Org Mobile Site
So: you think I should split the difference and maybe go 50-50 on my real estate loss with the state, which failed to fully and adequately regulate?
No place to get a refund, but no need to pay the goverment the value of your house they saved but stopping mr rogers down the road starting his garden scrapyard, mrs jones who finds the walk to the trashcan a bit too far and just dumps it on the garden and the crack dealer down the street they busted who brings all kind of disreputable people to the neighbourhood
Im not sure on American house prices but im assuming that you live in a decent area, i would assume these kind of rules that force consideration of your neighbour mainly protect the people at the lower end of the market, as they have less space between each other and generally live next to less considerate neighbours... (im assuming lower end of the market more criminals, more young people which can mean partys and excessive drinking let alone other drugs....)
No place to get a refund, but no need to pay the goverment the value of your house they saved but stopping mr rogers down the road starting his garden scrapyard, mrs jones who finds the walk to the trashcan a bit too far and just dumps it on the garden and the crack dealer down the street they busted who brings all kind of disreputable people to the neighbourhood
Im not sure on American house prices but im assuming that you live in a decent area, i would assume these kind of rules that force consideration of your neighbour mainly protect the people at the lower end of the market, as they have less space between each other and generally live next to less considerate neighbours... (im assuming lower end of the market more criminals, more young people which can mean partys and excessive drinking let alone other drugs....)
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
Im sure that works great in sparesly populated areas but when people live in such close proximity to each other laws have to made to force people to be considerate to each other, it would be great if we didn't need such rules,...
You make an important point there, my friend. Maybe this "american experiment" only works well with seemingly unlimited frontier. And the more we urbanize, the more control must be ceded to the state.Im sure that works great in sparesly populated areas but when people live in such close proximity to each other laws have to made to force people to be considerate to each other, it would be great if we didn't need such rules,...
So, can you see where such condition would chafe our citizens, accustomed (at least mythically) to "no borders"-type freedom, now having to give up some of that liberty?
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Heh. I've been exaggerating, as most here have, this entire thread, with the purpose of examining, discussing and testing these ideas of individual rights vs the collective well-being.
So: you think I should split the difference and maybe go 50-50 on my real estate loss with the state, which failed to fully and adequately regulate?
Nope, your real estate loss has nothing to do with the government and its' laws. You couldn't have a trash heap on your front garden before you bought the house and you still can't have a trash heap in your front garden now. So it's not the government regulation that made you lose money. Heh. I've been exaggerating, as most here have, this entire thread, with the purpose of examining, discussing and testing these ideas of individual rights vs the collective well-being.
So: you think I should split the difference and maybe go 50-50 on my real estate loss with the state, which failed to fully and adequately regulate?
The free market did.
You were/are free to spend your money on whatever you wanted/want. With freedom comes responsability and facing the consequences of your own, free, actions.
The government is not responsable for the real estate bubble and its' collapse.
You make an important point there, my friend. Maybe this "american experiment" only works well with seemingly unlimited frontier. And the more we urbanize, the more control must be ceded to the state.
So, can you see where such condition would chafe our citizens, accustomed (at least mythically) to "no borders"-type freedom, now having to give up some of that liberty?
That is basically what came to mind, here in britian we are fairly closely packed so forced consideration through rule of law isn't really objected to (as far as im aware or as much)
I can see more now why mainly americans find this shocking but i think it is something people must accept if they live in such close proximity to each other, out in rural america where you can have neighbours miles apart noise, pollution or a big scrapyard wouldn't really affect anyone but the house owner. I see it as the price you pay for living so close to other people, you have to be considerate, and seen as theres always a few bad apples who don't care how inconsiderate they are, so you have to define what is inconsiderate for nieghbours to do under law...
So, can you see where such condition would chafe our citizens, accustomed (at least mythically) to "no borders"-type freedom, now having to give up some of that liberty?
That is basically what came to mind, here in britian we are fairly closely packed so forced consideration through rule of law isn't really objected to (as far as im aware or as much)
I can see more now why mainly americans find this shocking but i think it is something people must accept if they live in such close proximity to each other, out in rural america where you can have neighbours miles apart noise, pollution or a big scrapyard wouldn't really affect anyone but the house owner. I see it as the price you pay for living so close to other people, you have to be considerate, and seen as theres always a few bad apples who don't care how inconsiderate they are, so you have to define what is inconsiderate for nieghbours to do under law...
Originally Posted by Andres:
The government is not responsable for the real estate bubble and its' collapse.
