Standing naked on my property

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe bull dykes should be subject to criminal law?

--Brant

and don't let 'em be cops

[George H. Smith]

you say, as an assertion of fact, that women are "treated differently" (in the law, I presume).

Point of information. Women are not treated differently in the current state. I have proposed they should be.

Okay, so what did you mean when you wrote: "Children, women, the elderly and infirm, the insane, immortal trusts and states -- all treated differently. Big surprise"?

Ghs

[Wolf DeVoon]

you say, as an assertion of fact, that women are "treated differently" (in the law, I presume).

Point of information. Women are not treated differently in the current state. I have proposed they should be.

Okay, so what did you mean when you wrote: "Children, women, the elderly and infirm, the insane, immortal trusts and states -- all treated differently. Big surprise"?

Ghs

That, for instance,

Associations, partnerships, corporations, trusts, states, and other fictional legal persons have no intrinsic right to life or liberty. The fundamental legal character of all such entities is that of shared or managed property, title to which is in dispute. Fictional legal persons cannot prosecute crime, other than misdemeanor trespass or burglary. Laissez faire law does not recognize the "sovereign power" of a state to levy taxes, issue passports, coin money, or regulate banking or commerce. [Comment, Article III]

Entirely different approach to law.

Legal cases shall be A vs B, two natural persons. I don't care if embryos, animals, and plants qualify for legal standing. Fine. Whatever. But no more fictitious, disembodied, immortal corporate persons like the United States of America, or CBS Inc... In answer to Murray Rothbard, there is no such thing as "natural law" or "human rights." All that exists are natural persons and human interaction. [Laissez Faire Law, p.42, 49]

Men and women are not interchangeable actors in an All-Soviet tractor factory.

There is only one good sex -- the female one. [Mark Twain]

[Brant Gaede]

Children should be and are treated differently than adults under criminal law.

--Brant

so are the insane and demented

if Rand had started writing about ethics by first writing about "The Ethics of Emergencies," I think she would have caused a lot of confusion and you, Wolf, seem to start out by emphasizing the role of exceptions and the logic isn't walking

[Darrell Hougen]

The goal of laissez faire is to increase personal responsibility and to diminish the power of law courts.

Ok.

That was the answer I was looking for.

That is the goal of your system.

That is the answer to the question, "Why?"

Darrell

[George H. Smith]

you say, as an assertion of fact, that women are "treated differently" (in the law, I presume).

Point of information. Women are not treated differently in the current state. I have proposed they should be.

Okay, so what did you mean when you wrote: "Children, women, the elderly and infirm, the insane, immortal trusts and states -- all treated differently. Big surprise"?

Ghs

That, for instance,

Associations, partnerships, corporations, trusts, states, and other fictional legal persons have no intrinsic right to life or liberty. The fundamental legal character of all such entities is that of shared or managed property, title to which is in dispute. Fictional legal persons cannot prosecute crime, other than misdemeanor trespass or burglary. Laissez faire law does not recognize the "sovereign power" of a state to levy taxes, issue passports, coin money, or regulate banking or commerce. [Comment, Article III]

Entirely different approach to law.

Legal cases shall be A vs B, two natural persons. I don't care if embryos, animals, and plants qualify for legal standing. Fine. Whatever. But no more fictitious, disembodied, immortal corporate persons like the United States of America, or CBS Inc... In answer to Murray Rothbard, there is no such thing as "natural law" or "human rights." All that exists are natural persons and human interaction. [Laissez Faire Law, p.42, 49]

Men and women are not interchangeable actors in an All-Soviet tractor factory.

There is only one good sex -- the female one. [Mark Twain]

What are you talking about? Women are not "fictional legal persons." Once again, you have failed even to address the problem.

Ghs

[Darrell Hougen]

I have argued that women should be exempt from the criminal law ...

Ok. What is the reason?

My question is, what would make your society better to live in than the one I'm already living in?

Why should anyone bother to listen to you?

There's some homework involved if you want to pursue it. Mars Shall Thunder, The Good Walk Alone

Sunni Maravillosa says: DeVoon competently combines the pull of a space story with suspenseful twists and turns of a thriller. He reaches out to the thinking reader, providing a savory touch of art. An example: "History is predictable while the pressure builds, then it explodes in a crescendo that no one expected or understands except in awe of its might, just as rocks melt beneath an atomic bomb." In Book Two, the story takes on a much more intimate tone; and although DeVoon's touch is sometimes heavy, his obvious familiarity with the concepts he explores makes that easy to overlook. He also appears to be another of the select group of men with the uncanny ability to portray exclusively female experiences accurately. Almost up to the book's very end, the reader's pulled along and kept guessing as to what's going to happen. Mars Shall Thunder is a satisfying tapestry of space thriller, love story, and thought-provoking observations on the human condition and its systems.

Samuel Jones says: Mars is magnificently realised, both in the description of the setting and in the politics and intrigue that go on there. The dialogue and interaction of the characters is gripping, the action scenes marvellously portrayed. Wolf is one of the best independent authors I've ever encountered, and a man whose work deserves far more exposure.

Mike Marotta says: The Good Walk Alone is a novella, set in a post-apocalyptic Costa Rica. The cops are women. Wolf DeVoon's personal experiences working in prisons and working for prisoners showed him reasons to assert that women should not be subject to criminal law and that law enforcement should be entrusted to them exclusively. It is a radical theory. But I found it empirically supported. As I was earning a baccalaureate (Summa cum Laude) in criminology administration in 2008, I was shown statistics proving that women write more citations than men, and with fewer complaints from the public. Tangentially, college-educated police (2-year or 4-year degrees) also conduct more stops and write more citations with fewer complaints from citizens than do police officers with only a high school education. If you want the best police force, get college educated women. The story has all the usual elements: love, jealousy, some suspense, and gunfire, with a conclusion that is not quite resolved. http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2014/06/wolf-devoon.html

Women should be exempted from the criminal law and responsible for law enforcement. This will end male "input" on abortion and domestic violence. I trust that women will do justice. [Laissez Faire Law, p.113]

The arguments in favor of a female judiciary seem to gain weight and additional merit, no matter which way I turn. [COGIGG, p.84]

I witnessed Maggie Thatcher in action at a NATO Summit, away from the cameras and microphones. I know precisely what I'm talking about. She made Bush and Kohl squirm like scared little boys, and she couldn't have done it without Rand. The bottom line on history is that Ayn Rand and Simone de Beauvoir were political shipbuilders who launched a thousand warrior queens... Our revolutionary sisters will triumph (eventually) because they have more at risk and because Women Are Men Plus. It only takes one of them to defeat ten of us, if she decides to wage war. Ayn Rand took out male opponents by the hundred and won the hearts of six or seven million, because she was brave enough to say that she had a right to live her own life. Her novels toppled the Berlin Wall (via Thatcher)... Personally, I'm in favor of two party platform planks that I hope the Democrats (who else?) will consider as speedily as possible: (1) We should exempt women from the criminal law. The vast majority of criminals are men, and when women kill, they usually have a good reason for taking life. This includes abortion. Anything less means slavery: tied to an unwanted child for the rest of her life, or living with the terrible shame of having lost a child by adoption to someone wealthier and "better" than its natural mother. (2) Amend the U.S. Constitution to bring it into line with reality, and give women one of the two houses of Congress. It doesn't matter which one. Men can keep the Senate, if they think it's a sacrosanct club with special magic powers. Women will feel right at home in the House of Representatives, anyway, since a lot of them can only serve a couple years between bouts of infant care. They will also feel at home with the purse-strings, since all spending bills have to originate in the House, and women are known to be de facto financial managers of most American households. Recent research indicates that female Wall Street traders and money managers earn a slightly higher return on portfolio, mainly because they take fewer risks with the client's money and don't panic in an emergency. https://web.archive.org/web/20020601114021/http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.29/badcop_nodonut.html

You should talk to my wife. She thinks women are generally terrible leaders with the possible exception of someone like Thatcher.

And she is not the only woman I've met in my life that is generally very skeptical of the leadership qualities of other women.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

You should talk to my wife.

Would you trust her with a loaded weapon?

My favorite female Federal agent recommends the Sig P232 http://www.mausersandmuffins.blogspot.com/2012/06/shaken-not-stirred-self-defense-with.html

[Selene]

Women are a preferred 'class" in the legal system today, and have been since the early 80's.

In criminal cases?

Can only speak to the NY Metro/Tri-state area and the answer would be yes, however less so than the

non-criminal courts.

An interesting factor, between the two (2), is the immediate social services support given to an

alleged victim of domestic violence, as well as, the "victim's" advocacy groups, VIBS, FOCUS, etc.

These groups will forum shop between the criminal Temporary Order of Protection [TOP] and the Family

Court TOP, the latter were, exclusively, ex parte. We were the only non-attorney mediators in the

tri-state area that received referrals from groups like VIBS [http://www.vibs.org/].

Those are the distinctions that I know exist.

A

[Brant Gaede]

You should talk to my wife.

Would you trust her with a loaded weapon?

Is this a loaded question?

--Branto

[Darrell Hougen]

You should talk to my wife.

Would you trust her with a loaded weapon?

No.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

The goal of laissez faire is to increase personal responsibility and to diminish the power of law courts.

Ok.

That was the answer I was looking for.

That is the goal of your system.

That is the answer to the question, "Why?"

Darrell

Actually, it's not a very good answer, but at least it an answer.

For one thing, it is given relative to the existing system. What I would like is an absolute answer such as, "I would like to create a society in which people are responsible for themselves."

Then, we could analyze both the worthiness of that goal and the likelihood of Laissez Faire accomplishing that goal.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

It's not about creating a society. My work addresses philosophy of law.

My wife is an excellent shot, tough as nails. I trust her absolutely.

Our 12-year-old daughter did well at the range with .22, first time out.

Kid also completed aviation ground school, has 5 hours Pilot Flying.

Analyze that.

[Darrell Hougen]

It's not about creating a society. My work addresses philosophy of law.

My wife is an excellent shot, tough as nails. I trust her absolutely.

Our 12-year-old daughter did well at the range with .22, first time out.

Kid also completed aviation ground school, has 5 hours Pilot Flying.

<image>

Analyze that.

Ok. That's fine. But the concept of "rights" does deal with creating a society. So, your conception of Laissez Faire law is not a substitute for that. You've just conceded as much. Your concept may be interesting, but it's not an alternative for the Objectivist theory of rights or John Locke's theory of rights or any other theory of what is right and wrong in a social setting.

BTW, I can't see the picture, perhaps because I'm at work, or perhaps because I need a password to see it.

Darrell

[Samson Corwell]

You should talk to my wife.

Would you trust her with a loaded weapon?

Is this a loaded question?

--Branto

Ba dum ch.

[Wolf DeVoon]

BTW, I can't see the picture

I guess I'm the only one who can see it. My kid's range target, nice tight grouping.

There are no rights as such in laissez faire law, other than the legal right to petition and argue a case, to depose and subpoena witnesses, submit evidence, file an appeal. There is a synthetic right to life, so that you can petition etc, but has no effect if you're dead. What happens when you die is up to someone else. Survivors and successors have to prove that they were injured by your death, or probate a will, settle your estate, seek custody of minor children, as the case may be -- which seldom rises to the level of judicial notice unless it's contested.

A grieving spouse or business partner could file a criminal complaint if you were murdered, but that assumes an investigating agency has been licensed and funded in your geographic jurisdiction and takes up the case pro bono -- or that private investigators are retained by the complainant. Disputes can arise sometimes in connection with insurance settlements, malpractice, drunk driving, or winding up a business -- but death is one of those things you should plan for and execute legal instruments accordingly, rather than dump a pile of problems on next of kin. Laissez faire courts and lawyers are not a tax-supported service or free ride. There is no right to compel adjudication.

[Selene]

If we could develop a business of "fair" witnesses and trained arbitrator/judges it could be no worse that the political cesspool the judicial system has become.

Heinlein developed the "fair witness" in Stranger in a Strange Land:

Fair Witness is a fictional profession invented for the novel. A Fair Witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what he or she sees and hears, making no extrapolations or assumptions. An eidetic memory is a prerequisite for the job, although this may be attainable with suitable training.

