Wild Eagle: “Glad you asked. Many moons ago, tribe leave Massachussetts because Pilgrims ruin neighborhood. Tribe travel west, over stream, over river, over mountain, over mountain, over river, over stream. Then come big day. Tribe fall over cliff. That when Hekawi get name. Medicine man say to my ancestor, ‘I think we lost. Where the heck are we?’”

            Comedy gold right there.

          • February 16, 2013 at 8:13 pm

            I used to watch re-runs of that show as a kid – before political correctness ruined everything.

          • Mike in Spotsy
            February 16, 2013 at 8:24 pm

            Another F troop line (paraphrased, based on a memory from many moons ago):

            Chief: Hekawi never attack at night.
            Agarn: I see. You believe that if you are killed at night, your spirit won’t be able to find its way to the happy hunting grounds and will have to wander forever.
            Chief: No. We afraid of dark.

          • Mithrandir
            February 17, 2013 at 3:05 am

            Bevin,

            It is too funny to see the number of times that clip is used in a variety of situations. One day I will need to see the movie.

            Ron Paul in the polls

            Reaction to OBL demise

            Reaction to Steelers losing.

            Reaction to Disney buying Lucasfilm

          • February 17, 2013 at 4:05 am

            Dear Mith,

            Somebody even did one in which Hitler is ranting about all the YouTube videos misrepresenting what he actually said!

            Sort of a “Scream” scenario in which the characters are aware of the tropes they are in.

  22. BrentP
    February 14, 2013 at 1:47 am

    Get a load of this story….

    http://www.flanews.com/?p=17312

    Florida’s Department of Transportation Secretary Ananth Prasad was ticketed on a Tallahassee for doing 44 in a 35. A short time later, DOT commenced a study of road conditions and decided to raise the speed limit to 45.

    I don’t think it even needs a comment from me.

  23. Badger
    February 15, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    Oh let’s just not and say we did.

  24. Badger
    February 15, 2013 at 11:54 pm

    @Don, who wrote:

    “How do you argue against IMPOSSIBLE?”

    Two words; Heisenberg.

    Oh. Sorry, that’s just one word. Or is it?

  25. Tor Munkov
    February 16, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Dear Bevin,
    That was the best Hitler-finds-out video I’ve seen.

    V For Vendetta Speech

    Written By Andy & Larry Wachowski, From Characters Created By Alan Moore & David Lloyd

    “Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke.

    But in the spirit of commemoration, whereby those important events of the past usually associated with someones death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.

    There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isnt there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.

    How did this happen?

    Whos to blame?

    Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if youre looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldnt be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler.

    He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

    Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives.

    So if youve seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.”

    Operation Vendetta – March on the Houses of Parliament
    – by Anonymous UK – November 5th, 2012

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night

    • February 16, 2013 at 3:55 pm

      Dear Tor,

      Another good “Hitler finds out” video was the Rebecca Black “Friday” video.

      V for Vendetta is one of my favorite films — despite its flaws.

      I even use the Guy Fawkes mask icon, for two reasons. One, I’m an anarchist. Two, the mask icon looks “Asian.”

      • Tor Munkov
        February 17, 2013 at 2:30 am

        50 Favorite Firefly Quotes

        Firef1y Fu11 Episodes
        http://www.1channel.ch/tv-5148-Firefly

        Why isn’t there a screenwriter application. Fans of a show can reenact favorite episodes, create alternate versions of episodes, create new episodes.

        I wish I still had a transcript/recording of all the playactings me and my friends did as children. Maybe the process called growing up should better be called growing dependent.

        Its shameful, how we let our imaginations die. The
        anarchistic “universe” was depicted in Joss Whedon’s SF TV series “Firefly” and SF film “Serenity” was no better than the anarchistic universes me and my friends drew up on butcherblock paper and acted out.

        We lived in underwater cities. I remember “building” a city at 1km below sea level, where the pressure would be identical to the surface pressure on Venus.
        We also imagined underground resource extraction cities. Especially ones where the earth’s crust is 800 degrees F. The same temperature as the surface of Venus.

        We citizens of these fantastic cities were also “Space Cowboys” who could lasso Near Earth Objects with orbits approaching Venus, and ride them all the way there. Yee Haw!

        • February 17, 2013 at 2:36 am

          Dear Tor,

          People like George Lucas and Joss Whedon are individuals who did not allow their imaginations die.

          The film “The Neverending Story” was about just that theme. Of keeping our ability to dream alive.

          • Mithrandir
            February 17, 2013 at 2:48 am

            “The Neverending Story” was an enjoyable film.

  26. Tor Munkov
    February 28, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    One – Obamacare Hell – Apocalyptica & James Hetfield
    http://www.youtu.be/x18q6qElb98

    Now that Obamacare is through with me
    I’m waking up, I cannot see
    That there is not much left of me
    Nothing is real but pain now

    Fed through this tube that sticks in me
    Another bread and circus novelty
    Tied to machines that make me be
    Cut this life off from me

    I can’t remember anything
    Can’t tell if this is true or dream
    Deep down inside I reach to scream
    But neuron implants quickly silence me

    Doctors imprisoning me
    All that I see
    Absolute horror
    I cannot drink
    I cannot smoke
    Trapped in myself
    Body my holding cell

    NATO Drones have taken my sight
    Taken my speech
    Taken my hearing
    Taken my arms
    Taken my legs
    Taken my soul
    Left me with life in hell

    Hold my breath as I wish for death
    Oh please God, wake me
    Now the world is gone, I’m just one
    Oh please God, help me

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *