The Uncaring Tyranny of Government

[Tribesman]

I just laugh. For example:

Quote:
This guy did commit a crime and wilfuly committed a crime .

Poor rabbit doesn't understand .
Tubic wilfully chose to ignore all requests and chose not to pay the fine , the fine was an infraction , non-payment of a fine is a crime , even when it finally went to court he told the judge he wouldn't pay even though he had the money to be able to pay .

The siezure of assets is not for parking his van without plates , the siezure of assets is for not paying fines .

You have no clue what Goofball was talking about, do you?

Rabbit you have no clue at all what your topic is about , is that why you cannot answer questions ?
they are simple questions
If you object to siezure of assets for the crime of non-payment then what legal punishment do you approve of ?
AImprisonment
B forced labour
Cno punishment at all
Dabsolutely clueless and didnt think about the topic in the slightest but decided to get outraged anyway .

I am guessing that you would be a D but I really don't know why I would get that impression

[ICantSpellDawg]

Poor rabbit doesn't understand .
Tubic wilfully chose to ignore all requests and chose not to pay the fine , the fine was an infraction , non-payment of a fine is a crime , even when it finally went to court he told the judge he wouldn't pay even though he had the money to be able to pay .

The siezure of assets is not for parking his van without plates , the siezure of assets is for not paying fines .


Rabbit you have no clue at all what your topic is about , is that why you cannot answer questions ?
they are simple questions
If you object to siezure of assets for the crime of non-payment then what legal punishment do you approve of ?
AImprisonment
B forced labour
Cno punishment at all
Dabsolutely clueless and didnt think about the topic in the slightest but decided to get outraged anyway .

I am guessing that you would be a D but I really don't know why I would get that impression

You could garnish his private pay for the 50 dollars and be done with it or take the car in the last resort. THat would get him off of his butt. Why should the fine be worth more than the car itself? 2600 dollars and the ownership of the home? Find me a majority of people who voted for that law who think that is an acceptable punishment. I'd also like to see where it is specifically written and not through a series of technicalities unrelated to the law itself.

The law is stupid and outside the scope of government interest, but it is the law. The actions taken as a last resort are unreasonable in this case and should be questioned seriously.

What is the punishment for not showing up to Jury Duty? Should someone take your home for that too? What about littering?

We need to keep people like you out of government and put in people who understand its role in a functional society - to protect its citizens.

[Ironside]

The law is stupid and outside the scope of government interest, but it is the law. The actions taken as a last resort are unreasonable in this case and should be questioned seriously.

What is the punishment for not showing up to Jury Duty? Should someone take your home for that too? What about littering?

We need to keep people like you out of government and put in people who understand its role in a functional society - to protect its citizens.

What are the consequences of not paying a 50$ bill (in 4 years) to any company?

While there's a considerble excalation (the case shouldn't been allowed to go this far), there's still a logical case. The payment needs to be done (or refuted in court) and the state needs to ensure that there will be a payment (it might exist better ways of doing it, but I can't bother reading up on the regulation. Can the state debt-tax your income without your consent for example?).

Tuff, two very important parts of protecting it's citizens it to ensure that they obey the laws (the fight about the validity of the laws is done at court) and to ensure that all kind of payments is working. Bit of a crux is it.

[Tribesman]

While there's a considerble excalation (the case shouldn't been allowed to go this far),

Well they could have left it to go further , they could have let it go up to $5000 , and they could have given him up to 5 years in jail .
Now if they had let it go up to the $5000 he would have lost more of his assets , and if he had gone to jail he may have lost all his assets entirely .
The only reason this case went so far is because the bloke was an idiot who wouldn't pay and even when it was put to him by the judge what the consequences of non-payment were he still chose not to pay even though he had the money available .

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Anyway, a law has to be obeyed. If a certain law is stupid or silly, then it has to be changed in a democratic way. As long as the law is legally valid though, it has to be obeyed.

I know this is dragging slightly further off-topic, but depending on your definition of "legally valid", your statement is demonstrably false.

[LittleGrizzly]

I know this is dragging slightly further off-topic, but depending on your definition of "legally valid", your statement is demonstrably false.

Seen as the laws to allow for fines for unlisence plated vehicles and then futher action because of non payment im not sure how.... unless it is unconstitutional...?

[Papewaio]

I also believe in liberty not personal freedom. One is for societies the other for anarchists. But I believe that laws are only valid if they are just in both jurisdiction, application and outcome. That the law applies to one and all, and as such the easiest way to determine if a law is just is to put yourselves in the shoes of someone who is accused and then see if you would like the outcome if found guilty of a law that you break. I don't think littering justifies losing a house. I think it is a petty use of resources and only diminishes peoples respect for the law.

That is one of the key things with being a parent. Do not make false dangers for children, when they break the taboo and find that it is harmless and fun, the children will go on and break a taboo that is harmful and painful. Society should not create laws anymore that mimic deportation for stealing bread. These laws lead to people disrespecting the silly laws and then disrespecting all laws and those who uphold them. Civil laws should be there to create a civil society of free individuals and intra-dependent groups. Civil laws should be used to head off potential conflicts that if left to fester would create criminal repercussions. Civil laws however should not be used to make people to conform to a narrow definition of social behaviour, nor should they be used as a means to create conflict.

By overuse of law we dilute its effect and we make people then act to the intent of law in general. That is to create a just and happy society that has safety valves in place so that we don't act like animals red in tooth in claw.

Which is a better citizen:
Case A:
Is a good citizen one who obeys all laws?

OR

Case B:
Is a good citizen one who makes their society more just?


I think case B is more important. There are ways to get laws changed, one of them is to vote for people who will change them, another is to demonstrate against them, another is to go to trial over it and get it tested.

The last option is civil disobedience. And is often the arena of some of our most naughty and self indulgent social members but also the stage for some of our most respected and upstanding citizens.