The government created the kind of free market who allowed such things, so yes, imo they are responsible for it.The government is not responsable for the real estate bubble and its' collapse.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
The government created the kind of free market who allowed such things, so yes, imo they are responsible for it.
Did the government force people to buy houses?The government created the kind of free market who allowed such things, so yes, imo they are responsible for it.
I wouldn't put full responsibility on the goverment but they could have stepped in at some point and done something... so you could call them at least partly responsible for not acting...
Originally Posted by :
So: you think I should split the difference and maybe go 50-50 on my real estate loss with the state, which failed to fully and adequately regulate?
Only if you bought the house with a written guarantee that it would increase in value and be immune from market fluctuations .So: you think I should split the difference and maybe go 50-50 on my real estate loss with the state, which failed to fully and adequately regulate?
You don't buy a house to make money if you live in it , you either get someone else to live in it and make money off of them or if the house is a real bargain then sell it on quick for an instant profit .
Its been funny here for the past 10years listening to idiots saying how much money they have made on their home , then selling it and buying another home that has increased by the same proportion as their other house had .
Its just like britain during the Thatcher years , a sure sign to sitback and wait to make a big killing when the idiots lose their property and the banks are just dumping them at auction .
Originally Posted by :
The government is not responsable for the real estate bubble and its' collapse.
Well it is really , its the typical tried and failed method of a credit fueled boom that they keep on repeating in the vain hope that perhaps this time it will work .The government is not responsable for the real estate bubble and its' collapse.
But there is no comeback for you against the government as it is your own choice if you want to believe the buy now while you can and watch your proerty soar in value bull , you cannot sue the government for your own sillyness .
You can sue under certain circumastances though , like with the endowment scam a while back where people were buying homes but not being told that they were taking a big gamble on top of a big gamble , but the government got out of that by blaming the banks for misleading people about the policy and making the banks pay if people could prove they were duped .
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Papewaio's solution is wise in a proposed measured solution, but ignores the central issues: the 'litter' is on so-called private property. What is the state's compelling interest in regulating that, and what is the state's right in enforcing that interest?
Well, when they put the law in place they never imagined it would go past the $50 fine, and it's not the job of the justice system to say "well, they didn't mean for it to go this far so we'll ignore it". I also don't think the law is just about littering--I imagine there are law enforcement concerns as well. If it is just about littering then it's a bad law but at $50 I'm not surprised that it's gone unnoticed. Papewaio's solution is wise in a proposed measured solution, but ignores the central issues: the 'litter' is on so-called private property. What is the state's compelling interest in regulating that, and what is the state's right in enforcing that interest?
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
You think it reasonable to fine people and throw them in jail because they smoke marijuana, take ecstasy, trip on acid and shoot heroin on their property? Is it reasonable a man can't smoke what he wants on his property without getting arrested? Is that what you consider reasonable?
What right does the government have to dictate such things? What pact did the man make with the government, what agreement did he sign that said he wouldn't have unlicensed vehicles in his driveway?
No, he had it forced on him - in a singular way no non-government entity could hope to replicate. The government declared it had the power to rule over the private property of citizens.
As Kukri said, we are leaving the land of the free, aided by government apologetics.
The law? The Law?! Does that excuse it? The fact that it was a law? Does that remove from our discussion whether it is right or just?
You mentioned a democracy, though this is a republic. But does the fact that a majority of people support something make it moral and acceptable?
What a pathetic concept. Laws are not the basis of justice. Justice should be the basis of laws. We should not have to convince people that a bad law should be voted out instead of thrown out as being against the rights of man.
Relying merely on democracy as the great decider of our morals will lead to the tyranny of 51% of the population.
And meek acceptance of the government as arbitrator of what is right will lead only to further erosion of liberty.
And what if someone wronged by a law, someone who's been put in jail for painting his house the wrong color as an extreme example; if he cannot garner enough support to change the law should he then be doomed, as well as anyone else who falls afoul of what ever the 50 percent plus one demand?
It is hard to fathom the mind which assumes, which takes as a starting position that the government is always correct, that it's actions to enforce whatever ridiculous law are reasonable. How can one decide it is alright to be ruled by people who did not care enough to do some simple thing to prevent this man's home being taken from him.
Oh, but they cry, they weren't required to. As if someone who was so insensitive to the suffering of others, so uncaring of people, should be able to rule.
I am not, I suppose, that surprised at the leftists on here, but I will ask them; is not the point of the government to increase the well-being of people? How, exactly, does this do that? How does enforcement of this law in this manner benefit the public?
CR
You think it reasonable to fine people and throw them in jail because they smoke marijuana, take ecstasy, trip on acid and shoot heroin on their property? Is it reasonable a man can't smoke what he wants on his property without getting arrested? Is that what you consider reasonable?
What right does the government have to dictate such things? What pact did the man make with the government, what agreement did he sign that said he wouldn't have unlicensed vehicles in his driveway?
No, he had it forced on him - in a singular way no non-government entity could hope to replicate. The government declared it had the power to rule over the private property of citizens.
As Kukri said, we are leaving the land of the free, aided by government apologetics.
The law? The Law?! Does that excuse it? The fact that it was a law? Does that remove from our discussion whether it is right or just?
You mentioned a democracy, though this is a republic. But does the fact that a majority of people support something make it moral and acceptable?
What a pathetic concept. Laws are not the basis of justice. Justice should be the basis of laws. We should not have to convince people that a bad law should be voted out instead of thrown out as being against the rights of man.
Relying merely on democracy as the great decider of our morals will lead to the tyranny of 51% of the population.
And meek acceptance of the government as arbitrator of what is right will lead only to further erosion of liberty.
And what if someone wronged by a law, someone who's been put in jail for painting his house the wrong color as an extreme example; if he cannot garner enough support to change the law should he then be doomed, as well as anyone else who falls afoul of what ever the 50 percent plus one demand?
It is hard to fathom the mind which assumes, which takes as a starting position that the government is always correct, that it's actions to enforce whatever ridiculous law are reasonable. How can one decide it is alright to be ruled by people who did not care enough to do some simple thing to prevent this man's home being taken from him.
Oh, but they cry, they weren't required to. As if someone who was so insensitive to the suffering of others, so uncaring of people, should be able to rule.
I am not, I suppose, that surprised at the leftists on here, but I will ask them; is not the point of the government to increase the well-being of people? How, exactly, does this do that? How does enforcement of this law in this manner benefit the public?
CR
Sorry...but with your rant about leftists at the end I just had to change up your first paragraph. The right wing is the sole supporter of the biggest example of the uncaring tyranny of government, far larger than this one guy who tried to get out of paying a (possibly unjust) fine in a way that our system wasn't prepared to handle.
Sorry...but with your rant about leftists at the end I just had to change up your first paragraph. The right wing is the sole supporter of the biggest example of the uncaring tyranny of government, far larger than this one guy who tried to get out of paying a (possibly unjust) fine in a way that our system wasn't prepared to handle.
Exactly what i was thinking, many conservatives are happy to cry civil liberties but then when it comes to recreational drugs they are strong on crime. This is why i practically choke everytime i hear a conservative lecture on civil liberties, give me gawain, this guy can lecture on civil liberties without being a hypocrite...
Exactly what i was thinking, many conservatives are happy to cry civil liberties but then when it comes to recreational drugs they are strong on crime. This is why i practically choke everytime i hear a conservative lecture on civil liberties, give me gawain, this guy can lecture on civil liberties without being a hypocrite...
I love topics like this. Just when I thought we were getting less and less intellectually diverse!
You cry hypocrisy. Who would have thought? I see the same thing in your arguements.
The Socialist Euro-Lunacy is palpable.
You cry hypocrisy. Who would have thought? I see the same thing in your arguements.
The Socialist Euro-Lunacy is palpable.
The Socialist Euro-Lunacy is palpable. The best left Europe a long time ago to form a better Nation and left the theives and vagabonds behind.
Fortunatly after 2 world wars we battered some sense into each other, i think you joined a bit late as there was no time to batter any sense into you lot
(i joke)
Out of interest where is the hypocrisy ?
Fortunatly after 2 world wars we battered some sense into each other, i think you joined a bit late as there was no time to batter any sense into you lot
(i joke)
Out of interest where is the hypocrisy ?
Maybe one of you "private property should be inviolate" Americans can explain this one for me then:
It's my understanding (and I might be incorrect in this understanding, so please point it out if I am) that authorities in the U.S. can confiscate a person's private motor vehicle and sell it at auction if they find even small quantities of controlled substances in that vehicle.
So, for example, a guy could have his brand new $75,000 SUV taken and sold because a cop caught him with a few dime bags of pot in his glove compartment.
That response is equally as disproportionate as you claim the subject of this post to be, but I ask: would you also defend the SUV owner's property rights so vehemently?
It's my understanding (and I might be incorrect in this understanding, so please point it out if I am) that authorities in the U.S. can confiscate a person's private motor vehicle and sell it at auction if they find even small quantities of controlled substances in that vehicle.
