YES MOMMY (A well Regulated State)

E-mail ^ | 9.12.02 | Fred Reed

[weikel]

It has no appeal to me. If Im going to live in a totalitarian state at least give me the cool uniforms LOL.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

The simple, cynical explanation is this: if you create a multitude of unenforceable (and largely unknown) laws, then virtually EVERYONE becomes a criminal, consciously or unconsciously. And, since enforcement is spotty at best (or worst) there is widespread, perhaps unintentional, non-compliance. Everyone, therefore, becomes a criminal, and it is up to the state to pick and choose which of its enemies it wishes to incarcerate.

It no longer becomes necessary for those in power to trump up charges against their political opponents, since the laws are already on the books. Because of this, the Constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is the most important part of the Bill of Rights; it is the only thing standing between the average citizen and prison time. If, for example, the Polizei were permitted to just ransack your residence in search of nothing in particular, it is almost certain that they would find something that would justify legal action.

[weikel]

Exactly. If your a fan of Terry Pratchett's discworld series Samuel Vimes the Ankh Morpork city watch commander( not that they do much Lord Vetinari is pretty libertarian except if you try to overthrow him and then he has this thing about mimes...) observes that it might be possible to go for a day without breaking any laws by remaining very still in a cellar somewhere...but even then you were probably loitering.

[weikel]

Which btw brings to mind another fault of Republics( actually this flaw would apply less to a pure mob rule Democracy). Since the legislatures job is making laws they tend to multiply endlessly.

[BruceS]

bump for later reading

[weikel]

Safety rules are for p**** idiots who need them to stay outta the Darwin awards( of course they can't keep every idiot out but the soccer mommies will keep trying if it saves just one person... barf).

[Dick Bachert]

Two more thoughts to add to the great -- and correct -- quotes in this thread:

* "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make insane" and

*"You can determine the level of corruption within a society by the numbers of its laws." Cincinnatus

Our destruction must surely be at hand!!!

[budwiesest]

We complained about the "conformism" of the 1950s and turned ourselves into individualist rebels. Now the degree of social control exercised by society comes back, vested this time in the state. I'd like to see less regulation, but some self-control will always be necessary to life in society. Perfect freedom, complete absence of external or internal constraints isn't given to man in society --

After watching a special on Iran and Iraq the other night I was amazed at the younger generations' distaste for the 'morality' police- women must wear a scarf on their heads at all times, any show of affection between couples could result in a beating, etc.

When people loath freedoms to such an extent that they desire to legislate them away in order to protect 'a child' (and get re-elected by the 'tough on crime' crowd), for instance, I'm reminded of the excesses of the State that exist in these two countries today.

Could it happen here? Certainly, it's only a matter of time and neglect. Neglect of our Founders' visions and guidlines set so well in our constitution and bill of rights. Would I wish anarchy on anyone? No. Only the strong would then survive.

The rules set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were nothing less than a gun which 'we the people' held pointed in the direction of those in power who we might some day have to make 'dance' should they not do our bidding. Two or three live rounds have been replaced with blanks by the incrementalist socialists. The remaining three or four (in this wheel gun) are neatly being substituted by the incrementalist statists/collectivists.

If a live round exists at all, it may only come in the form of a complete repudiation of those violations of rights that now exist on the books and are being so taken for granted by most voters. So..

I'd like to be optimistic, but fail to see how a single live round will be enough to get anyone 'dancing'.

[nicollo]

In 1902 in Chicago, a judge fined a man ten dollars for refusing to take off his hat in a theater.

I'm guessing that makes today about a $400 fine.

(If that don't offend you libertines, remember that weren't no 25-and-under single males owning sheep in Vermont back then, either...)

[VermiciousKnid]

Great find! Thanks for posting it.

Regards,

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

It is the behavior of petty and stupid people, of minor minds over-empowered, ignorant, but angry and charmed to find that they can push others around. It is the exercise of power by people who have no business having any.

The corrupt democratic leftists pushing tyranny under the guise of socialisim being politikally korrect. The Clinton's...

[S.O.S121.500]

"Which of the "Bill of Rights" are still the absolute law of the land?"
>>Never say never. - 3rd amendment.

Sshhhhhh.....You and I may be the ONLY ones left that know that.....g