Laws and tyranny

[Vidi]

So, why do we have bleeding heart laws, though? Just yesterday, folks want to put a company out of business because, in spite of the company following labeling laws, someone still got hurt.

Buckyballs fight back - The Washington Post

How is this not tyranny on its face?

Because it's presumed that if gubmint doesn't do something, nobody will.

You have to be forced because you're not as big heated as those doing the forcing.

Right. And as somebody else built their business, somebody else will take it away. It's not theirs. They didn't build it.

How is this not obvious to all? This subjective BS. Is it only those who are inherently resistant to hypnosis who see any longer?

I am pretty serious, too.

The other side would argue that any business built within a society is only as successful as that society allows it to be.

After all, aren't the Right always saying that government regulation strangles business? If regulations decide winners and losers, then it was the government, not the individual who made the business successful, right?

The other side would also argue that it is YOU who are hypnotized, not them.

 

[Si modo]

Because it's presumed that if gubmint doesn't do something, nobody will.

You have to be forced because you're not as big heated as those doing the forcing.

Right. And as somebody else built their business, somebody else will take it away. It's not theirs. They didn't build it.

How is this not obvious to all? This subjective BS. Is it only those who are inherently resistant to hypnosis who see any longer?

I am pretty serious, too.

The other side would argue that any business built within a society is only as successful as that society allows it to be.

After all, aren't the Right always saying that government regulation strangles business? If regulations decide winners and losers, then it was the government, not the individual who made the business successful, right?

The other side would also argue that it is YOU who are hypnotized, not them.

How are those regulations working out? The company followed them, but somehow it's OK for the government to seize the business?

The emperor/government not only has no clothes, it is shitting on the Constitution.

 

[Vidi]

Right. And as somebody else built their business, somebody else will take it away. It's not theirs. They didn't build it.

How is this not obvious to all? This subjective BS. Is it only those who are inherently resistant to hypnosis who see any longer?

I am pretty serious, too.

The other side would argue that any business built within a society is only as successful as that society allows it to be.

After all, aren't the Right always saying that government regulation strangles business? If regulations decide winners and losers, then it was the government, not the individual who made the business successful, right?

The other side would also argue that it is YOU who are hypnotized, not them.

How are those regulations working out? The company followed them, but somehow it's OK for the government to seize the business?

The emperor/government not only has no clothes, it is shitting on the Constitution.

No you're changing my point.

My point is if one is true, the opposite must also be true.

Would you agree with the following statement:

If regulation stifles a business, then lack of regulation contributes to its success.

 

[martybegan]

Si,

I would argue that your original post is based on a false premise that laws are passed for objective reasons. In my opinion, all laws are passed to protect one party from another and thus all are "feel good" laws.

But some laws, the basic ones, protect one party from another for reasons that 99% of the population agrees are needed, laws against murder, theft, rape, fraud. These laws also serve the purpose of preventing vendetta type justice, where the aggrived party feels that thier only response is to injure the offending party.

Feel good laws to me are ones with marginal benefit, and laws that a strong majority find useless, or even oppresive.

 

[Oddball]

Because it's presumed that if gubmint doesn't do something, nobody will.

You have to be forced because you're not as big heated as those doing the forcing.

Right. And as somebody else built their business, somebody else will take it away. It's not theirs. They didn't build it.

How is this not obvious to all? This subjective BS. Is it only those who are inherently resistant to hypnosis who see any longer?

I am pretty serious, too.

The other side would argue that any business built within a society is only as successful as that society allows it to be.

After all, aren't the Right always saying that government regulation strangles business? If regulations decide winners and losers, then it was the government, not the individual who made the business successful, right?

The other side would also argue that it is YOU who are hypnotized, not them.

"Society" is bullshit.

I cannot borrow form you a bucket of "society" with the promise that you'll get a barrel of it at the end of the week...Therefore your opinion as to what "society" allows or not is completely irrelevant....You need no more evidence of this than the very existence of black markets.

If anyone is hypnotized, its the person who builds up a giant hallucination based upon what a completely unquantifiable and non-corporeal entity "gives" or "allows" them....Moreover, that verbiage puts everyone on the effect end of their life.

 

[Vidi]

Oddball,

I ask you to comment then on the statement I put to Si.

Do you agree with that statement?

 

[Si modo]

Si,

I would argue that your original post is based on a false premise that laws are passed for objective reasons. In my opinion, all laws are passed to protect one party from another and thus all are "feel good" laws.

Hmmm. I'm not seeing that premise in my OP.

Could you show me where that premise is?

 

[Vidi]

Si,

I would argue that your original post is based on a false premise that laws are passed for objective reasons. In my opinion, all laws are passed to protect one party from another and thus all are "feel good" laws.

But some laws, the basic ones, protect one party from another for reasons that 99% of the population agrees are needed, laws against murder, theft, rape, fraud. These laws also serve the purpose of preventing vendetta type justice, where the aggrived party feels that thier only response is to injure the offending party.

Feel good laws to me are ones with marginal benefit, and laws that a strong majority find useless, or even oppresive.

Ahh but that's not the premise put forth in the original post is it? According to the OP, feel good laws are subjective while other laws are objective.

I assert that ALL laws are subjective and thus "feel good" laws.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"My hypothesis (and likely some scholar of those subjects has said the same thing): When laws are more subjective than objective; there is no longer a system of law, rather there is tyranny."

Seems to me that laws by their very nature are subjective. Laws are based on opinions about what is just/unjust, moral/immoral, reasonable/unreasonable, etc.. This is why diferent peoples have diferent laws.

 

[Vidi]

When laws are more subjective than Objective.

You then refer to the WBC law as a subjective "feel good" law.

( I'm not at a desktop and taps talk won't let me selectively quote you. Sorry about that. )

You claim it as your hypothesis.

So let me repeat: I assert that ALL laws are subjective.

 

[Si modo]

When laws are more subjective than Objective.

You then refer to the WBC law as a subjective "feel good" law.

( I'm not at a desktop and taps talk won't let me selectively quote you. Sorry about that. )

You claim it as your hypothesis.

So let me repeat: I assert that ALL laws are subjective.

I disagree. Murder is against the law. There is little subjective about who is a live person and who is a dead person.

 

[FA_Q2]

The other side would argue that any business built within a society is only as successful as that society allows it to be.

After all, aren't the Right always saying that government regulation strangles business? If regulations decide winners and losers, then it was the government, not the individual who made the business successful, right?

The other side would also argue that it is YOU who are hypnotized, not them.

How are those regulations working out? The company followed them, but somehow it's OK for the government to seize the business?

The emperor/government not only has no clothes, it is shitting on the Constitution.

No you're changing my point.

My point is if one is true, the opposite must also be true.

Would you agree with the following statement:

If regulation stifles a business, then lack of regulation contributes to its success.

But that is a false summation because you are not responsible for the success of someone because you did nothing. Government can, and does, stifle business with regulation. That does not mean that government gets credit when they do not stifle your business. By that logic, I am responsible for your success because I have not murdered you! (No threat ect. Intended here, just an example )

Of course, some regulation DOES contribute to the successes of business so the case is not completely black and white anyway. How are you relating this to the OP’s supposition though?

 

[Vidi]

When laws are more subjective than Objective.

You then refer to the WBC law as a subjective "feel good" law.

( I'm not at a desktop and taps talk won't let me selectively quote you. Sorry about that. )

You claim it as your hypothesis.

So let me repeat: I assert that ALL laws are subjective.

I disagree. Murder is against the law. There is little subjective about who is a live person and who is a dead person.

What you are talking about is application. We can have objective application of a law. But the law itself is still subjective.

It is based on subjective morality that murder is wrong.

 

[Si modo]

When laws are more subjective than Objective.

You then refer to the WBC law as a subjective "feel good" law.

( I'm not at a desktop and taps talk won't let me selectively quote you. Sorry about that. )

You claim it as your hypothesis.

So let me repeat: I assert that ALL laws are subjective.

I disagree. Murder is against the law. There is little subjective about who is a live person and who is a dead person.

What you are talking about is application. We can have objective application of a law. But the law itself is still subjective.

It is based on subjective morality that murder is wrong.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, perhaps I should have said application of law to clarify my point to some.

 

[FA_Q2]

I created a thread a while ago that was similar to this (though not stated as well) where I put forth that laws should be exclusively there to protect the rights and freedoms of others, not to enforce some vaunted morality or what is ‘right.’ I was surprised at the number of people here that our right reject that concept instead opting for laws that push their morality. In essence, I think people generally want that tyranny as long as it is a tyranny they agree with. It is one of the things that I believe has eroded our country so much. We no longer seem to believe that law is here to protect our rights but rather most want it there to control our actions to reach some sort of utopia.


Sorry if I went off on a tangent here.

 

[FA_Q2]

When laws are more subjective than Objective.

You then refer to the WBC law as a subjective "feel good" law.

( I'm not at a desktop and taps talk won't let me selectively quote you. Sorry about that. )

You claim it as your hypothesis.

So let me repeat: I assert that ALL laws are subjective.

I disagree. Murder is against the law. There is little subjective about who is a live person and who is a dead person.

What you are talking about is application. We can have objective application of a law. But the law itself is still subjective.

It is based on subjective morality that murder is wrong.

I would say that is not true if you take it from the stance that laws against murder exist in the context of protecting your right to live. I guess you could then say our rights are also subjective but what’s the point. It is almost like saying how do you know you are actually here and not in the matrix. If so, what does it matter, we have to start somewhere with some basis.

 

[Si modo]

I created a thread a while ago that was similar to this (though not stated as well) where I put forth that laws should be exclusively there to protect the rights and freedoms of others, not to enforce some vaunted morality or what is ‘right.’ I was surprised at the number of people here that our right reject that concept instead opting for laws that push their morality. In essence, I think people generally want that tyranny as long as it is a tyranny they agree with. It is one of the things that I believe has eroded our country so much. We no longer seem to believe that law is here to protect our rights but rather most want it there to control our actions to reach some sort of utopia.


Sorry if I went off on a tangent here.

I don't think you did go off on a tangent, there, though. I find that plenty of social conservatives are just as subversive to our freedoms as the bleeding heart liberals for exactly the reasons you stated.

 

[Vidi]

How are those regulations working out? The company followed them, but somehow it's OK for the government to seize the business?

The emperor/government not only has no clothes, it is shitting on the Constitution.

No you're changing my point.

My point is if one is true, the opposite must also be true.

Would you agree with the following statement:

If regulation stifles a business, then lack of regulation contributes to its success.

But that is a false summation because you are not responsible for the success of someone because you did nothing. Government can, and does, stifle business with regulation. That does not mean that government gets credit when they do not stifle your business. By that logic, I am responsible for your success because I have not murdered you! (No threat ect. Intended here, just an example )

Of course, some regulation DOES contribute to the successes of business so the case is not completely black and white anyway. How are you relating this to the OP’s supposition though?

Im going to tackle this in reverse order.

I am not relating it to the original post but to post #19. Because the poster is the same, any derailment would be his own and ok because its his thread.


Now onto the regulation argument...for that I have to ask a question first.

Does regulation stifle ALL busioness or does it just pick winners and losers?

 

[Oddball]

When laws are more subjective than Objective.

You then refer to the WBC law as a subjective "feel good" law.

( I'm not at a desktop and taps talk won't let me selectively quote you. Sorry about that. )

You claim it as your hypothesis.

So let me repeat: I assert that ALL laws are subjective.

I disagree. Murder is against the law. There is little subjective about who is a live person and who is a dead person.

What you are talking about is application. We can have objective application of a law. But the law itself is still subjective.

It is based on subjective morality that murder is wrong.

No, it's based upon the concept that taking that which does not yours to take -in this case the life of another- is wrong.

Noting subjective about it.

 

[Intense]

Si,

I would argue that your original post is based on a false premise that laws are passed for objective reasons. In my opinion, all laws are passed to protect one party from another and thus all are "feel good" laws.

Each Law has it's own reason for being, right or wrong, consented to by the people or not. Blanket statements do little to justify or refute. Each Law stands or falls independently on it's own merit. Show cause, show effect, show collateral damage in each case. We find problems, we amend, eyes opened.