So, for example, a guy could have his brand new $75,000 SUV taken and sold because a cop caught him with a few dime bags of pot in his glove compartment.
That response is equally as disproportionate as you claim the subject of this post to be, but I ask: would you also defend the SUV owner's property rights so vehemently?
Just found an article that backs up what I'm talking about:
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=3384
Some of the highlights:
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=3384
Some of the highlights:
Originally Posted by :
"We've done polls," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Two things about asset forfeiture the public dislikes: first, that when cops and prosecutors seize property they get to keep it for their own departments, the public finds that corrupting ... and second, that you could lose your property without a criminal conviction."
How can the government take your money or property if you haven't been convicted of a crime? "These are civil cases," Gameli said, and they differ from criminal ones. "It bolsters the case if he's convicted [of a crime]," Gameli said, but "a civil case has a lower standard of proof ... I know of cases where the guy walked on the charges, but still lost his car or his money."
"We've done polls," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "Two things about asset forfeiture the public dislikes: first, that when cops and prosecutors seize property they get to keep it for their own departments, the public finds that corrupting ... and second, that you could lose your property without a criminal conviction."
How can the government take your money or property if you haven't been convicted of a crime? "These are civil cases," Gameli said, and they differ from criminal ones. "It bolsters the case if he's convicted [of a crime]," Gameli said, but "a civil case has a lower standard of proof ... I know of cases where the guy walked on the charges, but still lost his car or his money."
Originally Posted by :
Remember Gameli's hypothetical "knucklehead" who enriched the local constabulary? Chances are he had drugs on him too. But not necessarily — under asset forfeiture laws, the simple possession of cash, with no drugs or other contraband, can be considered evidence of criminal activity.
You'll find no shortage of examples throughout the country. Two recent examples, chosen only because they're so unremarkable, are as follows: in October 2006, two men driving through Davidson County, North Carolina, were stopped by sheriff's deputies and found to have $88,000 hidden in their car. The men told the sheriffs they were on their way to buy a house in Atlanta. Although no drugs were found, the sheriffs confiscated the money anyway. And just last August, a truck driver at a weigh station in El Paso had $23,700 confiscated; once again, no drugs or contraband were found, but the cash led to an assumption of guilt.
Naturally, police and the DEA insist they're not infringing upon the rights of innocent people. "The police won't take [the money] if they have a good excuse," says Steve Robertson, a DEA spokesman down in D.C., when asked about cases like the one in El Paso. "I would assume he was listed in a database where he might be drug-related."
And my favorite:Remember Gameli's hypothetical "knucklehead" who enriched the local constabulary? Chances are he had drugs on him too. But not necessarily — under asset forfeiture laws, the simple possession of cash, with no drugs or other contraband, can be considered evidence of criminal activity.
You'll find no shortage of examples throughout the country. Two recent examples, chosen only because they're so unremarkable, are as follows: in October 2006, two men driving through Davidson County, North Carolina, were stopped by sheriff's deputies and found to have $88,000 hidden in their car. The men told the sheriffs they were on their way to buy a house in Atlanta. Although no drugs were found, the sheriffs confiscated the money anyway. And just last August, a truck driver at a weigh station in El Paso had $23,700 confiscated; once again, no drugs or contraband were found, but the cash led to an assumption of guilt.
Naturally, police and the DEA insist they're not infringing upon the rights of innocent people. "The police won't take [the money] if they have a good excuse," says Steve Robertson, a DEA spokesman down in D.C., when asked about cases like the one in El Paso. "I would assume he was listed in a database where he might be drug-related."
Originally Posted by :
He's talking about asset forfeiture, one of the more devastating weapons in the government's drug war arsenal. The rationale behind it sounds sensible enough: if you make money from criminal activities, you shouldn't get to keep your ill-gotten gains. And whether you agree with the law or not, intoxicants other than alcohol are illegal, so money made from the sale of such is (legally) fair game for confiscation.
But so is anything else that has any involvement with drug activity. If you want to buy a joint, you can lose the car you drove to make the deal. The same holds true if a friend or spouse borrows your car for the same purpose. The confiscated car is sold at auction, and the police force that nabbed it gets to keep 70 or 80 percent of the proceeds, depending upon the car's value.
Disproportionate, no?He's talking about asset forfeiture, one of the more devastating weapons in the government's drug war arsenal. The rationale behind it sounds sensible enough: if you make money from criminal activities, you shouldn't get to keep your ill-gotten gains. And whether you agree with the law or not, intoxicants other than alcohol are illegal, so money made from the sale of such is (legally) fair game for confiscation.
