Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#91
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:10:19 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: On Dec 12, 11:39*pm, wrote: As little time as I have, I'll try to articulate my perspective on this issue as best as I'm able. *Firstly, I don't have a background in law, and I make no pretense to have a firm grasp of the fine points of law. *When I encounter points of law that I find of interest, I consult my sister who is a lawyer and is schooled in those areas for the most part. *In an attempt to clarify my political philosophy I try to broach the subject with philosophical language for the most part. If in doing so, I impinge upon the hallowed lexicon of the lawyer, it's not for any purpose other to express my point of view. *In submitting the phrase "preventive sanctions," I'm speaking more in a general and philosophical sense. *I'm not looking to further bifurcate the subject into penal or civil sanctions. * I may have articulated poorly when I stated that retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must necessarily be constrained. *It may be better stated that retributive justice seeks to find redress for a wrong. It's overarching design is not too constrain the individual by regulating the individual's every action by the enactment of a plethora of laws that anticipate the individual's potential to err. The latter is what I subsume under "preventive sanctions." *Where retributive justice takes the individual to task for having failed a moral responsibility not to harm or injure, preventive sanctions, in the sense that I use the language, presume the necessity to remove from the individual the personal autonomy and mobility that may lead to injury. *I find the latter to be deplorable and unnecessary. *If the world were comprised of only two individuals, there is one handcuffing the other so that the first can feel safe, under a doctrine of preventive sanctions (again as I define the phrase). *As simple as this analogy is, it essentially encapsulates the doctrine that drives much of the legislation that oppresses the individual in our society. *I have to say that I humbly disagree with your assessment of 18th century jurisprudence, and I do so from what little I have read of Blackstone, ecclesiastical law, common law, the times of Cromwell, etc. *It isn't a stretch to contend that the "social engineering of a new legal construct" by our founding fathers was a construct that was modeled, in some measure, on the best aspects of Greek and Roman government, among other things. *(It was also influenced by the philosophical thought of Rosseau, Locke, and others.) *But that will have to be a discussion for another day. *This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. -- Good thoughts JPJ. Thanks, Tim. I tried to express this perspective without being too bombastic. :) -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#92
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news ![]() wrote: On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou... NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! George Orwell just wasn't too far off... Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a passenger should be prosecuted as a felon. I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view. I don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or her personal autonomy. Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control? To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically, morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of society. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. -- John H |
#93
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#94
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tim" wrote in message
... On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news ![]() wrote: On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou... NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! George Orwell just wasn't too far off... Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a passenger should be prosecuted as a felon. I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view. I don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or her personal autonomy. Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control? To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically, morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of society. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... I was responding to his typo... ![]() -- Nom=de=Plume |
#95
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"John H" wrote in message
... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news ![]() wrote: On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou... NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! George Orwell just wasn't too far off... Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a passenger should be prosecuted as a felon. I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view. I don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or her personal autonomy. Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control? To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically, morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of society. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. -- John H Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!! I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.) -- Nom=de=Plume |
#96
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 13, 12:52*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:10:19 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 12, 11:39*pm, wrote: As little time as I have, I'll try to articulate my perspective on this issue as best as I'm able. *Firstly, I don't have a background in law, and I make no pretense to have a firm grasp of the fine points of law. *When I encounter points of law that I find of interest, I consult my sister who is a lawyer and is schooled in those areas for the most part. *In an attempt to clarify my political philosophy I try to broach the subject with philosophical language for the most part. If in doing so, I impinge upon the hallowed lexicon of the lawyer, it's not for any purpose other to express my point of view. *In submitting the phrase "preventive sanctions," I'm speaking more in a general and philosophical sense. *I'm not looking to further bifurcate the subject into penal or civil sanctions. * I may have articulated poorly when I stated that retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must necessarily be constrained. *It may be better stated that retributive justice seeks to find redress for a wrong. It's overarching design is not too constrain the individual by regulating the individual's every action by the enactment of a plethora of laws that anticipate the individual's potential to err. The latter is what I subsume under "preventive sanctions." *Where retributive justice takes the individual to task for having failed a moral responsibility not to harm or injure, preventive sanctions, in the sense that I use the language, presume the necessity to remove from the individual the personal autonomy and mobility that may lead to injury. *I find the latter to be deplorable and unnecessary. *If the world were comprised of only two individuals, there is one handcuffing the other so that the first can feel safe, under a doctrine of preventive sanctions (again as I define the phrase). *As simple as this analogy is, it essentially encapsulates the doctrine that drives much of the legislation that oppresses the individual in our society. *I have to say that I humbly disagree with your assessment of 18th century jurisprudence, and I do so from what little I have read of Blackstone, ecclesiastical law, common law, the times of Cromwell, etc. *It isn't a stretch to contend that the "social engineering of a new legal construct" by our founding fathers was a construct that was modeled, in some measure, on the best aspects of Greek and Roman government, among other things. *(It was also influenced by the philosophical thought of Rosseau, Locke, and others.) *But that will have to be a discussion for another day. *This note is a bit too long as it is, Tom. -- Good thoughts JPJ. Thanks, Tim. *I tried to express this perspective without being too bombastic. *:) -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service * * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access I understood it well. |
#97
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John H wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, wrote: wrote in message ... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news ![]() On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), wrote: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou... NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! George Orwell just wasn't too far off... Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a passenger should be prosecuted as a felon. I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view. I don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or her personal autonomy. Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control? To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically, morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of society. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. He's into old testament justice. Stoning and crucifixions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Really? I've seen no implication of hat. Can you point out where you get such an idea? I'll see your hat and raise you a haircut. -- Nom=de=Plume huh? I've never heard that one before... She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. She better be smart. She doesn't have much else going for her unless she's into men 20 years older than her with failing eyesight. Rob |
#98
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
nom=de=plume wrote:
I was responding to his typo... ![]() Yipee! |
#99
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
nom=de=plume wrote:
She's showing her wit and intelligence by playing typo cop with the word 'hat', from which a 't' is obviously missing. She's pretty smart (her own words) you know. -- John H Wow... you got it! Amazing!!!! I'm pretty and smart. (I know this is threatening.) And, evidently, insanely narcissistic. She fits right in with her leader, WAFA. Get a room. |
#100
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 13, 3:11*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: On Dec 10, 11:05 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Tim" wrote in message .... On Dec 10, 9:00 am, jps wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message news ![]() wrote: On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou... NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board. That ought to help save lives! George Orwell just wasn't too far off... Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a passenger should be prosecuted as a felon. I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view. I don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or her personal autonomy. Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control? To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically, morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of society. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Please, for the sake of the country, keep Obama safe | General | |||
To Our Children's Children's Children, On the Threshold of aNightmare | General | |||
Go Vote for the sake of pinks everywhere | General | |||
SAILING for @%^&^&**&^ sake | ASA | |||
Agreement in Maine Will Remove Dams for Salmon's Sake | General |