Alito = No Bush Impeachment

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Contempt of court is not a crime, it's a duty.

What an asinine thing to say. You've just proven that you're not a libertarian, you're an anarchist.

 

[libertarian_knight]

What an asinine thing to say. You've just proven that you're not a libertarian, you're an anarchist.

You do know those terms are not opposed to each other right? There are numerous forms of anarcho-libertarianism along with the small-state libertarians as well.

I am sure you have heard of Murrary Rothbard after all.

However, oppossing excessive of the state, even though in circumstances with the normative state the behavior would be fround upon, is perfectly acceptable.

Imagine a sailboat out in the ocean somewhere. if the boat spings a leak, it is perfectly acceptable to bail water out, to the ocean. However, if there is no leak, it would not be appropriate to dump the drinking water out to sea.

In light of government excesses and abuses, it is perfectly logical to resist and hamper the state, in not violent means of course.

It is every citzens duty to resist the state. To put the burden on the state. To make the agents of the state convice the world of their arguement, rather than allow them to use the gun to compell obiedience.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You do know those terms are not opposed to each other right? There are numerous forms of anarcho-libertarianism along with the small-state libertarians as well.

I am sure you have heard of Murrary Rothbard after all.

However, oppossing excessive of the state, even though in circumstances with the normative state the behavior would be fround upon, is perfectly acceptable.

Imagine a sailboat out in the ocean somewhere. if the boat spings a leak, it is perfectly acceptable to bail water out, to the ocean. However, if there is no leak, it would not be appropriate to dump the drinking water out to sea.

In light of government excesses and abuses, it is perfectly logical to resist and hamper the state, in not violent means of course.

It is every citzens duty to resist the state. To put the burden on the state. To make the agents of the state convice the world of their arguement, rather than allow them to use the gun to compell obiedience.

I do know that you issued a blanket statement that you regarded it as a duty to obstruct the courts at all times.

That shows you're ignorant of the importance of government to freedom.

It also shows you're ignorant of the role of the courts in a government of free men.

If you're not ignorant of these topics, expound on them.

Tell me, if everyone lies to the court, if everyone refuses to follow the courts instructions willy nilly, how is the court supposed to function?

Like I said, you're an anarchist, not a libertarian.

 

[libertarian_knight]

I do know that you issued a blanket statement that you regarded it as a duty to obstruct the courts at all times.

That shows you're ignorant of the importance of government to freedom.

It also shows you're ignorant of the role of the courts in a government of free men.

If you're not ignorant of these topics, expound on them.

Tell me, if everyone lies to the court, if everyone refuses to follow the courts instructions willy nilly, how is the court supposed to function?

Like I said, you're an anarchist, not a libertarian.

no it doesn't. You are only privvy to part of my mind.

Again, ever read rothbard?

 

[Navy Pride]

no it doesn't. You are only privvy to part of my mind.

Again, ever read rothbard?

No, enlighten us..........

 

[Stinger]

No, in order to be impeached the House of Representatives has to vote to impeach you. You certainly don't have to commit a crime.

PS Bill Clinton was not convicted of any crime.

He was held in contempt of court for committing crimes, and given an unusual opportunity to go to trial but he pled guilty, and copped a plea with the OIC to avoid prosecution.

 

[aquapub]

thanks sweetie,

so then i guess you're saying there would be no "impeachment trial"?

and the elections were stolen, how many republican scandles must there be before you realize they may have stolen the 2000 and 2004 elections as well? as the left has been saying and supporting with all types of evidence for years,

Republicans are virtually the only ones in power. Of course all the scandals are going to be theirs. And if incidents of unrelated corruption are evidence that 2000 or 2004 were rigged, and you take into account Clinton's administration, Democrats cheated, not Republicans.

Not that the "logic" you are using there makes any sense anyway. :roll:

The correct way to say what you have said here is that Bush stopped Gore from stealing the election.