But so is anything else that has any involvement with drug activity. If you want to buy a joint, you can lose the car you drove to make the deal. The same holds true if a friend or spouse borrows your car for the same purpose. The confiscated car is sold at auction, and the police force that nabbed it gets to keep 70 or 80 percent of the proceeds, depending upon the car's value.
Originally Posted by Goofball:
Maybe one of you "private property should be inviolate" Americans can explain this one for me then:
It's my understanding (and I might be incorrect in this understanding, so please point it out if I am) that authorities in the U.S. can confiscate a person's private motor vehicle and sell it at auction if they find even small quantities of controlled substances in that vehicle.
So, for example, a guy could have his brand new $75,000 SUV taken and sold because a cop caught him with a few dime bags of pot in his glove compartment.
That response is equally as disproportionate as you claim the subject of this post to be, but I ask: would you also defend the SUV owner's property rights so vehemently?
You guys are comparing property seizure due to questionable civil transgressions with property seizure due to criminal offences. The vehicle with illegal controlled substances is a vehicle carrying illegal controlled substances. It is a tool being used for a criminal offense.Maybe one of you "private property should be inviolate" Americans can explain this one for me then:
It's my understanding (and I might be incorrect in this understanding, so please point it out if I am) that authorities in the U.S. can confiscate a person's private motor vehicle and sell it at auction if they find even small quantities of controlled substances in that vehicle.
So, for example, a guy could have his brand new $75,000 SUV taken and sold because a cop caught him with a few dime bags of pot in his glove compartment.
That response is equally as disproportionate as you claim the subject of this post to be, but I ask: would you also defend the SUV owner's property rights so vehemently?
For minor transgressions with weed, I've never heard of a car being taken and sold by the government.
I would defend them to an extent, but I have less patience with someone using a vehicle for criminal activity.
If the truck or car was being used while containing a dimebag for personal use, I would oppose confiscation and re-sale. If it was being used to haul kilos of heroin or bricks of marijuana I would support seizure and re-sale. Did you expect me to have a different response, Goofball?
I agree to allow the government weapons such as asset seizure, but they should rarely use them and only in the most egregious criminal cases. Ie: if you suspect someone of hauling kilos, but pull the guy over and find only a dimebag at that particular time - maybe seize the car and auction it off.
I've had countless friends that havn't lost their car for having marijuana or a DUI
Disproportionate, no?
I think i would quite possibly try to violently acquire my possessions or money back... i hope to god we haven't got anything like that in the UK....
I think i would quite possibly try to violently acquire my possessions or money back... i hope to god we haven't got anything like that in the UK....
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly:
Disproportionate, no?
I think i would quite possibly try to violently acquire my possessions or money back... i hope to god we haven't got anything like that in the UK....
Aha! Hit liberals where they are able to empathise and they can see where you are coming from!Disproportionate, no?
I think i would quite possibly try to violently acquire my possessions or money back... i hope to god we haven't got anything like that in the UK....
You beleive that the government shouldn't take your car even after you commit a minor crime, but this guy not commiting a crime deserves what he got when the government takes his home? I agree with both of you and would defend your property from governemnt seizure.
Aha! Hit liberals where they are able to empathise and they can see where you are coming from!
You beleive that the government shouldn't take your car even after you commit a minor crime, but this guy not commiting a crime deserves what he got when the government takes his home? I agree with both of you and would defend your property from governemnt seizure.
I did say the response by the goverment is ott (or i thought it, can't remember whether i said it)
The guy commited a crime, whether it should be a crime is debatable but he did break the law.
He had a fine which he did not pay, which is never usually a good idea, the costs spiralled and now they are taking his house(or may if he doesn't pay up soon) to pay the fine and giving him back the difference. This is far different from the storys in goofball's article and way different from his example at the end as there is no fine or court costs and penaltys they are trying to recover, they are simply taking the property and selling it with no choice for the criminal, to make this example fit the case from the op goverment would seize this guys house and keep about 70 - 80 % of the value of the house (and the van though im assuming the guy doesn't really care for the van) but what the goverment is actually doing is just recovering thier costs through the sale of his possession and returning any money they aren't due
It would be a different story if you had a $50 fine for possession and then later down the line because penaltys built up and then court fee's they took your something of yours sold it and then paid back the difference, surely you can see the difference here ?
