[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
There is no such thing as a country? Wow, you just blew my mind man![/quote]
It exists in theory alone and is a construction of social behavior.
If the drug dealer’s bling was confiscated, they would no longer shoot and rob each other, they would go after our stuff. I say no to this law.
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
This law would not target working tax paying paeople who have nice cars even though they do not eran much.
This would be against people who eran absoloutley zero monry (legitmatley) and have a lot of wealth. specifically the people that are known criminals but that the police do not have enough evidence to prosecute for their crimes.
I cannot see any liberal complaining if they had a drug dealer living next door to them that lost all their stuff becuase of this law, I think they would be happy about it.
I am suprised at your replies i did not realise I was so right wing :)[/quote]
This was already said but there is an idea in free society that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff and not the defendant. The person bringing charges always has to prove that a crime, in fact, was committed before due process can occur. Tyranny has always suppressed this idea. It is, no doubt, still present in such ideas as drunk driving laws where innocent people are pulled over and forced to testify against themselves and possibly charged with a crime when no crime has actually occurred – drunk driving being defined as a crime by “legitimate” authority.
Your idea is one notch above classism.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
There is no such thing as a country? Wow, you just blew my mind man!
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It exists in theory alone and is a construction of social behavior.[/quote]
Of course that is true. But then again it is also true of everything else we think of as real. Those pieces of paper we call money, that box on wheels we call a car, and even these caveman grunts we call words. Every single law, or social convention we have.
It is an interesting analysis of reality, but does nothing to forward this conversation.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No. Innocent until proven guilty.
I am suprised by that comment, most Americans seem happy to let that rule slide by for Iraq.
I cannot even begin to understand what this means.
You (we) tried to prove Iraq guilty by finding WMD and when this was not possible you (we) attacked and invaded them anyway when they have not been ‘proven guilty of nothing’ (nothing worty of invasion)
So by the “innocent until proven guilty” rule Iraq as a country is innocent, but you (we) invaded tham anyway, hence letting that rule slide.
We weren’t going after Iraq. We were going after Sadam. Having WMD would have been the least of his crimes. People seem to forget or don’t care that this guy was right up there with Hitler. Maybe he didn’t kill quite as many people but he made up for that in shear brutality. History may point out many of GWB faults and blunders but it will also remember that he gave the order to capture one of the worste dictators in the history of man kind.
So you are going after Robert Mugabe next then? Oh no he has no oil, fuck it then leave him too it yeah!
Nice morales 
That makes no sense. If we can’t them all, don’t go after any of them? Obviously you have to prioritize. If they are equally as brutal to their own people then there has to be some other criteria. I have yet to see us take any oil but freeing this from the hands of a madman help the the WORLD oil prices once production ramps. Also, if there is a chance that one of them has WMD wouldn’t that be a criteria.
Also, how do know what we have or haven’t done to dispose of Mugabe. All you know is that we weren’t successful.[/quote]
If it was just Saddam that was the problem you could have took him out without invading the whole country, also he is gone now, yet we are there to stay, many many dollars to be made in the reconstruction of Iraq
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
If it was just Saddam that was the problem you could have took him out without invading the whole country, also he is gone now, yet we are there to stay, many many dollars to be made in the reconstruction of Iraq
[/quote]
All societies need a common enemy, so that the elite are justified in their continued existence. When the Cold War ended, there was no enemy in the wings. Now however, terrorism has arisen. Our rulers have a strong interest in maintaining that. It helps them.
If there were no more terror (or war), there would be no reason for big and powerful governments to ‘fight’ those things. Government would be about as exciting as running a post office. Where’s the thrill of power in that?
Agreed on the getting him part but what do you think would have happened if we would have just left?
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Of course that is true. But then again it is also true of everything else we think of as real. Those pieces of paper we call money, that box on wheels we call a car, and even these caveman grunts we call words. Every single law, or social convention we have.
[/quote]
Actually, that is not true of everything in reality. Actual matter that we can put our hands on has a definite existence despite the different names given it. There are things that exist only as ideas that we cannot touch that we act as if though provides some domain to our lives. Some of them might.
I was merely trying to point out to Zap that the distinction between countries and individuals is irrelevant to this discussion. Despite that, there is an ethical fallacy in the view that government and individuals are subject to different rules of behavior. Government is nothing more than a collection of individuals.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There is no such thing as a country. [/quote]
Then…
You mean the non-existent USA, per your previous sentence?
You do realize we aren’t laughing with you, right?
Fun troll is fun. Stupid law is stupid.
::bows::
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Actually, that is not true of everything in reality. Actual matter that we can put our hands on has a definite existence despite the different names given it. There are things that exist only as ideas that we cannot touch that we act as if though provides some domain to our lives. Some of them might.
I was merely trying to point out to Zap that the distinction between countries and individuals is irrelevant to this discussion. Despite that, there is an ethical fallacy in the view that government and individuals are subject to different rules of behavior. Government is nothing more than a collection of individuals.[/quote]
I extended your concept, and obviously it went over your head. It goes way further then you think.
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
I am would like to know your thoughts on this.
I personally think there should be a law that allows the government/police to confiscate property and money from people that have no legitimate proof of how it was acquired legally.
Let’s say for example:
You have a 20 year old kid who is a drug dealer, never worked in his life never paid taxes, and has no record of inheriting money or a lottery win for example. The police know he is a drug dealer but do not have enough to pin him for it (which is so often the case nowadays)
This kid is driving around in a very expensive car and has a nice place to live and a lot of spending money.
Personally I think the police should be able to confiscate his property and car etc. and unless the kid can show how he earned the money to pay for it all LEGITAMATLY then he does not get it back.
What do you think?
Too extreme? Could it possibly work? Are there any countries that do similar?
Cheers
[/quote]
They started doing that in Britain during Tony Bliars reign. It shows you what a peice of shit he was.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Forcing people to prove their innocence is an unfair burden. This is a long established principle of common law. If the police cannot make their case then they need to be more thorough.
We should not compromise civil rights in order to compensate for a lack of professionalism in the police. If anything a demonstrated lack of competance by the police argues for a strengthening of civil rights laws.
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No. Innocent until proven guilty.
I am suprised by that comment, most Americans seem happy to let that rule slide by for Iraq.
I cannot even begin to understand what this means.
You (we) tried to prove Iraq guilty by finding WMD and when this was not possible you (we) attacked and invaded them anyway when they have not been ‘proven guilty of nothing’ (nothing worty of invasion)
So by the “innocent until proven guilty” rule Iraq as a country is innocent, but you (we) invaded tham anyway, hence letting that rule slide.
[/quote]
Tony Bliar was the one who hyped they have WMD.
Bush’s arguement was Saddam was dangerous and we have given him reason to hold a grudge. He has used WMD in the past and is capable of using them again. Saddam was under UN resolutions to get rid of WMD and allow inspections to make sure he was in compliance. Saddam refused to come clean and even if he did there was nothing to stop him reconstituting his WMD programs.
After 9/11 Bush made the decision that he wasn’t going to play the guessing game any more. Given Saddams propensity for violence it was a good decision. Bush is the one who everyone would have blamed if he did nothing about Saddam and our worst fears came true.
You want to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are completely undeserving of it like Saddam. While someone like Bush who had to constantly worry about what was going to come next from Saddam get none.
You are being completely unfair to Bush. He’s the guy who had to play this bullshit guessing game on 9/11 of figuring out who the hell really was responsible. You completely ignore the fact that alqaeda could act as a proxie for anyone who held a grudge against the US, with Saddam being one of the worst.
Besides Saddam was guilty of using WMD on the Kurds and the Sri Lankans.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No. Innocent until proven guilty.
I am suprised by that comment, most Americans seem happy to let that rule slide by for Iraq.
I cannot even begin to understand what this means.
You (we) tried to prove Iraq guilty by finding WMD and when this was not possible you (we) attacked and invaded them anyway when they have not been ‘proven guilty of nothing’ (nothing worty of invasion)
So by the “innocent until proven guilty” rule Iraq as a country is innocent, but you (we) invaded tham anyway, hence letting that rule slide.
Tony Bliar was the one who hyped they have WMD.
Bush’s arguement was Saddam was dangerous and we have given him reason to hold a grudge. He has used WMD in the past and is capable of using them again. Saddam was under UN resolutions to get rid of WMD and allow inspections to make sure he was in compliance. Saddam refused to come clean and even if he did there was nothing to stop him reconstituting his WMD programs.
After 9/11 Bush made the decision that he wasn’t going to play the guessing game any more. Given Saddams propensity for violence it was a good decision. Bush is the one who everyone would have blamed if he did nothing about Saddam and our worst fears came true.
You want to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are completely undeserving of it like Saddam. While someone like Bush who had to constantly worry about what was going to come next from Saddam get none.