In Heinlein’s society, a Fair Witness is a highly reputable source of information. By custom, a Fair Witness acting professionally, generally wearing distinctive white robes, is never addressed directly, and is never acknowledged by anyone present.

A Fair Witness is prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. For example, a character in the book is asked to describe the color of a house seen in the distance. The character responds, “It’s white on this side”; whereupon it is explained that one would not assume knowledge of the color of the other sides of the house without being able to see them. Furthermore, after observing another side of the house one should not then assume that any previously seen side was still the same color as last reported, even if only minutes before.

A...

[Samson Corwell]

Courts of law and sworn law enforcement officers initiate force as a matter of necessary routine.

Why is this "necessary?"

Empirical evidence: not one of the 2,000 criminals I met in prison went to court voluntarily.

If they were criminals, presumably, they initiated force.If they were not criminals and were falsely compelled to go to court, that is a problem. However, the implementation of a principle is never perfect. The goal should be to eliminate force to the maximum degree possible or practicable. That's why, "no warrants shall issue but on probably cause" --- to reduce the probability of falsely arresting innocent persons.

The fact that innocent persons may be arrested is due to a limitation of human abilities. Humans must operate on limited knowledge and are not infallible. That, in itself, is not a problem with the non-initiation of force principle.

A similar argument applies to age-of-consent laws. The reason for having a specific age cutoff rather than judging each case on it merits, i.e., based on the maturity levels of the people involved, is because the latter is impractical.

Previously, you've argued for the need to compel witness testimony. Witnesses may well be innocent, so why should they be subject to force? That's a good question. I'm not sure their testimony should be compelled. Witnesses that are forced to testify are often lousy witnesses anyway. If they fear for their lives, they may pretend they didn't hear or see anything or give false testimony. Countries and regions where witnesses are not willing to come forth voluntarily are virtually ungovernable regardless of laws that compel their testimony.

You've argued for the need to compel juries. Is that really necessary? What about having professional juries? What about paying them more? What about the notion that when you sign up to vote you're giving your pledge to serve on a jury if you're called? Many "duties" could be tied to the privileges associated with a certain level of citizenship. One can criticize such ideas on their specifics, but that doesn't affect the argument that the goal should be to minimize compulsion in human relations.

Darrell

You're only called to jury duty if you have registered to vote. There are specific rights associated with citizenship (not privileges) and there are also specific duties associated with it. These duties are mandatory (like all laws), but they only involve force when they need to be enforced.

[Selene]

You're only called to jury duty if you have registered to vote. There are specific rights associated with citizenship (not privileges) and there are also specific duties associated with it. These duties are mandatory (like all laws), but they only involve force when they need to be enforced.

This is no longer true.

They pull jury lists from various sources now because of litigation that established that that system

was discriminatory.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Darrell:
You're only called to jury duty if you have registered to vote. There are specific rights associated with citizenship (not privileges) and there are also specific duties associated with it. These duties are mandatory (like all laws), but they only involve force when they need to be enforced.

__________________

If they can ID you they can call you to jury duty. Property tax roles. Driver's license. Utility bills. I have learned the best way to deal with jury duty, if I don't have the luxury of serving, is to completely ignore the initial summons. Replying confirms to the computer to come and get you or ask for documents supporting your claim.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

There are specific rights associated with citizenship (not privileges) and there are also specific duties associated with it.

You forgot to mention Federal income tax, SS, Medicare, reporting transactions over $10,000, excise and death taxes.

[Samson Corwell]

There are specific rights associated with citizenship (not privileges) and there are also specific duties associated with it.

You forgot to mention Federal income tax, SS, Medicare, reporting transactions over $10,000, excise and death taxes.

Yes, those as well, as undesirable as they may be.

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry, guys; you're quoting Darrell, not me.

--Brant

no need to fix it; this post is enough.

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry, guys; you're quoting Darrell, not me.

--Brant

no need to fix it; this post is enough

more my bag than yours

[Wolf DeVoon]

Sorry, guys; you're quoting Darrell, not me.

Ooops. Bad proofreading. There goes George's "accurate" theory of my work out the window.