This guy probably thinks he should be able to keep his van on his drive without a lisence plate, just as i think i should be able to smoke cannabis, and well it might not seem fair if the goverment fined me and i repeatedly avoided it until the goverment seized something of mine and sold it i would grudgingly understand, if i simply used my car to go and buy a small amount of weed for personal consumption and it was taken and sold and i was given 20-30% of its value then i would be violently inclined...
Surely you can see a clear difference in the op case and the hypothetical from goofball's articles ?
I agree with both of you and would defend your property from governemnt seizure.
Next time the police try to confiscate my weed (not going to happen) you'll be the first person i call ;)
You beleive that the government shouldn't take your car even after you commit a minor crime, but this guy not commiting a crime deserves what he got when the government takes his home? I agree with both of you and would defend your property from governemnt seizure.
I did say the response by the goverment is ott (or i thought it, can't remember whether i said it)
The guy commited a crime, whether it should be a crime is debatable but he did break the law.
He had a fine which he did not pay, which is never usually a good idea, the costs spiralled and now they are taking his house(or may if he doesn't pay up soon) to pay the fine and giving him back the difference. This is far different from the storys in goofball's article and way different from his example at the end as there is no fine or court costs and penaltys they are trying to recover, they are simply taking the property and selling it with no choice for the criminal, to make this example fit the case from the op goverment would seize this guys house and keep about 70 - 80 % of the value of the house (and the van though im assuming the guy doesn't really care for the van) but what the goverment is actually doing is just recovering thier costs through the sale of his possession and returning any money they aren't due
It would be a different story if you had a $50 fine for possession and then later down the line because penaltys built up and then court fee's they took your something of yours sold it and then paid back the difference, surely you can see the difference here ?
This guy probably thinks he should be able to keep his van on his drive without a lisence plate, just as i think i should be able to smoke cannabis, and well it might not seem fair if the goverment fined me and i repeatedly avoided it until the goverment seized something of mine and sold it i would grudgingly understand, if i simply used my car to go and buy a small amount of weed for personal consumption and it was taken and sold and i was given 20-30% of its value then i would be violently inclined...
Surely you can see a clear difference in the op case and the hypothetical from goofball's articles ?
I agree with both of you and would defend your property from governemnt seizure.
Next time the police try to confiscate my weed (not going to happen) you'll be the first person i call ;)
Intresting, were your family some kind of minor (or major i guess but minor seemed more likely) nobility ? or just wealthy land holders...
Originally Posted by :
Actually, a hundred years before those revolutions, you went and stripped this land everyone's so fond of from the then so-called "owners".
Much of that land was bought and payed for with hard earned trinkets and other shiny bits of trash, thank you very much. Actually, a hundred years before those revolutions, you went and stripped this land everyone's so fond of from the then so-called "owners".
Originally Posted by :
You beleive that the government shouldn't take your car even after you commit a minor crime, but this guy not commiting a crime deserves what he got when the government takes his home?
This guy did commit a crime and wilfuly committed a crime .You beleive that the government shouldn't take your car even after you commit a minor crime, but this guy not commiting a crime deserves what he got when the government takes his home?
While the ticket was only for an infraction which is only a really really small crime hardly called a crime at all , but non payment of a ticket is a crime .
It the non payment that is the legal issue the courts dealt with , the courts dealt with it because the idiot ignore all his earlier chances of dealing with the infraction and committed a crime instead .
If he thought the fine was unfair and he wanted to fight it he should have done so , he had plenty of opertunities , instead he was stupid and now pays the price .
Originally Posted by :
I think i would quite possibly try to violently acquire my possessions or money back... i hope to god we haven't got anything like that in the UK....
Of course you have something like that in the UK , its normal , completely usual and long established just about everywhere ever since there were laws and governments .I think i would quite possibly try to violently acquire my possessions or money back... i hope to god we haven't got anything like that in the UK....
Take for example your road tax in Britan , if you don't have road tax they send you a letter saying get the tax or we take your car , impose a fine , destroy the car and then charge you for taking the car away storing it and destroying it ...absolutely outrageous isn't it , completely out of order , outright tyranny and disrespect for your private property by an evil government .
Unless you read the rest of the letter which says fill in the form at the bottom and send it back freepost if you have a reason for not taxing the car .
Then again you did have the other extreme over there with the taxman and smuggling , where they went well over the top on blanket siezures from people doing the cruise and ended up screwing lots of ordinary people over ...but people objected against that and the laws were clarified and those who showed that they were not smugglers were reimbursed .
