Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

I believe that efforts to control the behavior of others is generally counterproductive, and a waste of time and energy, UNLESS the behavior materially damages another person, without their consent.

Abortion, IMHO, is the material damaging of another human without their consent, and hence should be punished by law.

The application of justice toward damaging behavior should be swift and severe. The use of jails as a form of punishment is a waste of time. If one is found guilty of materially damaging another one of three things should happen.
1) Fined, including loss of all material goods
2) Punished - whipped, public humiliation, etc.
30 Death penalty.

Under the old British law system, the operant definition of a felony was a crime to which the punishment was death. I do not see the current penal system being an improvement on this. The crime for perjury in court is precisely the same as that give to the criminal, so perjury in a capital case results in the death penalty, so does wanton judicial malfeasance.

The consistent application of these rules would stop the vast majority of the horrible behavior in this country. Perjury, and judicial malfeasance would also be greatly diminished

36 posted on 12/09/2009 4:05:00 PM PST by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: HangnJudge

In general, I agree with you. I am a FIRM believer in the Non-Aggression Principle, which basically states that NO ONE, governments included, may INITIATE any act of aggression, of any sort (force, fraud, coercion of any nature) against any individual or group of individuals. The corollary to this is that the AGRESSEE may use WHATEVER amount of force s/he believes necessary to stop the aggressor. The role of the State, then, is to ensure that surviving aggressors make proper restitution to their victims, to make them whole again. If, in the case of, say, murder or multiple murders, no restitution is possible, it’s absolutely fine to execute the perp, AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, like within 96 hours of conviction and sentencing, which would provide ample time for appeals.

In this sort of society, which, by the way, would have NONE of the silly-assed restrictions on KABA our wannabee “rulers” have imposed on us. In fact, the mere act of introducing such proposed legislation would be considered a MAJOR act of initiated aggression. It would also be probably the politest society in history, for knowing beyond all doubt that you would be held accountable for your behavior WITH YOUR LIFE would tend to put a damper on most of your aggressive tendencies, I should think!!!


126 posted on 12/10/2009 12:03:20 AM PST by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub. III OK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson