NationStates Jolt Archive

A millionaire who raped an unconscous girl went to court and was ordered only to write a letter of apology. I wonder if he was a regular guy would he get the same treatment? Nope. Probably end up doing a few years in prison, which is the least that he deserves.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17545018%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=say%2dsorry%2dfor%2dsex%2dassault%2d-name_page.html

A millionaire who raped an unconscous girl went to court and was ordered only to write a letter of apology. I wonder if he was a regular guy would he get the same treatment? Nope. Probably end up doing a few years in prison, which is the least that he deserves.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17545018%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=say%2dsorry%2dfor%2dsex%2dassault%2d-name_page.html

And that's why we need to privatize the justice system. What's the difference?

I think we need legally sanctioned lynch mobs to hang around outside trials of all famous and/or rich people myself :P

I think we need legally sanctioned lynch mobs to hang around outside trials of all famous and/or rich people myself :P

Is it still a lynch mob if it's legally sanctioned?

And that's why we need to privatize the justice system. What's the difference?
No.

No, no and Hell no.

No.

No, no and Hell no.
Ah, a clever four-pronged argument....

Is it still a lynch mob if it's legally sanctioned?
Well, we could call them 'Lynch clubs' or 'Lynch organizations', but basically its a group of people with some rope who want to hang you the slow way.
So meh :P

Ah, a clever four-pronged argument....
Tends to work for most people around here.

And that's why we need to privatize the justice system. What's the difference?
Yeah because that would really improve justice :rolleyes:

Yeah because that would really improve justice :rolleyes:
Actually, it would.

Ah, a clever four-pronged argument....
At least as clever as privatizing justice.

Actually, it would.
Care to supplement your supposition with substantiation?

Actually, it would.

Wait, people are actually serious about this???? I thought it was just some sort of sick joke.

Actually, it would.

What...like the death penalty stops murders? :rolleyes:

Actually, it would.
How in the fuck would handing the courts over to a private corporation benefit anyone but employees and stockholders of that corporation? How do you prevent them from having two systems of law, one to regulate themselves and another for everyone else? Why would they do a better job than the current legal system?

It's not like furriners get to serve out their actual jailterms in England, isn't it, mr Home Secretary?

Actually, it would.
Just like lynching random gay people.

Care to supplement your supposition with substantiation?
1. There's nothing about justice which requires a coercive monopoly to dispense it.

2. Given that it currently is dispensed by the above, justice will favor the coercive monopolist, and will be low-quality, since there is no competition.

3. The coercive monopolist will thus also inflate the cost of justice, since it has the power of taxation--which of course is just another word for theft. But since the coercive monopolist makes the rules, it can simply write that taxation is not theft and thus not be subject to the rules it actually writes.

Would you like some more?

Wait, people are actually serious about this????
Of course.

What--you like some coercive monopolist dispensing some crude form of justice?

1. There's nothing about justice which requires a coercive monopoly to dispense it.

2. Given that it currently is dispensed by the above, justice will favor the coercive monopolist, and will be low-quality, since there is no competition.

3. The coercive monopolist will thus also inflate the cost of justice, since it has the power of taxation--which of course is just another word for theft. But since the coercive monopolist makes the rules, it can simply write that taxation is not theft and thus not be subject to the rules it actually writes.

Would you like some more?

Yes, I'd like some more.

I'm especially interested in hearing how you can dispense Justice without coercion.

What...like the death penalty stops murders? :rolleyes:
What a wonderfully irrelevant response.

I'll give you a do-over.

How in the fuck would handing the courts over to a private corporation benefit anyone but employees and stockholders of that corporation?
By the fact that since the private corporation does not have the power to tax, it must make money by offering a real good. A good of quality--unlike that dispensed by an expropriating territorial monopolist.


How do you prevent them from having two systems of law, one to regulate themselves and another for everyone else?
Oh, you mean like we have now with the expropriating territorial monopolist not following the rules it lays down for everyone else?

Just like lynching random gay people.
How wonderful that you couldn't come up with a relevant response.

You get a do-over as well.

Yes, I'd like some more.

I'm especially interested in hearing how you can dispense Justice without coercion.
I never said you couldn't, Mr. Strawman.

I never said you couldn't, Mr. Strawman.

I'm interested in hearing how you plan to do without Coercion.

I'm interested in hearing how you plan to do without Coercion.
Coercion of what type? Please specify.

What a wonderfully irrelevant response.

I'll give you a do-over.

I know this might come as a shock to you but the discussion is regarding lynch mobs...and what to lynch mobs usually do?

They take that rope (as mentioned by another poster if you had bothered to remember) and stretch that neck...

ie killing...

So really my comment is not irrelevant....unlike yours aimed at me.

I know this might come as a shock to you but the discussion is regarding lynch mobs...and what to lynch mobs usually do?
I know this may come as a shock to you, but the discussion is regarding private justice as a whole.

By the fact that since the private corporation does not have the power to tax, it must make money by offering a real good. A good of quality--unlike that dispensed by an expropriating territorial monopolist.


No, you are proposing too things.

If there is only one private company running the justice system. Then since there is no competition they can make it as crummy and corrupt as they like.

If there is more then one, then they will be more concerned about having good value for money rather then good justice, it will also turn out shit.

1. There's nothing about justice which requires a coercive monopoly to dispense it. Yeah there is. There is to be one and only one standard of justice for all. If the power to dispense justice is not monopolized by one institution then you run the risk of two or more standards of justice which can come into conflict with one another.

2. Given that it currently is dispensed by the above, justice will favor the coercive monopolist, and will be low-quality, since there is no competition. And with competition we'll get justice cheaper and more efficiently and of the same quality? "Come on in to Jack's Judiciary Hut where this week only, agravated assault gets half off on all jail time!"

3. The coercive monopolist will thus also inflate the cost of justice, since it has the power of taxation--which of course is just another word for theft. But since the coercive monopolist makes the rules, it can simply write that taxation is not theft and thus not be subject to the rules it actually writes.

Would you like some more?
Taxation is not theft, it's payment for services. Government provides a service by writing laws that balance the rights of one person against the rights of another, and enforcing those laws. Doing that costs money. Taxes collect that money. If you don't like it, leave the country.

No, you are proposing too things.
Two, I think you mean. And no, I'm not.


If there is only one private company running the justice system. Then since there is no competition they can make it as crummy and corrupt as they like.
Why would there be only one?


If there is more then one, then they will be more concerned about having good value for money rather then good justice, it will also turn out shit.
Then they will not make money and will go out of business, replaced by companies which do dispence good justice at a good price for those parties involved.

I've always loved it when people say that businesses will do anything to make money--like a restaurant knowingly selling tainted meat. It's like these people failed in the course of human action--to think that a company would willingly cut off its nose to spite its face. How idiotic!

I know this may come as a shock to you, but the discussion is regarding private justice as a whole.

Yeah right....and in what way is my comment irrelevent?? Please...explain yourself....I would be quite interested in seeing what torturous logic (!) you will use....

the floor is all yours...

Yeah there is.
No there is not.


There is to be one and only one standard of justice for all.
We don't have that now. Try again.


If the power to dispense justice is not monopolized by one institution then you run the risk of two or more standards of justice which can come into conflict with one another.
So what?


And with competition we'll get justice cheaper and more efficiently and of the same quality? "Come on in to Jack's Judiciary Hut where this week only, agravated assault gets half off on all jail time!"
Ah yes, another one of those idiots who believes that McDonalds would sell tainted meat knowingly.


Taxation is not theft,
What do you call it when someone takes your property by force and without your consent? I call that theft.


it's payment for services.
And when you give the mafia protection money, you're paying for a service, too. That doesn't mean it's not extortion. Similarly....


Government provides a service by writing laws that balance the rights of one person against the rights of another, and enforcing those laws.
Like laws against prostitution, gambling, sex toys....


Doing that costs money. Taxes collect that money. If you don't like it, leave the country.
Why should I?

1. There's nothing about justice which requires a coercive monopoly to dispense it.

2. Given that it currently is dispensed by the above, justice will favor the coercive monopolist, and will be low-quality, since there is no competition.

3. The coercive monopolist will thus also inflate the cost of justice, since it has the power of taxation--which of course is just another word for theft. But since the coercive monopolist makes the rules, it can simply write that taxation is not theft and thus not be subject to the rules it actually writes.

Would you like some more?
If the body that writes the law is not the same body that enforces the law, and neither is the body that interprets the law, is there a monopoly on justice?

How wonderful that you couldn't come up with a relevant response.

You get a do-over as well.
Justice without even remotely objective positions - lynching people who have done nothing wrong.

Yeah right....and in what way is my comment irrelevent??
Please explain how "What...like the death penalty stops murders?" was relevant. I'd be interested in seeing the torturous twists of reasoning you will use.

Two, I think you mean.


Whoops


Why would there be only one?


To keep the law consistant, which is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. If you have more then one company regulating the law then the law will vary between different people. Causing a whole lot of problems I don't want to go into.


Then they will not make money and will go out of business, replaced by companies which do dispence good justice at a good price for those parties involved.


I've always loved it when people say that businesses will do anything to make money--like a restaurant knowingly selling tainted meat. It's like these people failed in the course of human action--to think that a company would willingly cut off its nose to spite its face. How idiotic!


Businesses can cut corners and be corrupt as they like without the public knowing a thing.

If the body that writes the law is not the same body that enforces the law, and neither is the body that interprets the law, is there a monopoly on justice?
In the sense of different areas of one government--yes.

Justice without even remotely objective positions
Why would it be so?


- lynching people who have done nothing wrong.
Like Michael Milikin and Martha Stewart.

To keep the law consistant, which is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. If you have more then one company regulating the law then the law will vary between different people. Causing a whole lot of problems I don't want to go into.
And those problems can't be resolved? And what if some people want different laws--are you going to run roughshod over their rights?


Businesses can cut corners and be corrupt as they like without the public knowing a thing.
Quite difficult.

Anyway, I still love the idea of a business cutting off its nose to spite its face. That makes me laugh at the idiot who proposes it.

Like Michael Milikin and Martha Stewart.
What a wonderfully irrelevant response.

I'll give you a do-over.
Was this a deliberate attempt at Irony? Just thought I should clarify.

Please explain how "What...like the death penalty stops murders?" was relevant. I'd be interested in seeing the torturous twists of reasoning you will use.

Sorry son, but I don't play that game.

Was this a deliberate attempt at Irony? Just thought I should clarify.
No irony at all. Neither Milikin nor Stewart did anything wrong, yet were hounded by the government and a press that wanted to vilify success. I just thought I should point out lynchings by the coercive territorial monopolist.

Also: HUAC and Joseph McCarthy.

Trivia time: name the prosecutor of Milikin's case.

By the fact that since the private corporation does not have the power to tax, it must make money by offering a real good. A good of quality--unlike that dispensed by an expropriating territorial monopolist.

Who pays? The victim of a crime? So I can go around raping poor girls because they can't afford to take me to court, right?

Oh, you mean like we have now with the expropriating territorial monopolist not following the rules it lays down for everyone else?
Are you trying to say the government doesn't follow the same rules as the individual? With all those fifty cent words I'm not sure what you're getting at. Big words don't indicate intelligence, good, understandable arguments do.

There is a reason government doesn't follow the exact same laws as the individual. For example, a witness in a trial can be subpoenaed and forced to show up and answer questions. A CIA agent might not be eligible for a subpoena because it could endanger their ability to do their job and it might endanger the CIA agent's life.

this is why police should be allowed to kill people instead of them waiting

Sorry son, but I don't play that game.
Then you concede. Good day.

Who pays?
The person who committed the crime. The people who contract with the firm for said protection.


The victim of a crime? So I can go around raping poor girls because they can't afford to take me to court, right?
Only if you have no idea what you're talking about. Which, clearly, you don't.


Are you trying to say the government doesn't follow the same rules as the individual?
Yes.


With all those fifty cent words I'm not sure what you're getting at.
It's called a dictionary. Use one.


Big words don't indicate intelligence, good, understandable arguments do.
I have both. It's not my problem that you are uneducated. I won't dumb my posts down to your first-grade reading level.


There is a reason government doesn't follow the exact same laws as the individual.
Yes: it is a coercive monopolist which can favor itself.


For example, a witness in a trial can be subpoenaed and forced to show up and answer questions. A CIA agent might not be eligible for a subpoena because it could endanger their ability to do their job and it might endanger the CIA agent's life.
Fine. The CIA shouldn't exist anyway.

Then you concede. Good day.

If you can address my post in a proper fashion instead of playing an immature game of 'turn the question around' I would be more than happy to debate you.

However it is becoming quite clear that you are not capable of debate.

If you can address my post in a proper fashion instead of playing an immature game of 'turn the question around' I would be more than happy to debate you.
So what you're saying is that your statement wasn't relevant. You're telling me that you cannot give me the relevance for your statement.

Figures.

Now stop bothering me with your infantile crap.

This has turned into the strangest serious thread ever. :)

Gave me a good laugh too :D

*gets marshmallows*

Just in case you don't suffocate that nice, little fire.

And just when it might have gotten interesting...

No there is not.



We don't have that now. Try again. We get a lot closer to it now than if we had competing law organizations offering stricter or more lax punishments or standards of evidence depending on what the market demands at any given moment.



So what?One standard of law for all individuals is the goal. It's kind of the point of rule of law. Not really something to "so what".



Ah yes, another one of those idiots who believes that McDonalds would sell tainted meat knowingly.
Your mom's an idiot for not using the free market to get a cut price abortion. Mc Donalds doesn't sell tainted meat, but it sells unhealthy food. It sells it cheap. Those who can afford better food buy it elsewhere. This creates a two teired food distribution network. That's ok, we can deal with that, but a two tiered justice system is unconstitutional.


What do you call it when someone takes your property by force and without your consent? I call that theft.
I give consent to be taxed by being a citizen. If I didn't want to pay taxes to the US government I'd go elsewhere and renounce my US citizenship.


And when you give the mafia protection money, you're paying for a service, too. That doesn't mean it's not extortion. Similarly....


No, you're paying the Mafia not to violate your rights. You're paying the government to uphold your rights. The Mafia is threatening to do something harmfull to you if you don't pay and doesn't do anything good to you if you do. The govenrment provides a service if you do pay, and will punish you, one way or the other, if you accept the services and don't pay into the fund to keep the services flowing. Your analogy is very flawed and simplistic and now debunked.
Like laws against prostitution, gambling, sex toys.... That's why you have the right to vote in the representatives of your choice and also why the courts oversee their actions to prevent things like sodomy laws. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than leaving everything to a completely free and uncontrolled market.



Why should I?Because you clearly don't want to pay for the services associated with US citizenship. Therefore you don't want to be a US citizen, therefore staying her is just stupid.

So what you're saying is that your statement wasn't relevant. You're telling me that you cannot give me the relevance for your statement.

Figures.

Now stop bothering me with your infantile crap.

You are not really that able to debate are you? It is a shame but I tell you what....out of the kindness of my heart I will explain my point and why it is relevent. Not that I expect you to understand as so far you have displayed the intellectual rigour of a rabid cucumber.

The death penalty has not prevented murders. What makes you think that lynch mobs will?

See it was as easy as that...but no....you just had to turn this interesting debate into a slanging match.

The only person who has been infantile is you BAAWAKnights.

I'm keenly awaiting an explanation on how competing justice systems would work. :)

*Eats popcorn*

The person who committed the crime. The people who contract with the firm for said protection.



Only if you have no idea what you're talking about. Which, clearly, you don't.



Yes.



It's called a dictionary. Use one.



I have both. It's not my problem that you are uneducated. I won't dumb my posts down to your first-grade reading level.



Yes: it is a coercive monopolist which can favor itself.



Fine. The CIA shouldn't exist anyway.
I clearly can get away with raping poor girls under your system.

I asked who pays for justice. Your response was
The person who committed the crime. The people who contract with the firm for said protection. Well, until I'm tried I'm not guilty of commiting the crime, so the poor girl's family would have to pay for justice. If she can't afford to, I walk away.
Only if you have no idea what you're talking about. Which, clearly, you don't.
Now I ask you, who has no idea what he's talking about?

Clearly you aren't very intelligent, just have a big vocabulary. I needn't waste my time on you.

I clearly can get away with raping poor girls under your system.

I asked who pays for justice. Your response was
Well, until I'm tried I'm not guilty of commiting the crime, so the poor girl's family would have to pay for justice. If she can't afford to, I walk away.

Now I ask you, who has no idea what he's talking about?

Clearly you aren't very intelligent, just have a big vocabulary. I needn't waste my time on you.

Odd that you and I reached that same conclusion...but I like to give the ignorant a chance to learn.

The person who committed the crime. The people who contract with the firm for said protection.

So if someone doesn't contract with a firm they should be able to be raped, murdered, or killed without justice? What if one person is contracted to another firm so what is a crime under one firm isn't in the other? How would they solve disputes?

So if someone doesn't contract with a firm they should be able to be raped, murdered, or killed without justice? What if one person is contracted to another firm so what is a crime under one firm isn't in the other? How would they solve disputes?
Legal system one: "You raped betsy. That's a capital crime. You will be executed."

Legal system two: "Rape is a misdemeanor. Killing our client is murder. You will be executed for murdering him."

War between the police of the two leagal systems ensues.

At least as clever as privatizing justice.

Satire, on my part. I can't speak for BAAWAKnights.

Satire, on my part. I can't speak for BAAWAKnights.

I'm guessing he's trying to discredit anarcho-capitalism by posing as one.

We get a lot closer to it now than if we had competing law organizations offering stricter or more lax punishments or standards of evidence depending on what the market demands at any given moment.
Problem is: we aren't closer to it. At all. We're so far from it that, by comparison, Pluto is part of the inner planets.

And why would there be differing standards of evidence? Please back your claim.


One standard of law for all individuals is the goal.
No it isn't.


Your mom's an idiot for not using the free market to get a cut price abortion.
Thank you for conceding.


Mc Donalds doesn't sell tainted meat, but it sells unhealthy food. It sells it cheap. Those who can afford better food buy it elsewhere. This creates a two teired food distribution network.
No it doesn't.


I give consent to be taxed by being a citizen.
Prove it.


No, you're paying the Mafia not to violate your rights.
And my rights aren't being violated by the government stealing my money? Get crucial.

Your bullshit has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. The government foists services upon people, tells them the price, and then says "if you don't pay, your property will be confiscated/you will go to jail". Sounds a lot like extortion to me. What do you call it?


That's why you have the right to vote in the representatives of your choice and also why the courts oversee their actions to prevent things like sodomy laws.
So what you're telling me is that you're bitching about something that happens in a government-run system. Wonderful!

You are not really that able to debate are you?
Pot. Kettle. Black.


It is a shame but I tell you what....out of the kindness of my heart I will explain my point and why it is relevent. Not that I expect you to understand as so far you have displayed the intellectual rigour of a rabid cucumber.
*yawn*


The death penalty has not prevented murders. What makes you think that lynch mobs will?
Strawman.

I clearly can get away with raping poor girls under your system.
Prove it.

Clearly, you aren't very intelligent, and you're blaming me for your stupidity.

So if someone doesn't contract with a firm they should be able to be raped, murdered, or killed without justice?
Where did you pull that non sequitur from?


What if one person is contracted to another firm so what is a crime under one firm isn't in the other? How would they solve disputes?
http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html

Odd that you and I reached that same conclusion...but I like to give the ignorant a chance to learn.
Ah yes--another idiot who wants to blame me for his own stupidity. Quite hilarious that you two have to have a circle-jerk to congratulate yourselves on being dumb.

I'm guessing he's trying to discredit anarcho-capitalism by posing as one.
I guess you don't know anything about anarchy.

Legal system one: "You raped betsy. That's a capital crime. You will be executed."

Legal system two: "Rape is a misdemeanor. Killing our client is murder. You will be executed for murdering him."

War between the police of the two leagal systems ensues.
Prove it.

Prove it.
Mathematically or experimentally?

Now I know you're not serious. See ya later troll.

Mathematically or experimentally?
You made the claim.


Now I know you're not serious.
I'm quite serious. And you're running away, Brave Sir Robin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Robin).

Iraq: Contractors Implicated in Prison Abuse Remain on the Job (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11282)

U.S. indicts CIA contractor in Afghanistan prison death (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/17/afghan.indictment/index.html)

Calif. Prison Audit Finds Waste, Abuse (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/03/ap/national/mainD8J8KUIO1.shtml)

Utah: Considering Private Prison Companies? Consider Other States' Experiences (http://www.westernprisonproject.org/info/ut/story/747)

Ex-Florida Prisons Chief Pleads Guilty (http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/07/11/284896-ex-florida-prisons-chief-pleads-guilty)

And on and on... ain't private contracting grand?

Now imagine if the rest of law enforcement was placed in the charge of private companies...

Oh wait... (http://www.costumecostumecostume.com/OCPPatch.jpg)

I don't buy this garbage that this guy got a worse punishment than the average fellow would get. In this age of endless appeal, endless feel good liberal judging, and lenient sentences, many people do not even get much of a sentence for murder. It is a shame. And another thing, if it was a poor guy, you wouldnt have even found out his name from the paper, it would not have been reported!

Ah yes--another idiot who wants to blame me for his own stupidity. Quite hilarious that you two have to have a circle-jerk to congratulate yourselves on being dumb.

Good grief.

I posted to DCD...he never replied...not much of circle there...the only jerk here is you BAAWAKnights. And obviously the only idiot here is you and the only troll to boot.

Have a nice day now.

I just can't see any evidence that this guy got off easy compared to some other person who did a similar crime. Where I live now, in New York, judges are so lenient on the poor that a man who kills sombody is usualy back on the street in a few short years. Scary stuff.

Wait, people are actually serious about this???? I thought it was just some sort of sick joke.

Im anxiously awaiting the punchline

seems like none of you are discussing anything, just insulting each other like some kind of clown show.

I just can't see any evidence that this guy got off easy compared to some other person who did a similar crime..

Open your eyes

seems like none of you are discussing anything, just insulting each other like some kind of clown show.

This crime took place in the UK not the US.

The judge made it clear that it was a very exceptional case.

I don't agree with the ruling but I wonder if maybe the judge should have asked the woman involved what the punisment should be...given this exceptional case...

seems like none of you are discussing anything, just insulting each other like some kind of clown show.

OOOO look at the one man show.

Open your eyes


what a fact based and rhetoric filled response. I am impressed.

Good grief.

I posted to DCD...he never replied...not much of circle there...the only jerk here is you BAAWAKnights. And obviously the only idiot here is you and the only troll to boot.

Have a nice day now.
Sorry for not replying.

A millionaire who raped an unconscous girl went to court and was ordered only to write a letter of apology. I wonder if he was a regular guy would he get the same treatment? Nope. Probably end up doing a few years in prison, which is the least that he deserves.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17545018%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=say%2dsorry%2dfor%2dsex%2dassault%2d-name_page.html

'Didn't understand the culture'. And the judge bought that shit. He got horny, saw a piece of ass who when sober probably won't even look at him and he has to write a letter. If that happened to me I wouldn't even read the damn thing. He needs to be castrated and sent to a prison...see if he likes rape then.

This crime took place in the UK not the US.

The judge made it clear that it was a very exceptional case.

I don't agree with the ruling but I wonder if maybe the judge should have asked the woman involved what the punisment should be...given this exceptional case...

Of course it is a very exceptional case. The man was exposed to a culture that was outside of his own....and as a direct result managed to committ this crime without knowledge that what he was doing was wrong. without intent you cannot be throwing someone in jail forever...millionaire or not. This thread sounds like it is based on class warfare of the worst kind.

'Didn't understand the culture'. And the judge bought that shit. He got horny, saw a piece of ass who when sober probably won't even look at him and he has to write a letter. If that happened to me I wouldn't even read the damn thing. He needs to be castrated and sent to a prison...see if he likes rape then.

You see, this is why people like you do not become judges.

without intent you cannot be throwing someone in jail

Intent is not the requisite mens rea for all crimes. Depending on your jurisdiction it's not even the mens rea for all rapes.

Of course it is a very exceptional case. The man was exposed to a culture that was outside of his own....and as a direct result managed to committ this crime without knowledge that what he was doing was wrong. without intent you cannot be throwing someone in jail forever...millionaire or not. This thread sounds like it is based on class warfare of the worst kind.
Regardless of culture, you don't fuck an unconscious woman. Reminds me of a joke.

A man walks into a drugstore. "Gimme some rubbers for my 11 year old daughter."

Druggist: "Your 11 year old daughter is sexually active?"

Customer: "No, she just lays there like her mother."

snip
And on and on... ain't private contracting grand?
Yes. For all you have are instances of a government contractor.

How about we look at someplace like North Korea, which is impoverished due to the governmental system. Doesn't look good for government!

How about we look at Jim Crow laws that used to exist in the US. Doesn't look good for government!

How about we look at the Nurmberg laws of Nazi Germany. Doesn't look good for government!

How about we look at MK Ultra. Doesn't look good for government!

Want more?

Good grief.

I posted to DCD...he never replied...not much of circle there...
Irrelevant. You're trolling and being a jerk.

what a fact based and rhetoric filled response. I am impressed.

It is as fact based as yours which states "I cannot see any other cases where rapists must do more than apologise to their victims"

If you have not seen tougher sentencing then we have nothing to discuss. You have not enough experience to have a valid view.

If on the other hand you have seen tougher sentencing then you are a liar. It is folly to debate liars.

So we have no grounds for debate.

seems like none of you are discussing anything, just insulting each other like some kind of clown show.
As opposed to you scampering off from the abortion thread when it was clear that your entire argument had been defenestrated.

Intent is not the requisite mens rea for all crimes. Depending on your jurisdiction it's not even the mens rea for all rapes.

so what you are saying is even if he didnt know what he was doing was wrong he should be castrated. Nice.

It is as fact based as yours which states "I cannot see any other cases where rapists must do more than apologise to their victims"

If you have not seen tougher sentencing then we have nothing to discuss. You have not enough experience to have a valid view.

If on the other hand you have seen tougher sentencing then you are a liar. It is folly to debate liars.

So we have no grounds for debate.

I never said the first thing that you claimed I did.
I have seen tougher sentencing. It is rare.
I was speaking in generalities.

Before you call me a liar you should allow me to clarify....you know intead of being rude.

As opposed to you scampering off from the abortion thread when it was clear that your entire argument had been defenestrated.
I did no such thing. If you are speaking of the time when I was alone facing 4 liberal trolls who did nothing but yell DUMB DUMB DUMB and it was 4 Am where I live, you bet I had better things to do with my life. You should try it. Take a walk or somthing.

You see, this is why people like you do not become judges.

Your NS name says it all. I think rape is one of the most disgusting crimes, that has weakest punishments. Its mental effects on victims can be devastating. Its effects on women, children and even men in some cultures are so debilating that the victims are seen as outcasts. It absolutely infuriorates me that this scum (though admittedly I only have read the link which is the daily mirror, not the most reliable of sources, and hence haven't read all the facts) like this get away with a crime because of status.

You say People like me are not judges because a) I don't have a law degree and b) I'm to liberal to ever be picked as a judge c) if I was a judge I would sentence criminals according to my interpretation of the law. What I posted was my opinion not a legal one. However I think that you will find the majority of judges over 45 are from a different generation, one that generates corruption and allows the criminals to get away with their crimes and does not protect the victims. It is unfortunate that people like do become judges, because ye only seem to be in it to line ye're pockets.

Sorry for not replying.

:) Is cool...and no issue....I quite enjoyed your postings and BKnights attempts at discussion...

Your NS name says it all. I think rape is one of the most disgusting crimes, that has weakest punishments. Its mental effects on victims can be devastating. Its effects on women, children and even men in some cultures are so debilating that the victims are seen as outcasts. It absolutely infuriorates me that this scum (though admittedly I only have read the link which is the daily mirror, not the most reliable of sources, and hence haven't read all the facts) like this get away with a crime because of status.

You say People like me are not judges because a) I don't have a law degree and b) I'm to liberal to ever be picked as a judge c) if I was a judge I would sentence criminals according to my interpretation of the law. What I posted was my opinion not a legal one. However I think that you will find the majority of judges over 45 are from a different generation, one that generates corruption and allows the criminals to get away with their crimes and does not protect the victims. It is unfortunate that people like do become judges, because ye only seem to be in it to line ye're pockets.