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
Sorry...but with your rant about leftists at the end I just had to change up your first paragraph. The right wing is the sole supporter of the biggest example of the uncaring tyranny of government, far larger than this one guy who tried to get out of paying a (possibly unjust) fine in a way that our system wasn't prepared to handle.
It's only the leftists in the thread defending any law as a commandment from God. But I wouldn't disown what you wrote in the first paragraph. Seizing a house for doing drugs in it, or even punishing the person, I do not support.Sorry...but with your rant about leftists at the end I just had to change up your first paragraph. The right wing is the sole supporter of the biggest example of the uncaring tyranny of government, far larger than this one guy who tried to get out of paying a (possibly unjust) fine in a way that our system wasn't prepared to handle.
Originally Posted by :
That response is equally as disproportionate as you claim the subject of this post to be, but I ask: would you also defend the SUV owner's property rights so vehemently?
Hell yes. I hate asset forfeiture laws.That response is equally as disproportionate as you claim the subject of this post to be, but I ask: would you also defend the SUV owner's property rights so vehemently?
Originally Posted by :
However if you argue that he should be able to keep his car their because he can do what he likes with his land then you have to concede to your neighbours the rights to allow their properties to fall to wrack and ruin, knock down their houses and build convenience stores or abattoirs, pile up rubbish on the front lawn, play loud music until 4 am or dance naked in the drive. It is their property after all.
My current neighbors are allowing their house to fall to ruin and have a dozen or more cars parked in the field around their house.However if you argue that he should be able to keep his car their because he can do what he likes with his land then you have to concede to your neighbours the rights to allow their properties to fall to wrack and ruin, knock down their houses and build convenience stores or abattoirs, pile up rubbish on the front lawn, play loud music until 4 am or dance naked in the drive. It is their property after all.
I feel people should be able to do as they wish on their property as long as they do not directly infringe on the rights of their neighbors or fellow man - and by rights I mean such God-given rights as the right to property, freedom, self defense, etc., not any such 'right' to make your neighbors clean up their yards to enhance your home's value. And so, Banquo, it means a person cannot coerce another on their property.
Originally Posted by :
Yep, because it's the law.
So all laws are automatically reasonable? Yep, because it's the law.
CR
Originally Posted by :
It's only the leftists in the thread defending any law as a commandment from God.
It's only the leftists in the thread defending any law as a commandment from God.
Originally Posted by :
Hell yes. I hate asset forfeiture laws.
So you would rather see people in prison instead of suffering a financial penalty .Hell yes. I hate asset forfeiture laws.
So then rabbit how long in prison does someone deserve for non-payment ?
Now work out how much that imprisonment you decide on costs the taxpayer .
Or do you perhaps have a miracle solution to the problem of people choosing not to pay fines ?
Labour camps perhaps .
Here lets make it easy for you , what do you do if someone owes you money and won't pay ?
You could go round and break their legs , though I don't think governments should do that really and while it might bring some satisfaction it can still leave you out of pocket.
You could screw them over in a really nasty way that costs them a lot of money , a lot more money than they owe, though I don't think governments should really do that , but depending on how you do it you can sometimes work it that as part of screwing them over you do get their money .
You could go to court and get an order that they either pay or have assets siezed to make the payment...the sensible option which is what both normal people and governments do and is perfectly acceptable but you in some strange way think is some evil tyrannical scheme .
Get with reality or get your gun and overthrow the oppressive dictatorship like it is your god given right to do
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
So you would rather see people in prison instead of suffering a financial penalty .
So then rabbit how long in prison does someone deserve for non-payment ?
Now work out how much that imprisonment you decide on costs the taxpayer .
Or do you perhaps have a miracle solution to the problem of people choosing not to pay fines ?
Labour camps perhaps .
Here lets make it easy for you , what do you do if someone owes you money and won't pay ?
You could go round and break their legs , though I don't think governments should do that really and while it might bring some satisfaction it can still leave you out of pocket.
You could screw them over in a really nasty way that costs them a lot of money , a lot more money than they owe, though I don't think governments should really do that , but depending on how you do it you can sometimes work it that as part of screwing them over you do get their money .
You could go to court and get an order that they either pay or have assets siezed to make the payment...the sensible option which is what both normal people and governments do and is perfectly acceptable but you in some strange way think is some evil tyrannical scheme .
Get with reality or get your gun and overthrow the oppressive dictatorship like it is your god given right to do
You've taken CR's opinion as a sign that he wishes debtors prison was back in style.So you would rather see people in prison instead of suffering a financial penalty .
