The Uncaring Tyranny of Government

[Andres]

So all laws are automatically reasonable?

CR

Did I say that? I didn't say that all laws are reasonable.

I said:

if everybody could happily break the law without consequences because they deem it "unreasonable" or "ridiculous", then you'll find yourself in a state of total anarchy and you can say bye bye to your precious freedom.

And I also said:

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.

And:

So the law is just a piece of paper to ignore or obey as you see fit, depending on what's most beneficial for you? Do you consider total anarchy as utopia?

And:

The man could have easily prevented this himself by a) paying the fine, b) going to court and trying to convince the judge that he did not break the law, c) if he feels the law itself violates his basic human/constitutional rights, contest the law as such in court (in Belgium we have a Constitutional Court, that can break laws which violate certain basic constitutional rights, I assume the same possibility exists in the US?)

[Duke of Gloucester]

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

The trouble is, CR, which rights are God-given and how far do they extend? For example you will find thousands of lawyers in the US (and elsewhere - this is not a dig at ) who are willing to argue that your neighbours neglect of their property is infringing on your right to enjoy yours. You might even find a few judges that agree with you! Do I have a god-given right to not have my sleep disturbed at 3 am? Do I have a god-given right not to have my house infested by rats because my neighbour is careless with his rubbish?

At the heart of the arguement you have a point. There is a natural tendency in governments to over-regulate the lives of citizens and if citizens are not careful this can lead to citizens serving the government and not the other way round. If they are not kept in their place government officials can become petty oppressors. Your reminder that democracy can lead to the tyranny of 51% is an important one. However in your quest to defend the rights of the individual over the state you could have chosen higher ground than this case.

And be careful about which rights God actually gives. If you read Mt 5:38-40 you will find that Jesus has some inconvenient things to say about the right to self-defence.

[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.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Everything you say is true, Pape. However, as has been said before, the unlicenced plates cost him a $50 fine. He lost his house by refusing to pay said fine. The two issues are separate although the difficulty people have in distinguishing between these two issues may contribute to the disrespect for the law that you talk about.

Your test of one's own reaction to the law being applied is a good one but you need to add how you would feel if someone else did the deed in question and was not punished. If I look at the two issues separately and use your own tests of jurisdiction, application and outcome this is what I see: the local authorities do have jurisdiction over how you use your property because, as a society, we need to make sure that people behave as good neighbours. Preventing someone from keeping their own car on their own drive because it is not licensed is, in my view, over the top but it is not fundamentally unjust. There does not seem to be any problem with application in this case and the outcome - a $50 fine is not disproportionate.

For the second issue, the authorities certainly have the jurisdiction to collect unpaid fines, again no problem with application but as far as outcome is concerned their are some problems with the outcome. Clearly the authorities hae an obligation to persue those who refuse to pay otherwise those who have paid up will feel resentful and others fined in the future will also ignore demands. This, too, will increase disrespect for the law. I do wonder whether seizing the home is the only way to recover the debt but again it is not fundamentally unjust.

So I would advise your Citizen B to find another law to challenge. On a personal level it is difficult to feel sorry for the person involved. He could easily avoid losing his house by paying what he owes.

[Tribesman]

I do wonder whether seizing the home is the only way to recover the debt but again it is not fundamentally unjust.

Well thats where it gets funny , it is not the only way to recover the debt , the idiot could just pay the debt , bu failing that it is the most effective .
However as some have mentioned the option of garnishing his income that is an interesting option , highly practical and effective , yet not in this case because of the laws regarding garnishing of income in this idiots case ...he is exempt from such measures under laws to protect him .

[Duke of Gloucester]

I am not sure from the details given whether garnishing his income is the best thing to do. It may be that his income is very low and the house is his only asset. In that case garnishing his income and leaving him unable to pay basic bills may not be such a good idea. However the fact that he was able to place money in escrow suggests he does have a decent income or other assets. Of course, as you say, the best way to avoid losing the house and pay the fine is for him to stop being a fool and pay up.

[PBI]

Seems to me this thread should be called "The Uncaring Tyranny of Compound Interest". If the guy had a $50 credit card debt, he buried his head in the sand and refused to pay it, and ended up losing his house, I seriously doubt that this thread would have struggled on for four pages. Why should a debt owed to the government be any less valid than a debt owed to anyone else?

As for the argument that he should be able to do whatever he wants on his own land, that doesn't fly with me because the fine was for what he did with his vehicle, not his house. Vehicle ownership is not a right (God-given or otherwise), it is a privilige and if you want to do it you have to play by the rules or face the consequences. To be clear, the way the law works in the UK is that if you have a car you do not intend to drive you need to go down to the Post Office and fill in a free form, to get a SORN for the vehicle. Then, you can do whatever you want with it, you don't need licence plates, an MOT, car tax or anything else, you can leave to rust in your garden for all the authorities care.

If you don't fill in the form, however, the authorities assume that the fact you own a vehicle means you intend to drive it on the public roads, so they will fine you if it isn't roadworthy. I simply don't see why that is unjust, you bought the car and it's your responsibility to know the rules of the road. Perhaps rather than simply ranting about how hypocritical liberals are someone could explain this to me?

[Xiahou]

Seems to me this thread should be called "The Uncaring Tyranny of Compound Interest". If the guy had a $50 credit card debt, he buried his head in the sand and refused to pay it, and ended up losing his house, I seriously doubt that this thread would have struggled on for four pages. Why should a debt owed to the government be any less valid than a debt owed to anyone else?

You'd be right- mainly because you can't lose your house over a credit card debt. They used power that was uniquely of the government and put a tax lien on his property. That in itself is a head scratcher, since I didn't think fines were a form of tax revenue but nonetheless...

If you don't fill in the form, however, the authorities assume that the fact you own a vehicle means you intend to drive it on the public roads, so they will fine you if it isn't roadworthy. I simply don't see why that is unjust, you bought the car and it's your responsibility to know the rules of the road. Perhaps rather than simply ranting about how hypocritical liberals are someone could explain this to me?

That was not the issue. It is a zoning law that is supposed to prevent people from accumulating junk cars on their property. He wasn't fined because he might be driving an unlicensed vehicle, he was fined because he had a vehicle on his property that couldn't be driven as it was unlicensed. To me, one car, sitting unused in a driveway does not a junkyard make and it certainly doesn't seem a good reason to seize ones home.

[Andres]

To me, one car, sitting unused in a driveway does not a junkyard make and it certainly doesn't seem a good reason to seize ones home.

They are not seizing his home because his car didn't have a license plate...

The home seizure and the fine are not directly related to each other.

Maybe it's a good idea to clearly analyse the situation:

1) he got fined $50 because his car didn't have a license plate. Apparently, that's what the law in question says: no license plate = get fined.

He could have a) paid the fine ; b) gone to court because he believes he did not break the law ; c) go to court because he believes the law in question is in violation with another law (e.g. he could have contested the law in itself e.g. because it violates his constitutional/human rights (at least, that's what he could have done in Belgium, but I assume the same possibility exists in the US).

He chose not to go to court ergo he is considered to accept the fine.

So, due to his own free choice, the only possiblity left is a) pay the fine.

2) he does not pay the fine (reminder: a fine which he has never contested during any of the procedures whatsoever, ergo he accepted that he has to pay the fine! He had all the possiblities and every right to contest the fine or the law itself, yet he did not. Like it or not, but this means that he has accepted the fine.): the government is obliged to take whatever measure possible to collect the fine and the additional expenses it has to make in order to collect said fine.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What if they just told him that his home ownership could not be transferred in the event of his death and that the government would seize it posthumously? No asset seizure in life followed by major revenue boost with nobody hurt by it. Of course he would have his entire life to pay the fine and the government would get its precious money over time.

What do you think? I don't have as much of a problem with asset seizure in death for refusing to pay a fine, I just refuse to see why a life needs to be ruined over a BS ticket. I question the sensibility of both the man who wouldn't pay it and the government who would depth charge the man. When the man who wouldn't pay seems to be rather looney and physically unable, I blame primarily a predatory and unsympathetic government.

[Tribesman]

I am not sure from the details given whether garnishing his income is the best thing to do. It may be that his income is very low and the house is his only asset.

No the issue is that in this case his income is exempt from garnishment under federal law , perhaps the dickhead tried to hide behind that but din't think it through and therefore the result is as it is .
I seen that happen in westminster when this crazy bitch from south Armagh was certain she could break the law because she was immune from the law but didn't understand the law .
As a side note that crazy fenian bitch who is godmother to one of my kids is next month being guest of honour at #10...but it don't mean she got away with it and she was punished in accordance with the laws as she should have been .
Now I could digress and link the reason why she is having a reception with the prime minister of Britain and the reason why Tubics income is exempt from garnishment but I don't think that is needed....unless of course some people are too thick to understand why under Federal law Tubics income is safe from garnishment .

Maybe it's a good idea to clearly analyse the situation:

Good idea especialy when a post like this is made.

You'd be right- mainly because you can't lose your house over a credit card debt. They used power that was uniquely of the government and put a tax lien on his property. That in itself is a head scratcher, since I didn't think fines were a form of tax revenue but nonetheless...

a pure example of someomne who doesn't undertand law and how to screw the law over if you want to .
Then again someone who thinks the difference between contempt of court and wilfully fleeing justice with the intent to avoid punishment is just a mere technicality that plays on legal details and is irrelevant is clearly incorrect .
But hey Xiahou keep on posting , you are funny when you try to be serious .

[Andres]

What if they just told him that his home ownership could not be transferred in the event of his death and that the government would seize it posthumously?

Maybe that possiblity doesn't exist? Or maybe it's a bad idea from the point of view from the debt collector.

What if the man applies for a loan with a mortgage, later on in his life and at the time of his dead, the value of the house is lower then said loan with mortgage?

Why would the government wait to collect its' money. They can get their money now, who knows in what shape the house will be when he dies and how many debts he will have when he dies? Why should the government take any risk when they are now certain that they can get the money by seizing his house?

Note that if the man lives for another 20 years, the amount due after his dead will be much higher than it is now (I assume that if the government has to wait, they will at least get some interest?)

Also, it seems like he can pay, maybe seizuring his house is just putting pressure on him, forcing him to use the money he apparently has to pay the debt to avoid the selling of his house?

And there's also the problem of debt expiration.

I just refuse to see why a life needs to be ruined over a BS ticket.

I refuse to see why a man would ruin his own life because he doesn't want to pay a $50 fine after he stubbornly refused to contest said fine when he had the chance to do so.

When the man who wouldn't pay seems to be rather looney and physically unable, I blame primarily a predatory and unsympathetic government.

If that is indeed his condition, than you should blame his brother who, instead of helping him out and share the burden of taking care of their parents, called the police over some van that annoyed their mother.

But considering the fact that he was able to take care of two elders, do their groceries, cooking, cleaning and paying all his other bills and debts, I think it's reasonable to seriously doubt that this man was not capable of paying or contesting the fine.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maybe that possiblity doesn't exist? Or maybe it's a bad idea from the point of view from the debt collector.

What if the man applies for a loan with a mortgage, later on in his life and at the time of his dead, the value of the house is lower then said loan with mortgage?

Why would the government wait to collect its' money. They can get their money now, who knows in what shape the house will be when he dies and how many debts he will have when he dies? Why should the government take any risk when they are now certain that they can get the money by seizing his house?

Note that if the man lives for another 20 years, the amount due after his dead will be much higher than it is now (I assume that if the government has to wait, they will at least get some interest?)

Also, it seems like he can pay, maybe seizuring his house is just putting pressure on him, forcing him to use the money he apparently has to pay the debt to avoid the selling of his house?

And there's also the problem of debt expiration.



I refuse to see why a man would ruin his own life because he doesn't want to pay a $50 fine after he stubbornly refused to contest said fine when he had the chance to do so.



If that is indeed his condition, than you should blame his brother who, instead of helping him out and share the burden of taking care of their parents, called the police over some van that annoyed their mother.

But considering the fact that he was able to take care of two elders, do their groceries, cooking, cleaning and paying all his other bills and debts, I think it's reasonable to seriously doubt that this man was not capable of paying or contesting the fine.

C'mon Andres. This isn't a simple debt collection. If you use a good or service and run up bills - an individual is using his-her money to give you that service and needs to be paid back. The government is not an individual. It can wait 60 years and get a house over a parking ticket and nobody is eating any less. If the guy really won't pay the fine the good people represented by the government could have a nice piece of property in a few years without ruining any lives.

No matter who you blame, a nasty brother, a crazy defendant or a predatory and uncaring government - one represents groups of people and should be better than this.

[Tribesman]

Why would the government wait to collect its' money. They can get their money now, who knows in what shape the house will be when he dies and how many debts he will have when he dies? Why should the government take any risk when they are now certain that they can get the money by seizing his house?

Because under the law they have first claim to the estate , thats what the court action ensured , Besides which the limit on the debt accumulated from non payment of an infraction of a civic code is also set . As you noted earlier with the wonders of compound interest in the case of the original fine plus penalties and interest they couldn't have waited much longer unless they were prepared to lose taxpayers money on indulging some idiot .
So in short the complications from this case arise not because of a tyrannical government , but because they gave the idiot too many chances in the hope that he would see sense .

[ICantSpellDawg]

All of these things won't matter if he can get a disability ruling either mental or emotional. What is the status of that determination? I can't find any more information on the topic.

[LittleGrizzly]

Maybe we could narrow down what the actual issue is.....

The original law, i don't think anyone much cares for the law, i can see the purpose behind the law but i don't think anyones debating whether unlisence plated cars should be allowed to be parked in a garden.. so thats not the issue

One of the issues seems to be the fine and the escalation of it until the goverment was threatening his house, I don't think anyone here thinks people should just be allowed to ignore fines so thats not the issue (although if you thinkyou should be allowed to ignore fines thats a recipe for anarchy)

Does anyone here think that non payments of fines should not result in an escalation of the penalty ? in other words should the goverment cover all costs (court costs, costs of repeated contact through mail by phone or in person) or should these costs get passed onto the one refusing to pay the fine ?

making the goverment cover all these extra costs doesn't sound very conservative to me, sounds like a good way to waste resources that could be better spent or reimbursed to tax payers

Is the issue that in the US goverments effort to collect thier fine that they threatened his house ? if so how else would you like the goverment to achieve collection ? Im imagining that the van probably doesn't quite cover it, and as he is on disability benefit they can't really take it out of those checks as he is supposed to need that money to live in (whether he has money left over isn't the issue, technically thats what the goverment decided he needed) So as i see it the only thing the goverment could do is threaten to take the house as payment

In the interests of defining what the issue is could something who thinks this is the uncaring tyanny of goverment answer my questions...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Take the car and call it even. Then, change the law to butt out of insignificant details of peoples lives.

[Tribesman]

All of these things won't matter if he can get a disability ruling either mental or emotional.

Well for that he needs a decent brief , and given the case he won't be awarded costs so the brief might end up taking his whole house instead of the government just taking its dues and leaving him with the cash remiander from the sale .
tubic has through choice painted himself into a corner and is now complaining that the wet paint means he can't get out without making himself very messy .
Now that is not to say that I don't have some sympathy with his plight , about as much sympathy as I have with idiots that choose to ignore demands for payment .
Actually scratch that , I have less sympathy , normally pricks that owe you money claim that they have none *, this prick says he has it but isn't going to hand it over .
* Its amazing what a set of chains and a JCB can do to make money magically appear from people who claim on their mothers grave to be pennyless...and it doesn't cost you for the brief as long as you know enough of the ins and outs of the law .:laugh

Take the car and call it even.

So you are saying the local authority should take a wothless piece of jumk and expect the other local tax payers to make up the difference in cost ?
Hey why not ask the local taxpayers to voluntarily bail the muppet out of his self created mess as an act of charity

[LittleGrizzly]

Ill admit im not sure here but i had the feeling that the vehicle was not worth the amount of the fine, if he was happy just to leave the car in the garden it indicates an inexpensive vehicle.... If the vehicle could cover the fine then that would probably be the most sensible option...

Taking the vehicle just because it was the crime does not negate the fines that built up though, only if the vehicle covers the fines...

JCB and a set of chains... sounds like it has the potential to be highly illegal....

[Andres]

Also, does the government have a choice?

I don't know much about US law, but maybe it's a law that forces the government to collect the money by whatever means possible?

We have the "luxury" of dropping the case if we don't want to sell the house of a guy who doesn't want to pay a small debt, but maybe the government has an obligation to collect the fine?

Maybe the detested government official will lose his job if he doesn't collect the fine?

Maybe this obligation is written in a law created by persons the majority of the people voted for...?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let me be clear:

Accusations of muppetry (and variants) aimed at the subject of the thread are permissible.

Aimed at members, they become actionable and lead to the confiscation of one's posting privileges.

Oh the Tyranny of Moderation.

[Tribesman]

JCB and a set of chains... sounds like it has the potential to be highly illegal....

Yes it does , thats where knowing the ins and outs of the law comes into play , plus you can raise your bet by gambling that the muppet in question hasn't got the faintest idea of the law and doesn't have a good brief on stand-by that will tell him exactly what I can or cannot do .
That being said even I can sometimes lose it , some dumb conny bog wog tried to take me when I was in a bad mood , luckily the wife called a friend and a patrol car in the area managed to stop me for a random questioning , during which the friend turned up in another patrol car and made some phone calls and got it all sorted legal and proper ...with the bonus that the dumb conny idiot got so scared of official involvement he paid me more than he owed .

[Tribesman]

Accusations of muppetry (and variants)

Is Fraggle a variation or an entirely different genre ?

[LittleGrizzly]

Your starting to sound like a loan shark or something... is it a habit people not paying you back ??

ohh and im a bit short of money at the moment lend us 50 quid will ya ? ;)