You are being completely unfair to Bush. He’s the guy who had to play this bullshit guessing game on 9/11 of figuring out who the hell really was responsible. You completely ignore the fact that alqaeda could act as a proxie for anyone who held a grudge against the US, with Saddam being one of the worst.
Besides Saddam was guilty of using WMD on the Kurds and the Sri Lankans.[/quote]
If you are going to invade every country that holds a grudge against you, then you are gonaa be some really busy mother fuckers!
[quote]Electric_E wrote:
This law would not target working tax paying paeople who have nice cars even though they do not eran much.
This would be against people who eran absoloutley zero monry (legitmatley) and have a lot of wealth. specifically the people that are known criminals but that the police do not have enough evidence to prosecute for their crimes.
I cannot see any liberal complaining if they had a drug dealer living next door to them that lost all their stuff becuase of this law, I think they would be happy about it.
I am suprised at your replies i did not realise I was so right wing :)[/quote]
You aren’t right wing at all. You are a fucking English liberal. No use denying it because you fuckers are the ones who already made this a law in Britain.
You fucking liberals just can’t do enough to intrude the government into peoples lives by finding every excuse you can to keep people poor and under your thumb.
If the police can’t prove a case too bad. You probably agree with that piece of shit Bliar’s attempt to remove the protection against double jeopardy. I remember when he stated in the house of commons that the government needs to be allowed to bring a case to trial as many times as it takes to get a conviction.
You liberals are Anti-Libertarian scum.
[quote]Anonymous Coward wrote:
Electric_E wrote:
I cannot see any liberal complaining if they had a drug dealer living next door to them that lost all their stuff becuase of this law, I think they would be happy about it.
I am suprised at your replies i did not realise I was so right wing
Nobody is advocating that the pushers get to keep their illegally earned money. The thing that all these replies have in common is that your idea puts too much discretion in the hands of individual authority figures and disregards the safeguards that are meant to protect the innocent from harm.
A corrupt or mistaken police officer can claim that anyone is a “known drug dealer”, but the system of innocent until proven guilty prevents them from acting on it until they can prove it, rather than just believing it. I would much rather have a drug dealer living next door than give any cop the power to confiscate my stuff on suspicion.[/quote] [quote]I can solve the dealer problem by leaving the neighbourhood, but I’d have to leave the country to get away from a dangerously bad justice system.[/quote]
This is exactly why EE’s croud support such an injustice. They have been sytematically driving the English out of England while replacing them with foreigners and socially engineering what is left into drunken derelicts living off of the dole on council estates. The fucking liberals have ruined England.
I am not a liberal (far from it) and I have never been a supporter of Tony Blair at anytime either.
This law that we are discussing is one of my least radical anti crime ideas.
Good because I hate Tony Bliar. I don’t like any of those labour bitches. They put keeping themselves in power before the best interests of the English people.
If people are breaking the law to make a living eventually they will be caught. Especially if they are flashing money around. It is just a matter of time and good professional police work.
That confiscation law that Bliar brought in puts way too much power in the hands of the government. The government should have to make it’s case anytime it takes action against the individual.
If on a rare occasion a criminal does get away with a life of crime it is a small price to pay for people to be protected from the government intruding into yet more aspects of peoples lives.
Britain is completely out of control with this shit. They are constantly coming up with new ways to monitor people and the people are just going along with it. As new technologies become available the UK government comes up with schemes to use it to monitor the people.
Meanwhile murderers and other criminals get slapped on the wrist. The labour government is totally responsible for the crime wave that is hitting Britain. If you want to do something about crime you need to undo their fucked up policies.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
There is no such thing as a country? Wow, you just blew my mind man!
It exists in theory alone and is a construction of social behavior.[/quote]
Duude, the word “theory” exists in theory alone. Wow man! I just blew my mind!
[quote]Sifu wrote:
If on a rare occasion a criminal does get away with a life of crime it is a small price to pay for people to be protected from the government intruding into yet more aspects of peoples lives.
[/quote]
This brings to mind an idea that I hadn’t thought of before. For the vast majority of (at least) North American history, the government has been much more powerful than any criminal or group of criminals. In other words, they have more of an ability to completely fuck up my life and the lives of those I care about, so I’d rather be assured of protection from them than give them absolute power in fighting crime. A crook with a grudge against me is a problem, a danger or at best an inconvenience, while a government official or high-ranking police officer with a grudge against me (even if it’s only because I stepped on his shoe in line for popcorn) has much more potential to be devastating and is harder to get away from.
The only example I can recall of “criminals” being more powerful than the “government” is the US revolution, but that was a different class of criminal, if they can even be called that.