4 points
1) I believe that under my Constitution this man should be sentenced to life in prison
2) we are talking about another constitution
3) becoming 45 does not make you currupt
4) how does it line ones pockets to hand down a tough sentence for rapists?

I did no such thing.
The people can see for themselves here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495607).


If you are speaking of the time when I was alone facing 4 liberal trolls who did nothing but yell DUMB DUMB DUMB and it was 4 Am where I live, you bet I had better things to do with my life. You should try it. Take a walk or somthing.
IOW: you ran from that, and you have nothing to offer here. Thank you for playing.

I wholly agree with private prisons, but not at all with a private judicial system.

:) Is cool...and no issue....I quite enjoyed your postings and BKnights attempts at discussion...
Thus proving my statement about your circle-jerk correct.

Regardless of culture, you don't fuck an unconscious woman. Reminds me of a joke.

A man walks into a drugstore. "Gimme some rubbers for my 11 year old daughter."

Druggist: "Your 11 year old daughter is sexually active?"

Customer: "No, she just lays there like her mother."

Absolutely! However I do think the judge should have been a bit imaginative and asked the woman invovled what the punishment should be.

Its not as if he pleaded innocent...he pleaded guilty...

Of course the downside is that it could well set a dangerous precedent...

The people can see for themselves here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495607).



IOW: you ran from that, and you have nothing to offer here. Thank you for playing.


well sombody is a dick. It was late and I was more into bed then being insulted by a bunch of bloodthirsty abortion hounds. You can quit the psuedo cute insult barbed crap and try to argue your points, unless you cant without a distraction which seems to be your current tactic. If you cant do anything but insult, you can go F yourself.

A millionaire who raped an unconscous girl went to court and was ordered only to write a letter of apology. I wonder if he was a regular guy would he get the same treatment? Nope. Probably end up doing a few years in prison, which is the least that he deserves.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17545018%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=say%2dsorry%2dfor%2dsex%2dassault%2d-name_page.html

I think he should have gone with the flowers and chocolates.

Irrelevant. You're trolling and being a jerk.

Listen son...you kicked off on me. You can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen instead of posting continous insults and invective.

I have offered to debate you on a civilised terms. You quite happily decided to forsake that and continue in your rather childish vein.

You are insignificant based on your past actions in this thread.

Have a nice day now.

:)

so what you are saying is even if he didnt know what he was doing was wrong he should be castrated. Nice.

Please point to where I used the word "castrated".

You made a legal claim, that intent is the requisite mens rea of rape. I said it was not. Thus your point is refuted. Do not make legal arguments if you don't know the law.

Even if he didn't INTEND to rape her, in some states the mens rea for rape is less than intent.

Regardless of culture, you don't fuck an unconscious woman. Reminds me of a joke.

A man walks into a drugstore. "Gimme some rubbers for my 11 year old daughter."

Druggist: "Your 11 year old daughter is sexually active?"

Customer: "No, she just lays there like her mother."

LMFAO!!!

Ahh... I love offensive jokes.


P.S.
No, I'm not being sarcastic.

Please point to where I used the word "castrated".

You made a legal claim, that intent is the requisite mens rea of rape. I said it was not. Thus your point is refuted. Do not make legal arguments if you don't know the law.

Even if he didn't INTEND to rape her, in some states the mens rea for rape is less than intent.
this takes place in Britain buddy.

Those of you who foolishly believe that governments are the only entities capable of dispensing justice/police defense/etc., I urge you to read Gustave de Molinari's The Production of Security (http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm). And before any of you whine about him being some sort of "modern crank", you should note that Gustave was born in 1819 and died in 1912.

Here are some excerpts:

"If there is one well-established truth in political economy, it is this:

That in all cases, for all commodities that serve to provide for the tangible or intangible needs of the consumer, it is in the consumer’s best interest that labor and trade remain free, because the freedom of labor and of trade have as their necessary and permanent result the maximum reduction of price.

And this:

That the interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever should always prevail over the interests of the producer.

Now in pursuing these principles, one arrives at this rigorous conclusion:

That the production of security should, in the interests of the consumers of this intangible commodity, remain subject to the law of free competition.

Whence it follows:

That no government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity.

Nevertheless, I must admit that, up until the present, one recoiled before this rigorous implication of the principle of free competition.

One economist who has done as much as anyone to extend the application of the principle of liberty, M. Charles Dunoyer, thinks “that the functions of government will never be able to fall into the domain of private activity.”**

Now here is a citation of a clear and obvious exception to the principle of free competition.

This exception is all the more remarkable for being unique.

Undoubtedly, one can find economists who establish more numerous exceptions to this principle; but we may emphatically affirm that these are not pure economists. True economists are generally agreed, on the one had, that the government should restrict itself to guaranteeing the security of its citizens, and on the other hand, that the freedom of labor and of trade should otherwise be whole and absolute.

But why should there be an exception relative to security? What special reason is there that the production of security cannot be relegated to free competition? Why should it be subjected to a different principle and organized according to a different system?"

and

"We are consequently led to ask ourselves whether his exception is well founded, in the eyes of the economist.

It offends reason to believe that a well established natural law can admit of exceptions. A natural law must hold everywhere and always, or be invalid. I cannot believe, for example, that the universal law of gravitation, which governs the physical world, is ever suspended in any instance or at any point of the universe. Now I consider economic laws comparable to natural laws, and I have just as much faith in the principle of the division of labor as I have in the universal law of gravitation. I believe that while these principles can be disturbed, they admit of no exceptions.

But, if this is the case, the production of security should not be removed from the jurisdiction of free competition; and if it is removed, society as a whole suffers a loss.

Either this is logical and true, or else the principles on which economic science is based are invalid."

Listen son...you kicked off on me.
I most certainly did not. You were the one who started in on me. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11535211&postcount=27)

You never offered to debate me. You just kept saying "My response WAS relevant"--without ever providing the evidence for it.

So take your persecution complex elsewhere.

4 points
1) I believe that under my Constitution this man should be sentenced to life in prison
2) we are talking about another constitution
3) becoming 45 does not make you currupt
4) how does it line ones pockets to hand down a tough sentence for rapists?

LOL unless you are refering to your own personal beliefs, what constitution is that!?
45 was just an age I picked out, Judges that I know of are never younger than this, but then you have a wonoderful constitution!
To your 4th point, it doesn't. The current legal system and its judges (and not just in the UK but the US etc) which was my point in the second post, do not give out harsh enough sentences for rapists and tend to be judges just for the salery.

Under my Constitution this guy should get a heavy sentence. Britain does not, unfortunately, have the same protections as we do...apparently.

this takes place in Britain buddy.

Britain is a state in the general sense, and my argument stands. Do you know the mens rea for rape in Britain? Is it intent? If not, then even if he didn't intend to rape her, that may not matter.

The fact that he pled in fact, guilty, suggests that it is not.

LOL unless you are refering to your own personal beliefs, what constitution is that!? the U.S. Constitution
45 was just an age I picked out, Judges that I know of are never younger than this, but then you have a wonoderful constitution!unlike Britain
To your 4th point, it doesn't. The current legal system and its judges (and not just in the UK but the US etc) which was my point in the second post, do not give out harsh enough sentences for rapists and tend to be judges just for the salery.
agreed on that last point.

Under my Constitution this guy should get a heavy sentence. Britain does not, unfortunately, have the same protections as we do...apparently.

What damned constitution are you talking about? Your hypothetical nation's? Or the US Constitution?

If the second, please point me to where the word "rape" is used.

Under my Constitution this guy should get a heavy sentence. Britain does not, unfortunately, have the same protections as we do...apparently.

I assume you are from the US? I won't pretend I am fully aware of your legal system, but from what I have heard and read sexual crimes are not given harsher punishments than the UK.

What damned constitution are you talking about? Your hypothetical nation's? Or the US Constitution?

If the second, please point me to where the word "rape" is used.

U.S. Constitution

we have a framework that rejects this notion of special circumstances. You are guilty or innocent.

I assume you are from the US? I won't pretend I am fully aware of your legal system, but from what I have heard and read sexual crimes are not given harsher punishments than the UK.

well, juding by this thread your point is rather weak. The USA needs to get tougher, but in many places rape is punished by life in prison....you know, not apology letters.

U.S. Constitution

we have a framework that rejects this notion of special circumstances. You are guilty or innocent.

And he was guilty. What's your point?

Unless you're talking about how under American law special circumstances are not considered in punishment, which is simply factually incorrect. I take it you're not familiar with the terms "mitigating circumstances" and "aggrevating circumstances".

One as ignorant as you on the law shouldn't make claims to it.

LMFAO!!!

Ahh... I love offensive jokes.


P.S.
No, I'm not being sarcastic.
Glad you liked it.

sorry, but that small news blurb didn't provide enough information.

was it taken to trial or was this just the arrainment/plea submission?

did the woman who was allegdly (and I use that word since the story stated only that he was laying half naked on top of her.) raped actually press charges?

I can see this 'punnishment' if the woman who was 'raped' won't press charges on the guy.

and he did not try to deny anything.

not enough info for me to take a stand.

4 points
1) I believe that under my Constitution this man should be sentenced to life in prison

Yes, but that defeats the whole point of prison. Prison is for rehabilitation.

2) we are talking about another constitution
3) becoming 45 does not make you currupt

The Constitution lays down the government, not the laws.

4) how does it line ones pockets to hand down a tough sentence for rapists?

I would never wish life in prison for anyone who is able to be rehabilitated, even if he killed my own family, or raped me.

well, juding by this thread your point is rather weak. The USA needs to get tougher, but in many places rape is punished by life in prison....you know, not apology letters.

I'm just not explainging myself properly. Didn't know that rapists get life if murder or children were invovled.

And he was guilty. What's your point?

Unless you're talking about how under American law special circumstances are not considered in punishment, which is simply factually incorrect. I take it you're not familiar with the terms "mitigating circumstances" and "aggrevating circumstances".

One as ignorant as you on the law shouldn't make claims to it.

Yeah, but the guy pled guilty. I cant see any way around it in the States. Britain, apparently, allows you both to plead guilty and not get a full sentence that another guilty person would get.

U.S. Constitution

we have a framework that rejects this notion of special circumstances. You are guilty or innocent.

And until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you are not guilty of the crime.

Yes, but that defeats the whole point of prison. Prison is for rehabilitation.

The Constitution lays down the government, not the laws.



I would never wish life in prison for anyone who is able to be rehabilitated, even if he killed my own family, or raped me.

Prison for rehabilitation. Thats a funny one....heheheheeh. Ever see the inside of those places, the only rehabilitating going on is the guys icing their recent raped asses. A rapist must be punished, and it would be a good thing to never let him out lest he do it again, you know, or cut his weapon off.

I would never wish life in prison for anyone who is able to be rehabilitated, even if he killed my own family, or raped me.

Really? Thats very good of you. I wonder (and I'm not being sarcastic) would you change your mind if it happened to you or someone you know (which I sincerely hope it doesn't btw) .

Yeah, but the guy pled guilty. I cant see any way around it in the States. Britain, apparently, allows you both to plead guilty and not get a full sentence that another guilty person would get.

So does the United States.

I'm just not explainging myself properly. Didn't know that rapists get life if murder or children were invovled.
it really does depend on the area. NY, for example is a disgrace with sentencing, its like nothing at all.

I'm out, g2g work on some things outside.

sorry, but that small news blurb didn't provide enough information.

was it taken to trial or was this just the arrainment/plea submission?

did the woman who was allegdly (and I use that word since the story stated only that he was laying half naked on top of her.) raped actually press charges?

I can see this 'punnishment' if the woman who was 'raped' won't press charges on the guy.

and he did not try to deny anything.

not enough info for me to take a stand.

In the UK the rapee, for want of a better word, doesn't press charges. The CPS looks at the evidence and makes the decision whether the victim wants to or not. Crimes is against the state and not the individual.

or cut his weapon off.

Hang on a minute now. I and sereveral others mentioned that castration not full penal removement and you made replies which indicated you disagreed with our line of thinking? Pot calling the kettle black barry.

Yeah, but the guy pled guilty. I cant see any way around it in the States. Britain, apparently, allows you both to plead guilty and not get a full sentence that another guilty person would get.

The general rule for a guilty plea is a sentence reduction of a third. I'm assuming that theres is more to this case than the Mirror reported.

For all you Americans out there who may not know, the Mirror is about as respeted as a news source as the National Inquirer.

, the Mirror is about as respeted as a news source as the National Inquirer.

Wait the national inquirer isn't a good source of factinnocently asks!

The general rule for a guilty plea is a sentence reduction of a third. I'm assuming that theres is more to this case than the Mirror reported.

For all you Americans out there who may not know, the Mirror is about as respeted as a news source as the National Inquirer.That's the National Enquirer, and it's the most respected of our celebrity gossip tabloids.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

I don't buy this garbage that this guy got a worse punishment than the average fellow would get. In this age of endless appeal, endless feel good liberal judging, and lenient sentences, many people do not even get much of a sentence for murder. It is a shame. And another thing, if it was a poor guy, you wouldnt have even found out his name from the paper, it would not have been reported!

Writing a letter is a worse punishment?

That's the National Enquirer, and it's the most respected of our celebrity gossip tabloids.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

Maybe, but do you frequently turn to it for indepth serious journalism?

Prison for rehabilitation. Thats a funny one....heheheheeh. Ever see the inside of those places, the only rehabilitating going on is the guys icing their recent raped asses. A rapist must be punished, and it would be a good thing to never let him out lest he do it again, you know, or cut his weapon off.

I said it's meant for rehabilitation, not that it's being used that way.

And for a little change of pace...

"All rapists are sociopathic lunatics that would ass-rape you if they had the chance, so we should cut off their penises (because it's well-known women can't rape someone) and then convince his cellmate that it doesn't make him gay if he butt-rapes a guy. That will teach them a lesson, just like beating your kids teaches them things."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/11/ngeek11.xml

Thats better. So....no actual rape then?

Maybe, but do you frequently turn to it for indepth serious journalism?

whispers I think he is being sarcastic!

whispers I think he is being sarcastic!

Damnit!!

I always miss that on here.

I most certainly did not. You were the one who started in on me. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11535211&postcount=27)

You never offered to debate me. You just kept saying "My response WAS relevant"--without ever providing the evidence for it.

So take your persecution complex elsewhere.

LOL

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11535187&postcount=21

E/O/T

In the UK the rapee, for want of a better word, doesn't press charges. The CPS looks at the evidence and makes the decision whether the victim wants to or not. Crimes is against the state and not the individual.
?? ok. that's certainly different.

what's CPS... I keep thinking Child Protection Services...

In the UK the rapee, for want of a better word, doesn't press charges. The CPS looks at the evidence and makes the decision whether the victim wants to or not. Crimes is against the state and not the individual.
Crimes are always against the state by definition, surely? If the individual themselves wanted to bring the rapist to court for recompensation without getting the state involved, it would be a Tort rather than part of a Criminal Charge, wouldn't it?

?? ok. that's certainly different.

what's CPS... I keep thinking Child Protection Services...

Crown Prosecution Service

Really? Thats very good of you. I wonder (and I'm not being sarcastic) would you change your mind if it happened to you or someone you know (which I sincerely hope it doesn't btw) .

Nope. I wouldn't change my mind at all.

?? ok. that's certainly different.

what's CPS... I keep thinking Child Protection Services...

CPS - Crown Prosecution Service

Sort of like your DA...these guys represent the state in court and also decide if it is worthwhile to bring a case to Crown Court....and Magistrates Courts as well I think.

Crimes are always against the state by definition, surely? If the individual themselves wanted to bring the rapist to court for recompensation without getting the state involved, it would be a Tort rather than part of a Criminal Charge, wouldn't it?

Yup. But were talking about a criminal cast here and that just muddies the waters.

Edit: She'd probably get a fortune though, the guys dad is a millionaire and the burden of proof is much lower in a civil court.

Yeah, but the guy pled guilty. I cant see any way around it in the States. Britain, apparently, allows you both to plead guilty and not get a full sentence that another guilty person would get.

Yes, because we all know people who plead guilty to murder always get the death penalty.

Here's an interesting one, the guy was charged with sexual assualt which carries a 2 year max sentence under the Sexual Offenses Act 1956 (section 14) when committed against a woman. When committed against a man the same offence carries a max 10 year sentence (section 15).

You can tell who was writing British law in the 50's.

Crown Prosecution Service
CPS - Crown Prosecution Service

Sort of like your DA...these guys represent the state in court and also decide if it is worthwhile to bring a case to Crown Court....and Magistrates Courts as well I think.
thanks.

is there another, more detailed story about this? is the "rape victim" (again quotes used due to the lack of information provided by the OP link.) arguing against this punnishment?


Was it proven that he did "rape" her or was it stopped before it started... basically, the other girl woke up before any "penetration" was done?

too many questions... still not enough info.

Here's an interesting one, the guy was charged with sexual assualt which carries a 2 year max sentence under the Sexual Offenses Act 1956 (section 14) when committed against a woman. When committed against a man the same offence carries a max 10 year sentence (section 15).

You can tell who was writing British law in the 50's.

OMGWTF SO-CALLED "HOMOPHOBES!!!"

*snippage*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11535864&postcount=136

Yeah, but the guy pled guilty. I cant see any way around it in the States. Britain, apparently, allows you both to plead guilty and not get a full sentence that another guilty person would get.
uhmm... in America, a plea of Guilty can lighten the sentence. Plea bargening also can produce a lighter sentence... it's up to the Lawyers and the Judge.

uhmm... in America, a plea of Guilty can lighten the sentence. Plea bargening also can produce a lighter sentence... it's up to the Lawyers and the Judge.
Indeed...very common in cases where the evidence is too convicting.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11535864&postcount=136
Thnxs... I missed that post.

so far, the sentensing seems appropriate to me.

Maybe, but do you frequently turn to it for indepth serious journalism?
No. For that I've got the Weekly World News.

http://weeklyworldnews.com/

Thnxs... I missed that post.

so far, the sentensing seems appropriate to me.

I does. My initial reaction to the first post was that the judge was being too lenient, but then I bothered to actually find out something about the case.

No. For that I've got the Weekly World News.

http://weeklyworldnews.com/

I love Batboy. He is my life.

A millionaire who raped an unconscous girl went to court and was ordered only to write a letter of apology. I wonder if he was a regular guy would he get the same treatment? Nope. Probably end up doing a few years in prison, which is the least that he deserves.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17545018%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=say%2dsorry%2dfor%2dsex%2dassault%2d-name_page.html
It's okay because he wasn't experienced in the customs of the land.
/sarcasm
Isn't that the same excuse that Muslims have been using to rape women in European countries?

LOL

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11535187&postcount=21

E/O/T
Yes, just showing that you're the one who started in on me. Thanks for admitting it.

Where did you pull that non sequitur from?



http://daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html


I pulled it from the fact that someone in that system wont have any way to have justice done if they haven't contracted a firm.

David Friedman's arguement falters in the fact that there hasn't been any anarcho-capitalism society ever. The burden of proof is on you and others who claim anarcho-capitalism is workable. You have none.

BAAWAKnight:

Wouldn't a privately owned judicial system move from being based on reducing crime to getting revenge? Hopefully we can all agree that the firm/s owning the court is/are not interested in making crime non-existant(a goal no one is aiming for of course), as that would slowly kill the firm's profits.

So my thesis is that the judicial system will move from Fighting Crime to Revenge. Death Penalty would immediately be introduced. The people using the system are the offended, thus will the firm with the strictest punishments be the one that is used. And who chooses what court to use, anyway? The offender or the offended?

Also, what happens if it is discovered that an innocent person has received a death sentence? Will the firm stand idly by as the newspapers reveal it to the public, or will it in fact try to stop them, as it can have the powers to do so?

Also, how are these firms supposed to be acknowledged by the public? Who gives them the right to decide other people's lives? Who will have the authority to punish these firms if they are in fact corrupt? "The people"?

What happens if a member of a firm becomes an offended? Can he use his own court, thus clearly having the judge(s) on his side, or must he use another one?

I'm sorry, but I can't say that Justice is equal to any other goods. It is something that should be financed, but not bought. By taking money from everyone and giving it to judges elected in a representative democracy one ensures the (almost) most fair judicial system one can get.

You are of course allowed to disagree and call taxes a theft as you do not wish to contribute to the state, because you do in fact live in a free(?) country where you are allowed to express your opinions, and certainly online. I do however disagree, find your ideas of letting private firms decide what's right or not to be quite hopeless(and scary), and hope that they will never get the support from the majority of the people.

I pulled it from the fact that someone in that system wont have any way to have justice done if they haven't contracted a firm.
No, that's your claim. It's not a fact.


David Friedman's arguement falters in the fact that there hasn't been any anarcho-capitalism society ever.
That doesn't make it falter.


The burden of proof is on you and others who claim anarcho-capitalism is workable. You have none.
No, the burden of proof is on those who claim a state is necessary/that defense/justice/etc can only be provided by a state. That claim is that this thing (whatever it is) is so special that it can only be provided by an expropriating territorial monopolist. That claim has no backing whatsoever.

Those of you who foolishly believe that governments are the only entities capable of dispensing justice/police defense/etc., I urge you to read Gustave de Molinari's The Production of Security (http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm). And before any of you whine about him being some sort of "modern crank", you should note that Gustave was born in 1819 and died in 1912.

Here are some excerpts:

"If there is one well-established truth in political economy, it is this:

That in all cases, for all commodities that serve to provide for the tangible or intangible needs of the consumer, it is in the consumer’s best interest that labor and trade remain free, because the freedom of labor and of trade have as their necessary and permanent result the maximum reduction of price.

And this:

That the interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever should always prevail over the interests of the producer.

Now in pursuing these principles, one arrives at this rigorous conclusion:

That the production of security should, in the interests of the consumers of this intangible commodity, remain subject to the law of free competition.

Whence it follows:

That no government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity.

Nevertheless, I must admit that, up until the present, one recoiled before this rigorous implication of the principle of free competition.

One economist who has done as much as anyone to extend the application of the principle of liberty, M. Charles Dunoyer, thinks “that the functions of government will never be able to fall into the domain of private activity.”**

Now here is a citation of a clear and obvious exception to the principle of free competition.

This exception is all the more remarkable for being unique.

Undoubtedly, one can find economists who establish more numerous exceptions to this principle; but we may emphatically affirm that these are not pure economists. True economists are generally agreed, on the one had, that the government should restrict itself to guaranteeing the security of its citizens, and on the other hand, that the freedom of labor and of trade should otherwise be whole and absolute.

But why should there be an exception relative to security? What special reason is there that the production of security cannot be relegated to free competition? Why should it be subjected to a different principle and organized according to a different system?"

and

"We are consequently led to ask ourselves whether his exception is well founded, in the eyes of the economist.

It offends reason to believe that a well established natural law can admit of exceptions. A natural law must hold everywhere and always, or be invalid. I cannot believe, for example, that the universal law of gravitation, which governs the physical world, is ever suspended in any instance or at any point of the universe. Now I consider economic laws comparable to natural laws, and I have just as much faith in the principle of the division of labor as I have in the universal law of gravitation. I believe that while these principles can be disturbed, they admit of no exceptions.

But, if this is the case, the production of security should not be removed from the jurisdiction of free competition; and if it is removed, society as a whole suffers a loss.

Either this is logical and true, or else the principles on which economic science is based are invalid."


I see no proof that this has any value, proof, or relevance. We might as well say Socialism works because of what Karl Marx wrote in the volumes of Das Kapital.

Point being, if he was not prevented by others, he would have raped her. This is the impression I received from the article.

"Too bad I had to shoot your son in the head in self defense." She sent in a letter to the family of the deceased... (if firearms were legal in the UK, would be an equal punishment in my opinion.)

Rape and sexual assault are taken too lightly. Drinking too much is no excuse. There IS no excuse.

No, that's your claim. It's not a fact.

No its a fact. I don't get goods and services unless I pay for them. If I don't pay for them I don't get them If justice is given to people for free then many people will choose not to pay because why would most people pay for something if they can get it for free?



That doesn't make it falter.

Yes it does. It means you have zero proof it will work.



No, the burden of proof is on those who claim a state is necessary/that defense/justice/etc can only be provided by a state. That claim is that this thing (whatever it is) is so special that it can only be provided by an expropriating territorial monopolist. That claim has no backing whatsoever.

No, the burden of proof is on people who say a something else works better. It may have many flaws but it works relatively well most of the time. Not perfect but not enough that people will scrap it any time soon.

To change it there would have to be evidence that another system works better. We have proof of how well the current system works, but none at all on how well a privatized justice system works. Your claim has no backing whatsoever.

Anarcho-capitalism has no backing whatsoever.

I see no proof that this has any value, proof, or relevance.
Then you should read it again.

Then you should read it again.

Reread it. Still don't see anything worth anything in it.

No its a fact. I don't get goods and services unless I pay for them. If I don't pay for them I don't get them If justice is given to people for free then many people will choose not to pay because why would most people pay for something if they can get it for free?
Because it wouldn't be given for free. I'm in the middle of a suit against a guy's insurance company over an accident. I haven't paid my lawyer anything. How will he get paid? Contingency fee.

Oooooooooops! Didn't think of that, did you?


Yes it does.
No, it really does not matter.


No, the burden of proof is on people who say a something else works better.
No, the burden of proof is on people who claim that a monopoly is required.

Your system has no backing whatsoever. It is thus consigned to the trash.

Reread it. Still don't see anything worth anything in it.
Then you're illiterate. As such, I cannot expect you to properly understand my responses. As such, you will receive no further responses. Good day.

Then you're illiterate. As such, I cannot expect you to properly understand my responses. As such, you will receive no further responses. Good day.

No worries. I'm glad when fools who have little to no critical thinking or reasoning skills ignore me.

Because it wouldn't be given for free. I'm in the middle of a suit against a guy's insurance company over an accident. I haven't paid my lawyer anything. How will he get paid? Contingency fee.

Oooooooooops! Didn't think of that, did you?

Ummm... in a privatized justice system people pay to participate in the justice sytem. Not lawyers but the sytem it self.


No, it really does not matter.

Okie dokie. Apparently proof doesn't matter at all to you. I bet you believe aliens like to anal probe hill billies and everyone has magic powers. At least that is a logical inference to the fact that proof doesn't matter.




No, the burden of proof is on people who claim that a monopoly is required.

Your system has no backing whatsoever. It is thus consigned to the trash.

Your system has no proof, no backing, and is just plain stupid. It and you are therefore consigned to the waistebin of idiocy.

And that's why we need to privatize the justice system. What's the difference?
If it was Privatized they would arrest the girl instead for preventing this guy from making money!!!

If it was Privatized they would arrest the girl instead for preventing this guy from making money!!!
If you're going to make idiotic comments, at least you could use 1337-speak or WaCkY CaPs.

If it was Privatized they would arrest the girl instead for preventing this guy from making money!!!
I don't see how he could be making money while having sex, unless he's a prostitute.

If you're going to make idiotic comments, at least you could use 1337-speak or WaCkY CaPs.

Remember that whenever you advocate anarcho-capitalism.

A millionaire who raped an unconscous girl went to court and was ordered only to write a letter of apology. I wonder if he was a regular guy would he get the same treatment? Nope. Probably end up doing a few years in prison, which is the least that he deserves.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17545018%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=say%2dsorry%2dfor%2dsex%2dassault%2d-name_page.html
Give him a break, he didn't know the customs...

Give him a break, he didn't know the customs...
If any man (or woman) needs to be told not to rape people, or needs to have the "custom" of not-raping explained to them, then they are clearly somebody who should be imprisoned or institutionalized for the remainder of their natural life. Sorry folks, but that human is broken.

Is it still a lynch mob if it's legally sanctioned?


If all members of said mob sign an appology letter to the family of the "lynchee" afterwards, there should be no problem.

It has to be sincere though.

If any man (or woman) needs to be told not to rape people, or needs to have the "custom" of not-raping explained to them, then they are clearly somebody who should be imprisoned or institutionalized for the remainder of their natural life. Sorry folks, but that human is broken.


"He was simply unable to know how to behave." WTF ? Does he know now? Or is he still "unable".

That could be used as defense in nearly every crime commited.

You are right-he is broken. I have no use for people that are "unable to know how to behave".


Edit: When in doubt, or faced with a situation you cant know what to do, find an unconscious person and fuck them.