| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Noon Cat Nick" |
| Date: |
16 Apr 2006 10:55:59 PM |
| Object: |
17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a
crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit.
--Freda Adler, _Sisters in Crime_ (1975)
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 04:54:27 PM |
|
|
Noon Cat Nick wrote:
Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a
crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit.
--Freda Adler, _Sisters in Crime_ (1975)
that's something that it generally takes children a long time to
learn I guess, from what I've heard... It took me way to long to learn
it myself... not that certain crimes shouldn't have consequences...
-"jordie"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 03:40:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 03:55:59 GMT, Noon Cat Nick
<chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:
Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a
crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit.
--Freda Adler, _Sisters in Crime_ (1975)
Here are some other takes on crime:
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that
it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand
ARREST, v.t. Formally to detain one accused of unusualness.
- Ambrose Bierce
LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.
- Ambrose Bierce
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce
--
OVERWORK, n. A dangerous disorder affecting high public functionaries who
want to go fishing.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 04:42:43 PM |
|
|
CyberDroog wrote:
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that
it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand
there is Very, Very little that I agree with Ayn Rand about(though
I find some of her books enjoyable and interesting in some respects.)
however I like what she had to say about the draft:
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed
economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of
rights. It negates man's fundamental right- the right to life- and
establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life
belongs to the state and the state may claim it by compelling him to
sacrafice it in battle. once that principle is accepted, the rest is
only a matter of time. One of the notions used by the state to justify
the draft is that "rights impose obligations." Obligations, to whom?-
and imposed by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse then the evil
it attempts to justify. It implies that rights are a gift from the
state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something(his life)
in return. logically, that notion is a contradictoin: since the only
proper form of goverment is to protect man's rights, it cannot claim
title to his life in exchange for that protection."
-Ayn Rand
.
|
|
|
| User: "cal" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 09:21:19 PM |
|
|
<Icnh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145310163.717005.179400@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
CyberDroog wrote:
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that
it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand
there is Very, Very little that I agree with Ayn Rand about(though
I find some of her books enjoyable and interesting in some respects.)
however I like what she had to say about the draft:
like some other russian ex-pats of the past 90 years, she seemed to believe
she held a patent on freedom, individualism, the spirit of competition, and
how love oughta be. "when i get to america by gum, i'm gonna tell those
freedom-squandering nitwits how to think right and live right." and tell 'em
and tell 'em and tell 'em and tell 'em...
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed
economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of
rights. It negates man's fundamental right- the right to life- and
establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life
belongs to the state and the state may claim it by compelling him to
sacrafice it in battle. once that principle is accepted, the rest is
only a matter of time. One of the notions used by the state to justify
the draft is that "rights impose obligations." Obligations, to whom?-
and imposed by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse then the evil
it attempts to justify. It implies that rights are a gift from the
state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something(his life)
in return. logically, that notion is a contradictoin: since the only
proper form of goverment is to protect man's rights, it cannot claim
title to his life in exchange for that protection."
.... sound like anyone you know?
-Ayn Rand
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
18 Apr 2006 06:08:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:21:19 -0400, "cal" <cal1360@gmail.com> wrote:
<Icnh@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145310163.717005.179400@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
CyberDroog wrote:
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that
it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand
there is Very, Very little that I agree with Ayn Rand about(though
I find some of her books enjoyable and interesting in some respects.)
however I like what she had to say about the draft:
like some other russian ex-pats of the past 90 years, she seemed to believe
she held a patent on freedom, individualism, the spirit of competition, and
how love oughta be. "when i get to america by gum, i'm gonna tell those
freedom-squandering nitwits how to think right and live right." and tell 'em
and tell 'em and tell 'em and tell 'em...
And America has *always* needed to hear such from immigrants. The
complacency of the natives leads to the death of the society.
Want proof? Just watch the news.
--
ARREST, v.t. Formally to detain one accused of unusualness.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 07:34:18 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2006 14:42:43 -0700, wrote:
there is Very, Very little that I agree with Ayn Rand about(though
I find some of her books enjoyable and interesting in some respects.)
however I like what she had to say about the draft:
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed
economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of
rights. It negates man's fundamental right- the right to life- and
establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life
belongs to the state and the state may claim it by compelling him to
sacrafice it in battle. once that principle is accepted, the rest is
only a matter of time. One of the notions used by the state to justify
the draft is that "rights impose obligations." Obligations, to whom?-
and imposed by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse then the evil
it attempts to justify. It implies that rights are a gift from the
state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something(his life)
in return. logically, that notion is a contradictoin: since the only
proper form of goverment is to protect man's rights, it cannot claim
title to his life in exchange for that protection."
It seems odd that you like that statement, in relation to the draft, but
you apparently fail to see how it applies to just about everything else the
government does.
For instance, wouldn't the same sentiments apply to a man's right to his
livelihood and the right to the fruits of his labor? Yes, in my view.
Endless taxation steals the fruits of each mans labor and makes obtaining
his livelihood much harder.
It applies to many other things as well. So you believe that a man has an
inherent right to life, but only provided he lives precisely as society
tells him to live?
--
Move tax day to the day before election day. And for good measure, abolish
withholding. Imagine if people trudged to the polls the day after sending
fat checks to the IRS. That might bring the incumbents down a notch.
- Sheldon Richman, Future of Freedom Foundation
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
18 Apr 2006 07:39:38 PM |
|
|
CyberDroog wrote:
On 17 Apr 2006 14:42:43 -0700, wrote:
there is Very, Very little that I agree with Ayn Rand about(though
I find some of her books enjoyable and interesting in some respects.)
however I like what she had to say about the draft:
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed
economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of
rights. It negates man's fundamental right- the right to life- and
establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life
belongs to the state and the state may claim it by compelling him to
sacrafice it in battle. once that principle is accepted, the rest is
only a matter of time. One of the notions used by the state to justify
the draft is that "rights impose obligations." Obligations, to whom?-
and imposed by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse then the evil
it attempts to justify. It implies that rights are a gift from the
state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something(his life)
in return. logically, that notion is a contradictoin: since the only
proper form of goverment is to protect man's rights, it cannot claim
title to his life in exchange for that protection."
It seems odd that you like that statement, in relation to the draft, but
you apparently fail to see how it applies to just about everything else the
government does.
For instance, wouldn't the same sentiments apply to a man's right to his
livelihood and the right to the fruits of his labor? Yes, in my view.
Endless taxation steals the fruits of each mans labor and makes obtaining
his livelihood much harder.
It applies to many other things as well. So you believe that a man has an
inherent right to life, but only provided he lives precisely as society
tells him to live?
--
the way I see it is, do we really want to become a "dog eat dog,
every person for themself" society? I mean more so then it is now? I
think generosity, opening your heart, helping people etc... is really
important, and hopefully it makes people feel better to help other
people... maybe there could be more emphasis on families helping each
other and charities helping more, but surely the goverment has some
role in making people's lives easier... I've never understood why being
self sufficuent is valued over recieving help... everyrone needs help
in some areas...
-"jordie"
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
18 Apr 2006 10:34:43 PM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2006 17:39:38 -0700, wrote:
CyberDroog wrote:
For instance, wouldn't the same sentiments apply to a man's right to his
livelihood and the right to the fruits of his labor? Yes, in my view.
Endless taxation steals the fruits of each mans labor and makes obtaining
his livelihood much harder.
It applies to many other things as well. So you believe that a man has an
inherent right to life, but only provided he lives precisely as society
tells him to live?
the way I see it is, do we really want to become a "dog eat dog,
every person for themself" society? I mean more so then it is now? I
think generosity, opening your heart, helping people etc... is really
important, and hopefully it makes people feel better to help other
people... maybe there could be more emphasis on families helping each
other and charities helping more, but surely the goverment has some
role in making people's lives easier... I've never understood why being
self sufficuent is valued over recieving help... everyrone needs help
in some areas...
As long as it is voluntary, charity is admirable. When it isn't voluntary,
then it is nearly identical to conscription in an army. The government, by
stealing your income, is stealing your time which you can never get back.
That amounts to stealing your life.
--
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public.
- HL Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
18 Apr 2006 10:39:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:34:43 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
--
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public.
- HL Mencken
Shouldn't that be "overestimating"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noon Cat Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
18 Apr 2006 11:31:38 PM |
|
|
Charles wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:34:43 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
--
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public.
- HL Mencken
Shouldn't that be "overestimating"?
No, that's the correct wording. Or perhaps you're editorializing and I
failed to recognize it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
18 Apr 2006 11:43:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:31:38 GMT, Noon Cat Nick
<chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:
Charles wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:34:43 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
--
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public.
- HL Mencken
Shouldn't that be "overestimating"?
No, that's the correct wording. Or perhaps you're editorializing and I
failed to recognize it.
Nah, I'm just dumber than usual right now, there are too many
negatives in the sentence for me to follow. I hate colds.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
19 Apr 2006 02:37:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:39:06 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:34:43 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
--
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public.
- HL Mencken
Shouldn't that be "overestimating"?
No.
--
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bacon" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 06:27:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:40:27 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 03:55:59 GMT, Noon Cat Nick
<chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:
Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a
crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit.
--Freda Adler, _Sisters in Crime_ (1975)
Here are some other takes on crime:
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that
it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand
ARREST, v.t. Formally to detain one accused of unusualness.
- Ambrose Bierce
LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.
- Ambrose Bierce
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce
Cyber, do you think they're are too many laws. Most I welcome, but I
do think excessive penalties for drug use are unwarranted and costly.
The only one I've ever run up against is the prohibition of "public
intoxication" in Nashville, damn Metro cops...put me in the drunk tank
for 6 hours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 06:31:30 PM |
|
|
Bacon wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:40:27 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 03:55:59 GMT, Noon Cat Nick
<chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:
Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a
crime is anything that a group in power chooses to prohibit.
--Freda Adler, _Sisters in Crime_ (1975)
Here are some other takes on crime:
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that
it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand
ARREST, v.t. Formally to detain one accused of unusualness.