So then rabbit how long in prison does someone deserve for non-payment ?
Now work out how much that imprisonment you decide on costs the taxpayer .
Or do you perhaps have a miracle solution to the problem of people choosing not to pay fines ?
Labour camps perhaps .
Here lets make it easy for you , what do you do if someone owes you money and won't pay ?
You could go round and break their legs , though I don't think governments should do that really and while it might bring some satisfaction it can still leave you out of pocket.
You could screw them over in a really nasty way that costs them a lot of money , a lot more money than they owe, though I don't think governments should really do that , but depending on how you do it you can sometimes work it that as part of screwing them over you do get their money .
You could go to court and get an order that they either pay or have assets siezed to make the payment...the sensible option which is what both normal people and governments do and is perfectly acceptable but you in some strange way think is some evil tyrannical scheme .
Get with reality or get your gun and overthrow the oppressive dictatorship like it is your god given right to do
Off-topic and addressed to nobody in particular: What do you say to people when their head seems to actually be biologically fused with their arse? When getting it out isn't a realistic suggestion? I'm just curious.
Originally Posted by :
Off-topic and addressed to nobody in particular: What do you say to people when their head seems to actually be chemically fused with their arse?
Don't talk about Rabbit like that . Naughty boy Tuff Off-topic and addressed to nobody in particular: What do you say to people when their head seems to actually be chemically fused with their arse?
Originally Posted by :
You've taken CR's opinions as a sign that he wishes debtors prison was back in style.
Well its quite simple isn't it , if you don't approve of asset siezure for non payment then you must either go for imprisonment or forced labour as punishment for non-payment .You've taken CR's opinions as a sign that he wishes debtors prison was back in style.
Unless of course you go for the other option which is no-one has to pay anything at all if they choose to not do so .
Yay freedom of choice .
Originally Posted by :
So you would rather see people in prison instead of suffering a financial penalty .
You have no clue what Goofball was talking about, do you?So you would rather see people in prison instead of suffering a financial penalty .
Originally Posted by :
What do you say to people when their head seems to actually be biologically fused with their arse? When getting it out isn't a realistic suggestion? I'm just curious.
I just laugh. For example:What do you say to people when their head seems to actually be biologically fused with their arse? When getting it out isn't a realistic suggestion? I'm just curious.
Originally Posted by :
This guy did commit a crime and wilfuly committed a crime .
This guy did commit a crime and wilfuly committed a crime .
CR
Of course you have something like that in the UK , its normal , completely usual and long established just about everywhere ever since there were laws and governments .
I was referring to the bit about being able to seize a car with a small amount of drugs in it or seize a car which was used to get small amount of drugs and sell it keeping 70-80% of its value. If something like that happened to me and i could afford it i think i would simply rip the car to pieces and then stand outside with a smirk waiting for it to be picked up "no the thing won't drive anymore, you'll need a van or something to pick it up, somehow it fell apart last night and is in little pieces, damn kids eh?"
I was referring to the bit about being able to seize a car with a small amount of drugs in it or seize a car which was used to get small amount of drugs and sell it keeping 70-80% of its value. If something like that happened to me and i could afford it i think i would simply rip the car to pieces and then stand outside with a smirk waiting for it to be picked up "no the thing won't drive anymore, you'll need a van or something to pick it up, somehow it fell apart last night and is in little pieces, damn kids eh?"
You'd regret that if they came round to tell you they'd let you off...
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Hell yes. I hate asset forfeiture laws.
I feel people should be able to do as they wish on their property as long as they do not directly infringe on the rights of their neighbors or fellow man - and by rights I mean such God-given rights as the right to property, freedom, self defense, etc., not any such 'right' to make your neighbors clean up their yards to enhance your home's value. And so, Banquo, it means a person cannot coerce another on their property.
CR
I would tend to agree with you on those points CR. That does not give a person the right to ignore the laws that are currently in place.Hell yes. I hate asset forfeiture laws.
I feel people should be able to do as they wish on their property as long as they do not directly infringe on the rights of their neighbors or fellow man - and by rights I mean such God-given rights as the right to property, freedom, self defense, etc., not any such 'right' to make your neighbors clean up their yards to enhance your home's value. And so, Banquo, it means a person cannot coerce another on their property.
CR
Originally Posted by Craterus:
You'd regret that if they came round to tell you they'd let you off...
You'd regret that if they came round to tell you they'd let you off...
i can imagine myself standing there feeling proud of myself... and then my face would just drop... 
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO