Sliding scale for domestic violence

[Ilya Shambat]

One thing that becomes very noticeable to someone who's not only
traveled around but also had relationships with partners from
different places is the vast difference in how domestic violence is
treated across countries and across cultures within the same country.

If you live in rural Texas or in Queensland in Australia, you most
likely will get away with serious violence against your wife or your
children. If you live in a socially liberal area or are married to a
feminist, a slap could send you to jail. I propose bringing some
sanity to this matter by revising domestic violence laws based on
severity of violence committed.

Namely I propose a sliding scale, based on severity of violence, and
appropriate sentencing based on the place on this sliding scale.

The sliding scale I propose would go from severe brutality (life-
endangering violence, guns, knives, sulfuric acid, severe injuries) to
brutality (broken bones, injuries, wounds, strangling) to severe
violence (sticks, whips, visible bruises) to serious violence
(punching, kicking, throwing, dragging by hair) to mild violence
(slaps, light punches).

Sentencing would be done based on the place on this sliding scale,
with severe brutality carrying sentences of over 5 years (over 10
years in case of life-threatening violence); brutality of 3 to 5
years; severe violence 1 to 2 years; serious violence three to nine
months; and mild violence a fine.

We see these kind of sliding scales in laws all the time. With murder,
there's first-degree to third-degree. With theft, larceny, assault, we
likewise see distinctions made based on seriousness. Stealing a
Porsche draws a heavier punishment than does stealing a postcard.
Similar sanity needs to be applied to prosecution of domestic
violence.

Such sanity is utterly lacking when some men smash their wives' skulls
and wind up not only free but with custody of the children, while
other men go to jail for a slap. By standard of "all violence is a
crime," most men would be in prison. By standard of "women must put up
with anything" or "family must be preserved at all costs," people who
commit horrendous brutality not only go free but get to remain in
charge of the family. There is no justice here, and there is also no
reason here. As with the rest of the legal system, reason and justice
must be applied to prosecution of domestic violence. Creating a
sliding scale such as what I'm proposing would accomplish that task.

[Dare]

"Ilya Shambat" <ibsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e9d5983f-f63c-4930...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> One thing that becomes very noticeable to someone who's not only
> traveled around but also had relationships with partners from
> different places is the vast difference in how domestic violence is
> treated across countries and across cultures within the same country.
>
> If you live in rural Texas or in Queensland in Australia, you most
> likely will get away with serious violence against your wife or your
> children. If you live in a socially liberal area or are married to a
> feminist, a slap could send you to jail. I propose bringing some
> sanity to this matter by revising domestic violence laws based on
> severity of violence committed.

Laws are powerless without enforcement.
Enforcement can't occur if the crimes aren't reported.
The culture and "mindset" of those involved can
affect whether a crime is reported and how it
will be handled.

[Bret Cahill]

The Seal Beach control freak teabagger spree shooter is just the tip
of the iceberg.

> Such sanity is utterly lacking when some men smash their wives' skulls
> and wind up not only free but with custody of the children, while
> other men go to jail for a slap. By standard of "all violence is a
> crime," most men would be in prison. By standard of "women must put up
> with anything" or "family must be preserved at all costs," people who
> commit horrendous brutality not only go free but get to remain in
> charge of the family. There is no justice here, and there is also no
> reason here. As with the rest of the legal system, reason and justice
> must be applied to prosecution of domestic violence. Creating a
> sliding scale such as what I'm proposing would accomplish that task.

It would be far easier to destroy the wage slave despotism that is the
source of almost all of the violence in the first place.

But that cannot happen as long as the 0.01% media are Jerry
Springerizing the political debate off of economic issues.

Just as the Chia pet comes out every December the 0.01% media will
gush hype the imPOOORtant third trimester flagburner terrorist
marriage issue every October of every election year.

By November everyone will have forgotten about the vast and growing
disparity of wealth, the 20 trillion in debt, the unemployment rate,
etc., _just like the 0.01% want to happen.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> > One thing that becomes very noticeable to someone who's not only
> > traveled around but also had relationships with partners from
> > different places is the vast difference in how domestic violence is
> > treated across countries and across cultures within the same country.
>
> > If you live in rural Texas or in Queensland in Australia, you most
> > likely will get away with serious violence against your wife or your
> > children. If you live in a socially liberal area or are married to a
> > feminist, a slap could send you to jail. I propose bringing some
> > sanity to this matter by revising domestic violence laws based on
> > severity of violence committed.
>
> Laws are powerless without enforcement.
> Enforcement can't occur if the crimes aren't reported.
> The culture and "mindset" of those involved can
> affect whether a crime is reported and how it
> will be handled.

To get a clue as to the difficulty consider that billions of dollars
of fuel could be saved if truckers didn't idle their engines to stay
warm at truck stops.

DoT has the regulations all drawn up but who is going to go to a truck
stop to bang on Freightliner doors at 3:00 am?


Bret Cahill

[Michael Gordge]

Is that because ewe cant stop hitting your husband?

MG

[Bret Cahill]

Why are you so envious of the inhabitants of the Northern Hemisphere?

[Ilya Shambat]

For your reference: Ilya is a male Russian name.
I am straight and married.
For someone who gets his life's philosophy from a Russian author, you
certainly have very little knowledge of Russian culture.

[Ilya Shambat]

On May 10, 12:30 am, "Dare" <clydad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ilya Shambat" <ibsham...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e9d5983f-f63c-4930...@vy9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Oh, absolutely. A lot of the women in these situations are under huge
pressure not to report what is going on. Most do not, and the ugliness
keeps on going.

[Bret Cahill]

> > > One thing that becomes very noticeable to someone who's not only
> > > traveled around but also had relationships with partners from
> > > different places is the vast difference in how domestic violence is
> > > treated across countries and across cultures within the same country.
>
> > > If you live in rural Texas or in Queensland in Australia, you most
> > > likely will get away with serious violence against your wife or your
> > > children. If you live in a socially liberal area or are married to a
> > > feminist, a slap could send you to jail. I propose bringing some
> > > sanity to this matter by revising domestic violence laws based on
> > > severity of violence committed.
>
> > Laws are powerless without enforcement.
> > Enforcement can't occur if the crimes aren't reported.
> > The culture and "mindset" of those involved can
> > affect whether a crime is reported and how it
> > will be handled.
>
> Oh, absolutely. A lot of the women in these situations are under huge
> pressure not to report what is going on. Most do not, and the ugliness
> keeps on going.

That's why an activist would be far more effective using soft power,
even in the short term and even if the only concern was violence and
threats against women.

You say that solution isn't as satisfying as a Clint Eastwood movie
where the bad guys get shot right on the spot? Everyone will agree
with you.

And the ugliness will keep on going.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

He's not so interested in the substance of any thread as wearing
positions that he likes to fancy are "interesting" or "controversial."

A populist might want to include everyone in every debate but if you
are reasonably certain they are just posturing then there is no duty
on your part to respond with a sincere answer.


Bret Cahill

[Michael Gordge]

On May 11, 2:47 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> He's not so interested in the substance of any thread as wearing
> positions that he likes to fancy are "interesting" or "controversial."

Stop evading the subject, have ewe stopped hitting Shambat's husband?

MG

[Michael Gordge]

Your Russian culture is why you want degrees in violence? why doesn't
that surprise me.

MG

[Ilya Shambat]

Absolutely not. My conclusions are based on observations in United
States and Australia. As I've said, I have seen men break their wives'
skulls and wind up with custody of the children, and I've also seen
men go to jail for a slap. This is insanity. And the only way to bring
sanity to the issue is to have degrees of domestic violence, as we see
with degrees for murder and with degrees for theft.

[Bret Cahill]

> > He's not so interested in the substance of any thread as wearing
> > positions that he likes to fancy are "interesting" or "controversial."
>
> Stop evading the subject

That you have nothing to say?

[Bret Cahill]

Every day defense lawyers bring up these inconsistencies in court with
mixed results. One response was sentencing guidelines, another
mandatory sentencing as though putting the judicial system on auto
pilot was a substitute for competent judges.

The sad fact is the judicial system only adjudicates a tiny fraction
of the injustices in life.

What am I saying? The judicial system doesn't even adjudicate most of
the injustices in law.


Bret Cahill

[Greegor]

The really DANGEROUS domestic violence
perpetrators don't get into the system
because their spouses know that the
system cannot really protect them.

It's like a fishing net that only catches
little fish but lets the fish get away.

The laws and the "Duluth Method"
reeducation programs for offenders
are about pushing a POLITICAL AGENDA,
not maintaining order.

The man's actions and circumstances
are SPUN to the point of absurdity.
No mitigation is considered valid,
no matter what.

For example, they go after such FEMINIST
targets as "male perogative" and
"economic abuse" but apparently like to
overlook the flip sides to those.

There is even consideration given to
emotional abuse, also presumed that
to be something that evil men do to
innocent women.

Even some feminists themselves once wrote
once about how idiotic the Police
and prosecution bias was/is saying
that the severe bias against men
would likely anger men, make men more
wary and create more problems for
women than benefits.

The blanket message about women being
WEAKER, often used as an excuse for
the anti-male bias, conflicts with
efforts regarding equal opportunity
and equal pay.

My 1994 ex has psychiatric breakdowns from
time to time and back then I asked the female
psych nurses at the local rubber room that
handles her about this "weaker woman" dogma.
They know better!

I'm certain that Law Enforcement Officers
would be at serious risk if they truly
believed that women are weaker than men.

[Bret Cahill]

That's what they were discussing.

Maybe a "super safe house" program could be established. Once the
woman calls they send in a SWAT team to spirit her out and give her a
new identity in another city like in the Federal Witness Protection
Program.

> It's like a fishing net that only catches
> little fish but lets the fish get away.
>
> The laws and the "Duluth Method"
> reeducation programs for offenders
> are about pushing a POLITICAL AGENDA,
> not maintaining order.

Just about everything today is necessarily posturing as the 0.01% pay
their minions in the media to Jerry Springerize the political debate
off of substantive issues.


Bret Cahill

[Immortalist]

This may be confusing, good luck if you care, science research favors
no side just pisses them off as it evolves and flip flops.

...Liberals try to create a morality relying primarily on the Care/
harm foundation, with additional support from the Fairness/cheating
and Liberty/oppression foundations.

...Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all six
foundations, including Loyatly/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and
Sanctity/degradation.

-----------------------------------------

...a brief recap of Moral Foundations Theory; the five universal
morals include: (1) harm/care (strong empathy for those that are
suffering and care for the most vulnerable); (2) fairness/reciprocity
(equal rights, justice, and fairness for all); (3) ingroup/loyalty
(tribalism, patriotism, nationalism); (4) authority/respect (clear
lines of authority, uniform expectations, and appropriate deference to
the law and authority figures); and (5) purity/sanctity (clear and
pure social morals in step with piety, as well as revulsion of disgust/
carnality).

You see, across the five universal morals, people differ in the degree
to which they value each moral.   This is evidenced most clearly in
HaidtÕs research on the degree to which Liberals and Conservatives
deviate on their weighting of the importance of each specific value.
 See Political Divide for a more in-depth discussion of this topic.

Liberals seem to value harm/care and fairness/reciprocity above the
others, devaluing ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/
sanctity.  They look out for the little guy and highly value equal
rights for all.  They also value diversity, are open to experience Ð
tending to enjoy creativity and novelty.  They may see harm in
overreaching government intrusion (e.g., Patriot Act), danger in blind
nationalism, and the injustices in puritanical religions and free
market capitalism (particularly for those at the bottom Ð namely:
women, children, and minorities).  Think of places like New York City
or San Francisco where diversity and creativity abound and are in many
ways celebrated. Conservatives tend to look at the social entropy and
degradation in such places as evidence of immorality.

Conservatives tend to hold all of the values on an equal level.  They
do value harm/care and fairness/reciprocity but less so than Liberals.
 But unlike Liberals, they do highly value ingroup/loyalty, authority/
respect, and purity/sanctity.   As a result they tend to value social
order, restraint, and conventions all held together by a strict
authority.  They value self-control over self-expression, duty over
rights, and loyalty to oneÕs group over concerns for outgroups (Haidt,
2008).  Liberals tend to view such systems as repressive, invasive,
and constrictive.

Liberals and Conservatives join together in their respective camps
forming what Haidt (2011) refers to as Tribal Moral Communities.  Such
banding is not unique to those with strong political affiliations Ð
this proclivity transcends society.  And what characterizes a Tribal
Moral Community is a grouping of people who rally around sacred
objects and principles (e.g., the flag, patriotism, freedom, religion)
in such a way that their sacralized truths render them blind to the
truths held by the outgroup.

http://geraldguild.com/blog/tag/morality/

-----------------------------------

Moral Foundations Theory was created by a group of social and cultural
psychologists (see us here) to understand why morality varies so much
across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent
themes. In brief, the theory proposes that six (or more) innate and
universally available psychological systems are the foundations of
Òintuitive ethics.Ó Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives,
and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the
unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within
nations too. The foundations are:

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as
mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike)
the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and
nurturance.

2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary
process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights,
and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included
concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political
liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new
data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but
is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of
reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them
and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with
those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and
dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose
or take down the oppressor.

4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as
tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies
virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active
anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long
primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies
virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to
legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology
of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of
striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It
underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be
desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique
to religious traditions).

Much of our present research involves applying the theory to political
"cultures" such as those of liberals and conservatives. The current
American culture war, we have found, can be seen as arising from the
fact that

------------------------------------------

...Liberals try to create a morality relying primarily on the Care/
harm foundation, with additional support from the Fairness/cheating
and Liberty/oppression foundations.

...Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all six
foundations, including Loyatly/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and
Sanctity/degradation.

------------------------------------------

The culture war in the 1990s and early 2000s centered on the
legitimacy of these latter three foundations. In 2009, with the rise
of the Tea Party, the culture war shifted away from social issues such
as abortion and homosexuality, and became more about differing
conceptions of fairness (equality vs. proportionality) and liberty (is
government the oppressor or defender?). The Tea Party and Occupy Wall
Street are both populist movements that talk a great deal about
fairness and liberty, but in very different ways, as you can see here,
for the Tea Party, and here, for OWS.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php

[Bret Cahill]

> If you live in rural Texas or in Queensland in Australia, you most
> likely will get away with serious violence against your wife or your
> children.

I lived in SE Texas for a couple of years. Only the valley has higher
unemployment. Occasionally you see things straight out of Carson
McCullers, i.e., the black girl with wandering eye that could be
easily treated outpatient.

The thing that bothered me most, however, was some poor woman
desperately giving her pennies to the "Texas Democratic Party" a group
so cowardly it was a farce.

Last summer I remarked to a California Democrat, "you know why Texas
has such a buffoon for a governor? It's because there is no
opposition party." A few months later Perry drops out and the
California Democrat mentions that even Texans are ashamed of Perry.

He knew full well I'd be completely exasperated.

"Texas Democrats need to forget about New York and forget about
Massachusetts and forget about the national Democratic Party and find
something that works for Texas. Maybe play a tennis match with the
Republican candidate -- _anything_ to have _any_ kind of competition."


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> In 2009, with the rise
> of the Tea Party, the culture war shifted away from social issues such
> as abortion and homosexuality,

and onto the economy which is what always happens after the 0.01% loot
the 99.9% by paying their media to gush hype culture wars to the point
that the economy crashes

> and became more about differing
> conceptions of fairness (equality vs. proportionality) and liberty (is
> government the oppressor or defender?).

All euphemisms, slogans and propaganda for policies they think are in
their economic self interest.

But as long as tea baggers keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' The Question, "does
free speech precede each and every free trade?" then it's obvious the
tire biters are bat crap crazy.

Republicans do better when the political debate is on culture wars.


Bret Cahill

[Greegor]

BC > That's what they were discussing.

BC > Maybe a "super safe house" program
BC > could be established.  Once the
BC > woman calls they send in a SWAT
BC > team to spirit her out and give
BC > her a new identity in another city
BC > like in the Federal Witness
BC > Protection Program.

Hell, What woman wouldn't LOVE that?
Oh the drama! The pathos!
The intrigue and excitement!

> > It's like a fishing net that only catches
> > little fish but lets the fish get away.
>
> > The laws and the "Duluth Method"
> > reeducation programs for offenders
> > are about pushing a POLITICAL AGENDA,
> > not maintaining order.

BC > Just about everything today is necessarily
BC > posturing as the 0.01% pay their minions
BC > in the media to Jerry Springerize the
BC > political debate off of substantive issues.

Jefferson warned of the Tyranny of the Majority.
Eisenhower warned of the Industrial-Military complex.
Now it does appear that tiny minorities
have been FAR too successful at foisting their
self serving political agendas on the entire populace.

It's a challenge to the very nature of Democracy.
Apathy, short attention span and
knee jerk reactions seem no match
for minority political crusaders
spinning everything and making DRAMATIC
pleas to have their way.

[Michael Gordge]

Preceeding violence with the adjective domestic doesn't change the
nature, context or meaning of violence.
So you believe a person initiating a slap is less violent, less
irrational, morally superior and is a better member
of a society than the person who initiates a punch and therefore
should be treated better?

MG

[Bret Cahill]

One that's already happy.

> Oh the drama!   The pathos!
> The intrigue and excitement!

Sounds like it's win win for everyone.

> > > It's like a fishing net that only catches
> > > little fish but lets the fish get away.
>
> > > The laws and the "Duluth Method"
> > > reeducation programs for offenders
> > > are about pushing a POLITICAL AGENDA,
> > > not maintaining order.
>
> BC > Just about everything today is necessarily
> BC > posturing as the 0.01% pay their minions
> BC > in the media to Jerry Springerize the
> BC > political debate off of substantive issues.
>
> Jefferson warned of the Tyranny of the Majority.
> Eisenhower warned of the Industrial-Military complex.
> Now it does appear that tiny minorities
> have been FAR too successful at foisting their
> self serving political agendas on the entire populace.

It just the rich consolidating power.

[Greegor]

LOL Does she tell you that?

It's biological to keep Mr. stable but
run around with Mrs. excitement and variety.
Men get accused of chasing variety but women
really do that, as proven by the DNA of kids.

Like those birds that place their eggs
in the nest of other birds to trick them
into caring for them.

Even in families that SWEAR that all the
kids are from the same Dad, they're not.

G > Oh the drama!   The pathos!
G > The intrigue and excitement!

BC > Sounds like it's win win for everyone.

It would motivate women to make
small timers out to be the monsters.
(More conflict of interest)

This kind of enticement already exists
for some on the lower rungs when homeless
shelters are full and they're told that
criminally charging the man will get them
into the abuse shelter. A former intake
worker pointed this out to me.

> > > > It's like a fishing net that only catches
> > > > little fish but lets the fish get away.
>
> > > > The laws and the "Duluth Method"
> > > > reeducation programs for offenders
> > > > are about pushing a POLITICAL AGENDA,
> > > > not maintaining order.
>
> > BC > Just about everything today is necessarily
> > BC > posturing as the 0.01% pay their minions
> > BC > in the media to Jerry Springerize the
> > BC > political debate off of substantive issues.
>
> > Jefferson warned of the Tyranny of the Majority.
> > Eisenhower warned of the Industrial-Military complex.
> > Now it does appear that tiny minorities
> > have been FAR too successful at foisting their
> > self serving political agendas on the entire populace.

> It just the rich consolidating power.

Not always. I think the Duluth MN Lesbians
who succesfully pushed the whole system of
domestic abuse prosecutions and ""classes""
NATIONWIDE simply hated men and were
vindictive man haters.

Later the whole thing became a "cottage industry"
successfully extracting funds from the convicted
to pay for the crappy ""classes"" under threat
of more jail time.

Having to check my then wife into the rubber
room ward when she had a breakdown was not
an excused absence, so I had to start over and
pay again.

[Bret Cahill]

> G > Oh the drama!   The pathos!
> G > The intrigue and excitement!

> BC > Sounds like it's win win for everyone.

> It would motivate women to make
> small timers out to be the monsters.

Get a better social safety net.

> (More conflict of interest)

> This kind of enticement already exists
> for some on the lower rungs when homeless
> shelters are full and they're told that
> criminally charging the man will get them
> into the abuse shelter.  A former intake
> worker pointed this out to me.

There's no getting around the fact that you will first need to level
incomes. Women make less than men so they should be the first to
support this solution, if only for its _direct_ benefits.

The 0.01% pay their shills in the media to Jerry Springerize the
political debate _just to_ prevent any leveling. All the lofty talk
on culture issues gushed every 4 years isn't motivated so much by
lofty goals, but preserving the status quo.

Of course, keeping the rich rich and the poor poor _is_ a lofty goal
if you are one of the 0.01%


Bret Cahill


"A popular government without popular information . . ."

-- James Madison

[Ilya Shambat]

There are degrees for murder, there are degrees for theft, and there
should also be degrees for domestic violence.

If you don't like there being degrees for murder and theft, then feel
free to contact your nearest government representative. I am sure they
will laugh at you.

And yes, a slap should draw a lighter punishment than breaking
someone's skull. In the same way as stealing a postcard draws lighter
punishment than stealing a Porsche.

[Greegor]

You complain about bureaucracy yet want MORE, Bret?

Privatized or not, such operations are
still an INDUSTRY where insiders promote
and exaggerate their own usefulness and
lobby for a larger share.

Has any socialist state or even communist
state ever truly made everybody's
income identical?

Maybe we should nationalize the Fed and all banks?

Andy Jackson went to WAR with the Fed and
banks are easy to hate, especially of late.

That secretive BS with the Fed is too much.

[Bret Cahill]

Only looneytarians think utopia breaks out when you "starve gummint"
but in real life when you cut taxes and cut gummint, the police don't
get cut.

When everything is cut except the police the % of state power that is
police state _increases_.

That's why libertarianism can only lead to a police state.

Looneytarians might not like the FBI and BATF infiltrating their
militias and reading their emails but the more they cut health and
education programs, the more powerful the police become.

Judging by the domestic problems that always slip out of the posts
here, looneytarians and teabaggers are prime candidates for spouse
abuse.

One looneytarian teabagger recently posted that his wife's restraining
order violated his -- get this -- right to association!


Bret Cahill

[Ilya Shambat]

Brilliant deduction.

> Judging by the domestic problems that always slip out of the posts
> here, looneytarians and teabaggers are prime candidates for spouse
> abuse.
>
> One looneytarian teabagger recently posted that his wife's restraining
> order violated his -- get this -- right to association!

Believe me it gets worse.

[Greegor]

The argument that smaller government makes
Police a larger part proportionately and
therefore gives Police more power is specious.

Do you honestly think that for each wasteful
unnecessary bureaucracy eliminated, the local
Police gain more power?

Please show the statistical correlation.

How would you quantize Police power?

[Bret Cahill]

> The argument that smaller government makes
> Police a larger part proportionately and
> therefore gives Police more power is specious.
>
> Do you honestly think that for each wasteful
> unnecessary bureaucracy eliminated, the local
> Police gain more power?

Relative to the rest of society?

> Please show the statistical correlation.
>
> How would you quantize Police power?

You think Ron Paul should be loyal to the GOP after the shabby
treatment he received during the primaries?

Paul is too principled to be a Republican. He needs to run 3rd Party
or at least give his anti-jingoism speech at the convention.

And remember to hit the floor when you hear the magic words, "MITT IS
JUST LIKE HITLER!"


Bret Cahill

[Greegor]

You're 55 years old and pushing socialism?

[Bret Cahill]

GO RON PAUL!

[Greegor]

Sarcasm is one of your better arguments.

Certainly better than the one you posted
about how when government shrinks,
Police will have even more power...

Nice word games, but not much substance.

Why did you even bother complaining about
government since you are all for immense
stateism?

Did you see those news stories about the
massive government layoffs?

Does that mean that now Police will
have more power, according to your theory?

Are you an actual socialist, or are you
one of the even rarer communists?

[Bill Graham]

In general, I believe local police have excessive power because local courts
don't, in general, follow constitutional law. The3 local courts have found
out that locals don't have the time and/or money to fight cases whose fines
total $500 or less, so they walk all over ther constitutional rights of the
local citizenry just to make more money. IOW, when the local camera gives
you a ticket for a non-offense, you've been, "taxed" without proper
representation.

[Greegor]

On May 14, 7:40 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > The argument that smaller government makes
> > Police a larger part proportionately and
> > therefore gives Police more power is specious.
>
> > Do you honestly think that for each wasteful
> > unnecessary bureaucracy eliminated, the local
> > Police gain more power?
>
> > Please show the statistical correlation.
>
> > How would you quantize Police power?

Bill Graham wrote

> In general, I believe local police have
> excessive power because local courts
> don't, in general, follow constitutional

> law. The local courts have found out

> that locals don't have the time and/or
> money to fight cases whose fines
> total $500 or less, so they walk all
> over ther constitutional rights of the
> local citizenry just to make more
> money. IOW, when the local camera gives
> you a ticket for a non-offense,
> you've been, "taxed" without proper
> representation.

Courts are not even supposed to give
a cops testimony any more weight
than any other testimony, yet
they do so on a routine basis.

[Bret Cahill]

Libertaria!

[Bill Graham]

Hey! - It's the way to go.... (It's the opposite of slavery.)

[Bret Cahill]

If you want the police to run hog wild.

[Ilya Shambat]

Probably a good example on your side is what happened when Florida
privatized its jails. Now they have incentive to lock up as many
people as they can for as long as they can. So it's very difficult
now, if you're in Florida, not to get accused of some kind of crime.

[Greegor]

How is that a reduction in the size of government?

Pick your flavor, Bret!
You're at least a socialist, but are you a communist?

[Bret Cahill]

What was the argument for privatized prisons?

> Pick your flavor, Bret!

Here, pick a question to dodge:

1. what's the difference between rent or taxes?

2. does free speech precede each and every free trade?

[Greegor]

You tried to ridicule Libertarian views
but you're too ASHAMED to admit whether
you are an avowed socialist or
an avowed communist.

Way to go Bret!

rent v taxes

If you EARNED money to pay either, Bret,
you would know the difference!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec

[Bret Cahill]

> You tried to ridicule Libertarian views

Looneytarianism is self ridiculing.

> but you're too ASHAMED to admit whether
> you are an avowed socialist or
> an avowed communist.

You need to read up a little on Marx before you summarily reject him:

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and
we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity,
according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for
different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and
many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an
attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-
eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes
have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided
mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and
rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to
co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of
mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial
occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions
have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite
their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source
of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.
Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed
distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who
are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a
manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest,
with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations,
and divide them into different classes, actuated by different
sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering
interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves
the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary
operations of the government."

-- Karl Marx Das Kapital No. 10 (1783)

[Bret Cahill]

> Sarcasm is one of your better arguments.
>
> Certainly better than the one you posted
> about how when government shrinks,
> Police will have even more power...

You never presented any reasoning on why it isn't true.

Do you have some theory that police power drops when education is
gutted?


Bret Cahill

[Greegor]

Now that you're spouting Marxism,
are you going to admit to whether
you're a socialist or a communist, Bret?

[Bret Cahill]

> Now that you're spouting Marxism,
> are you going to admit to whether
> you're a socialist or a communist, Bret?

[Greegor]

On May 15, 10:40 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > Now that you're spouting Marxism,
> > are you going to admit to whether
> > you're a socialist or a communist, Bret?
>
> You need to read up a little on Marx
> before you summarily  reject him:

In your flaming liberal zeal you think
that to know Marx is to love Marx, right?

But you can't even be honest enough to
declare your political party?