- Ambrose Bierce
LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.
- Ambrose Bierce
LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce
Cyber, do you think they're are too many laws. Most I welcome, but I
do think excessive penalties for drug use are unwarranted and costly.
The only one I've ever run up against is the prohibition of "public
intoxication" in Nashville, damn Metro cops...put me in the drunk tank
for 6 hours.
It's ridiculous that drugs aren't legal... paticularly the soft
drugs... and prostitution should be legal as well... we have a crazy
way of looking at things...
-"jordie"
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 07:45:26 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2006 16:31:30 -0700, wrote:
It's ridiculous that drugs aren't legal... paticularly the soft
drugs... and prostitution should be legal as well... we have a crazy
way of looking at things...
Starting small, the most obvious candidates for legalization would be
marijuana, which is much less harmful to society than alcohol in virtually
every way. Other than the fact that marijuana's illegality has produced a
violent black market, but that problem is solved overnight by legalization.
As for prostitution. I can sympathize with home owners who don't want
women strolling the sidewalks in from of their homes. Innocent women are
then propositioned by drunks driving by and stopping.
But the very least, hand job houses should not be illegal. They closed two
in Milwaukee in recent years and it was a pity. They were Chinese owned
and staffed, and the full body massages were nothing short of amazing. So
they ended the session by messaging your privates... big deal! There isn't
even a health risk in that given that they always washed the massages
tables with bleach between clients.
There are still two in Madison, BTW, but that is a long and tedious drive.
--
EDUCATION, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the
foolish their lack of understanding.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 07:39:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:27:58 -0500, Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:40:27 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that
it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.
- Ayn Rand
[snip]
Cyber, do you think they're are too many laws. Most I welcome, but I
do think excessive penalties for drug use are unwarranted and costly.
The only one I've ever run up against is the prohibition of "public
intoxication" in Nashville, damn Metro cops...put me in the drunk tank
for 6 hours.
Yes, I do feel there are way to may laws. Everything from attempts at gun
control, to what color you can paint your home or what trees you can plant
in your yard.
Public intoxication laws would tend to fall into that category also, though
only insofar as to the degree they are enforced. If a person is making a
nuisance of himself or otherwise causing a public disturbance, that should
fall under the doctrine disorderly conduct law (which is also an oft abused
law.)
Did you read that Libertarian Quick shots post I made a while back. It
related the story of some police forces in Texas going *into* *bars* and
arresting people for public intoxication. They must have no crime in those
jurisdictions if they can afford to waste police powers on such a task.
--
So the maples formed a union and demanded equal rights. The oaks are
just too greedy, we will make them give us light! Now there's no more oak
oppression for they passed a nobel law, and the trees are all kept equal by
hatchet, axe and saw.
- Neal Peart
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 08:15:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:39:27 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
(snip)
Did you read that Libertarian Quick shots post I made a while back. It
related the story of some police forces in Texas going *into* *bars* and
arresting people for public intoxication. They must have no crime in those
jurisdictions if they can afford to waste police powers on such a task.
I wonder how long it will be before they can go into people's homes
and arrest them there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bacon" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
17 Apr 2006 07:51:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:39:27 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
to what color you can paint your home or what trees you can plant
in your yard.
Are there such laws or are these just rules decided upon by a
homeowners' association or such...I support such rules as agreed to by
a majority of a private group...
Did you read that Libertarian Quick shots post I made a while back. It
related the story of some police forces in Texas going *into* *bars* and
arresting people for public intoxication. They must have no crime in those
jurisdictions if they can afford to waste police powers on such a task.
I did see that. Abuse of power is always a concern, unavoidable and a
constant societal frustration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: 17 Apr 2006 - today's quote |
18 Apr 2006 06:06:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:51:25 -0500, Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:39:27 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
to what color you can paint your home or what trees you can plant
in your yard.
Are there such laws or are these just rules decided upon by a
homeowners' association or such...I support such rules as agreed to by
a majority of a private group...
I was speaking of city ordinances. Things like a city coming down like a
ton of bricks on someone because they decided to paint their home like the
Partridge Family bus. Gaudy, but it's their home.
I too would support limited home owners agreements that follow the deed to
the property and give the current residents the right of first refusal. But
it has to be limited; in precisely what ways would need to be discussed.
But certainly homeowners association rules that forbid the parking of a
truck in your driveway, or the keeping of a gun in your home, are beyond
the pale.
And in cases where a minority were voted down on something they vehemently
disagreed with, the homeowners association should have to pay them full
market value for their home so they can get out.
But therein lies the problem... Homeowners associations are a way to
oppress the minority (if not minorities in fact), and have been used as
such.
Did you read that Libertarian Quick shots post I made a while back. It
related the story of some police forces in Texas going *into* *bars* and
arresting people for public intoxication. They must have no crime in those
jurisdictions if they can afford to waste police powers on such a task.
I did see that. Abuse of power is always a concern, unavoidable and a
constant societal frustration.
Private police is the answer. At least you have a chance suing a private
policing outfit.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of
thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible,
because there will be no words in which to express it."
- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