I know the facts of Election 2000 inside and out. If you insist on calling the kettle black, I will be glad to show you in a hundred different ways how you are the pot.

The fact that you are pathetic enough to actually make the same phony claims about this last election is just a testament to how desperate, delusional, and driven by conspiracy theories liberals like you are.

Liberals don't represent anything close to the majority. Get over it. Lying about "rigged" elections as Democrats continue to be rejected by the public over and over again does nothing but demonstrate why you people don't belong in office.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

no it doesn't. You are only privvy to part of my mind.

Again, ever read rothbard?

Yeah. Cite the reference were he says that anarchy is the best policy. Cite the reference, even, where he says that everyone should act in contempt of court whenever possible.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Yeah. Cite the reference were he says that anarchy is the best policy. Cite the reference, even, where he says that everyone should act in contempt of court whenever possible.

Read "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto." Furthermore, I never claimed Rothbard said anything about contempt of court, so put your strawman back in your closet. You labeled me an anarchist and "not a libertarian", in response I said Rothbard was also an anarchist and libertarain.

I didn't say I parrot Rothbard, or attribute any of my statements to him.

 

[libertarian_knight]

"Furthermore, the setting of bail is arbitrarily in the hands of the judge, who has excessive and little-checked power to incarcerate people before they are convicted. This is particularly menacing in the case of citations for contempt of court, because judges have almost unlimited power to slap someone into prison, after the judge himself has acted as a one-man prosecutor, judge, and jury in accusing, "convicting," and sentencing the culprit completely free from the ordinary rules of evidence and trial, and in violation of the fundamental legal principle of not being a judge in one's own case. "

"The market and private enterprise do exist, and so most people can readily envision a free market in most goods and services. Probably the most difficult single area to grasp, however, is the abolition of government operations in the service of protection: police, the courts, etc.—the area encompassing defense of person and property against attack or invasion. "

===
desire to abolish courts is generally viewed as contemptous. Rothbard also shows contempt for the whole concept of "contempt of court" as well.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Read "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto." Furthermore, I never claimed Rothbard said anything about contempt of court, so put your strawman back in your closet. You labeled me an anarchist and "not a libertarian", in response I said Rothbard was also an anarchist and libertarain.

I didn't say I parrot Rothbard, or attribute any of my statements to him.

Why? Is it anything like the Communist Manifesto?

If you think utter chaos is the libertarian way, you're not a libertarian, you're confused. Go join the great masses of unwashed useless idiots that riot at GATT and WTO conventions.

If you don't think utter chaos is the libertarian way, retract that idiotic statement that it's a civic duty to be in contempt of court.

I don't need to read books to understand MY philosophy, thank you.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

===
desire to abolish courts is generally viewed as contemptous. Rothbard also shows contempt for the whole concept of "contempt of court" as well.

Okay, if you're not parroting Rothbard, why are you pulling quotes from him that mimic exactly what you said?

I take it you're totally ignorant of the functions of government? Can you name them?

 

[libertarian_knight]

Okay, if you're not parroting Rothbard, why are you pulling quotes from him that mimic exactly what you said?

I take it you're totally ignorant of the functions of government? Can you name them?

I didn't parrot.

You asked for citations, I gave them to you, and then you say I am parroting the person I cited, when he only said a VARIENT of what I said.

Please, provide ONE EXACT STATEMENT I MADE FROM A ROTHBARD QUOTE.

==

the Crux of the discussion, of course, was whether or not libertarianism and arnachy are compatible. I showed, to many libertarains, they are, including one of the foremost libertarian authors and theorist.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I didn't parrot.

You asked for citations, I gave them to you, and then you say I am parroting the person I cited, when he only said a VARIENT of what I said.

Please, provide ONE EXACT STATEMENT I MADE FROM A ROTHBARD QUOTE.

==

the Crux of the discussion, of course, was whether or not libertarianism and arnachy are compatible. I showed, to many libertarains, they are, including one of the foremost libertarian authors and theorist.

No, what you showed is that many people who think they're libertarians, including one prominent author, are actually either ignorant of what libertarianism is.

Again, what functions do the courts serve? Are those functions necessary?

 

[libertarian_knight]

No, what you showed is that many people who think they're libertarians, including one prominent author, are actually either ignorant of what libertarianism is.

Again, what functions do the courts serve? Are those functions necessary?

What functions DO the courts serve? are you sure you want to ask that, or did you mean what functions are the courts SUPPOSED to serve? there is a bit of difference.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What functions DO the courts serve? are you sure you want to ask that, or did you mean what functions are the courts SUPPOSED to serve? there is a bit of difference.

According to Rectal Rothbard, all courts at all times should be discounted, disrepected, and held in contempt.

You subscribe to his views, so wtf dif does it make?

But, since you've suddenly passed the Bar exam, clearly what I meant was "What is the ****ing purpose of the ****ing courts in a ****ing free society formed by free ****ing men?"

It's been what, 800 posts since I first asked the question and you're still dancing around it?

 

[libertarian_knight]

According to Rectal Rothbard, all courts at all times should be discounted, disrepected, and held in contempt.

You subscribe to his views, so wtf dif does it make?

But, since you've suddenly passed the Bar exam, clearly what I meant was "What is the ****ing purpose of the ****ing courts in a ****ing free society formed by free ****ing men?"

It's been what, 800 posts since I first asked the question and you're still dancing around it?

In answer to that specific question, none.

800 posts..... yeah.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

In answer to that specific question, none.

How, then, is a the guilt of a man accused of assault judged?

How, then, is the terms of a contract interpreted when the two parties to it disagree?

 

[libertarian_knight]

How, then, is a the guilt of a man accused of assault judged?

How, then, is the terms of a contract interpreted when the two parties to it disagree?

Not only does a forefront libertarian by the name of Murray Rothbard mention this in his book, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

(which mind you, I have only actaully read a few chapters of, and not the whole thing. Much of my statements, are in fact my own, though seeded by Rothbards work. When I find an author in agreement with my views, typically I will only read them to gain clarity of language, not concepts. Otherwise I will just stop reading the book, as I did in this case).

Back to the point. A court, with baliffs and guns and gavels and all the other pomp and circumstance is not actually necessary for the administration of justice. In fact, a primary concern over judges in most trials (jury trials) is not judgement, but rather facilitation of "process." Not to mention, current "crimminal Justice" has actaully no relationship to Justice what so ever, rather it's a concern of convienience.

so, to answer your questions.
In any way.
Through the contract itself, which, in the absence of statist courts, would likely have a conflict resolution mechanism in the contract. In fact, a great many contracts have non-statist-courts conflict resolution mechanisms in the already. You should read the things you sign.

===
PS, though, honestly, aside from the melodrama, I like this kind of conversation. Unfortunately I have to leave for the night in a few minutes. I will response to any further query tomorrow, and possibly in greater detail.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Not only does a forefront libertarian by the name of Murray Rothbard mention this in his book, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

(which mind you, I have only actaully read a few chapters of, and not the whole thing. Much of my statements, are in fact my own, though seeded by Rothbards work. When I find an author in agreement with my views, typically I will only read them to gain clarity of language, not concepts. Otherwise I will just stop reading the book, as I did in this case).

Back to the point. A court, with baliffs and guns and gavels and all the other pomp and circumstance is not actually necessary for the administration of justice. In fact, a primary concern over judges in most trials (jury trials) is not judgement, but rather facilitation of "process." Not to mention, current "crimminal Justice" has actaully no relationship to Justice what so ever, rather it's a concern of convienience.

Yes. Back to the point. How is the guilt of the accused determined? You miraculously managed to miss that minor little detail completely.

Amazing.

so, to answer your questions.
In any way.
Through the contract itself, which, in the absence of statist courts, would likely have a conflict resolution mechanism in the contract. In fact, a great many contracts have non-statist-courts conflict resolution mechanisms in the already. You should read the things you sign.

That's an interesting concept. Mostly used by businesses to get the complaints of employees and customers out of the courts and into so-called "independent arbitration", said "independent arbitrators" being selected and paid for by the employer, of course.

But again, you're dodging the issue. Who gets to decide if the "conflict resolution mechanism" is honest?

No matter, your answer indicates a deeper lack of understanding of the real world.

Why do people form governments. Specifically, since you like to dance and weasel, why do free people agree to subject themselves to governments they themselves establish? What is their purpose in doing so? (Hint: there's a document that explains exactly why some certain people set up their own government. Try guessing what it is, and go read it.)

===
PS, though, honestly, aside from the melodrama, I like this kind of conversation. Unfortunately I have to leave for the night in a few minutes. I will response to any further query tomorrow, and possibly in greater detail.[/QUOTE]

 

[libertarian_knight]

As for arbitration. Yes some companies are abusing the position to hire arbitrators who may favor them. However, most people, engaged in contract disputes, aside from labor, can determine, as part of the contract either who, or what company would provide the arbitration. People can even list three, four, five, or any number of people.

See that's the nice thing about the market, options options options options.

===
with respect to guilt of the accused, i said "in any way."

after all, any way is just about as effective as what we have not, at least as far as actually assessing guilt and establishing justice.

If you are going to hold statist courts are the archons of justice, then any equivalent system should do. Even of course, randomly throwing people in jail.

You asked about the purpose of courts.
1st purpose. Maintain state power and authority.
2nd purpose. Revenue collection
3rd Purpose. Facilitate "process."
4th Purpose. Maintain status quo
5th purpose. Withold information from jurors.
6th Purpose. Spend collected revenue on nice robs and intimidating desks.
7th Purpose. Consider Justice.

Remember is a Jury's job to asses guilt, not judges. But juries make a small portion of "the court."

Also, think about the word, court. The Kings were those who used to hold courts, and they later delegated that to Judges. Governments established courts so courts could serve governments.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

As for arbitration. Yes some companies are abusing the position to hire arbitrators who may favor them. However, most people, engaged in contract disputes, aside from labor, can determine, as part of the contract either who, or what company would provide the arbitration. People can even list three, four, five, or any number of people.

See that's the nice thing about the market, options options options options.

===
with respect to guilt of the accused, i said "in any way."

That's NOT an answer. A man is accused of murder. How do the victims' family seek justice and how is the guilt of the accused determined. It's a very specific question.

You can't can't answer it without showing how ridiculous your position is, can you?

Oh, and determing the guilt of the accused is the principle purpose of the courts. Contract enforcement is important, but secondary.

after all, any way is just about as effective as what we have not, at least as far as actually assessing guilt and establishing justice.

And you still can't answer the question, that's yet another dodge.

That's pretty pathetic, when you can't answer such a simple question.

If you are going to hold statist courts are the archons of justice, then any equivalent system should do. Even of course, randomly throwing people in jail.

Non-answer number 194?

You asked about the purpose of courts.
1st purpose. Maintain state power and authority.
2nd purpose. Revenue collection
3rd Purpose. Facilitate "process."
4th Purpose. Maintain status quo
5th purpose. Withold information from jurors.
6th Purpose. Spend collected revenue on nice robs and intimidating desks.
7th Purpose. Consider Justice.

Hmmm....not one of those is the correct answer. If you're this ignorant of government, why have you decided to claim an ideology? Especially since your true goal is an anarchic night.

Remember is a Jury's job to asses guilt, not judges. But juries make a small portion of "the court."

Actually, remember where you made fun of the flim flam of our court procedures? Juries are the bit of flam that lets the mob think they're important. Juries without the rules and procedure of a court resemble lynch mobs. Since juries form a part of the court, and since juries cannot function without the rest of the court, you've merely dodged yet again.


Needless to say, you're focusing on the window dressing because you don't like the mannequin.

[/quote]Also, think about the word, court. The Kings were those who used to hold courts, and they later delegated that to Judges. Governments established courts so courts could serve governments.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the word "court" ...it's probably relevant because it's one of the necessary functions of state...specifically, it's the area where the citizen gets his chance to be heard, both the victim and the accused in an impartial official and formal setting. Seems like a perfectly apropos word to me.

Again, and you've yet to answer it...what's the alternative? A man is accused of a crime. If he's not to be tried by his fellow citizens in a formal manner under laws that apply to everyone equally, something you clearly reject, what's left?

-----

Okay. You failed the question concerning the role of courts. Let's try a parallel path to see if you have any inkling at all.

What is law for?

Why do men create governments?

If governments are not necessary, what's the alternative?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What is law for?

Why do men create governments?

If governments are not necessary, what's the alternative?

1. Justice.

2. Well the U.S. created its government to secure mans life, liberty, and property.

3. A corporate state. Basically the functions of the government would be replaced by the corporations and in my opinion would create just another form of government which would be a government of, by, and for the government as opposed to a government of, by, and for the people.

 

[libertarian_knight]

That's NOT an answer. A man is accused of murder. How do the victims' family seek justice and how is the guilt of the accused determined. It's a very specific question.

Again, there are numerous ways, with numerous penaties. However, I think you are under the false assumption that Justice is provuded for in current court systems. It's not. Justice is a concept of a "return to balance" thus the well regonized "lady justice" statue. also, I am generally focues on crimes (violations of rights), not generic monetary disputes as handled by civil courts, which, as we see could be handled by arbitrators (problems in current arbitration systems notwithstanding).

If a person is accused of murder, how does locking them in a cage provide any justice to the family? The murdered is not back, the economic loss is not recouped, and the family often has to pay, at the point of a gun, to keep the murder alive or have the state execute them. There is a three fold INJUSTICE to the murder victim's family.

Again, crimminal Justice is about convienience, not justice, no matter what your handlers taught you, they lied. Or they were just ignorant of this as well.

186 people died in OKC bombing, killing McViegh was just how? Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda killed thousands, killing them is just how? Thier deaths can not "pay" for all the lives lost. Their incarceration can not pay for lives lost. AT BEST they prevent the accused from doing it again, ebcause it's more convienient to remove them from the rest of society, than it is to have them make proper ammends for their crimes, and easier than bringing the deead back to life.

You can't can't answer it without showing how ridiculous your position is, can you?

Oh, and determing the guilt of the accused is the principle purpose of the courts. Contract enforcement is important, but secondary.

Again, a small part of the overall perview of courts, is the Jury. Important part, but small none-the-less. I generally don't view the Jury as part of the insitution of courts. (Remember, it is the courts and lawyers that choose the jury anyway, another flaw in the current system).

And you still can't answer the question, that's yet another dodge.

That's pretty pathetic, when you can't answer such a simple question.



Non-answer number 194?



Hmmm....not one of those is the correct answer. If you're this ignorant of government, why have you decided to claim an ideology? Especially since your true goal is an anarchic night.

What do you mean? the court does none of those functions? None at all? courts don't collect revenue for the state? Courts don't maintain state power? News to me. Maybe you would care to explain why each of those is wrong?

Actually, remember where you made fun of the flim flam of our court procedures? Juries are the bit of flam that lets the mob think they're important. Juries without the rules and procedure of a court resemble lynch mobs. Since juries form a part of the court, and since juries cannot function without the rest of the court, you've merely dodged yet again.


Needless to say, you're focusing on the window dressing because you don't like the mannequin.

Yeah, the word "court" ...it's probably relevant because it's one of the necessary functions of state...specifically, it's the area where the citizen gets his chance to be heard, both the victim and the accused in an impartial official and formal setting. Seems like a perfectly apropos word to me.

Again, and you've yet to answer it...what's the alternative? A man is accused of a crime. If he's not to be tried by his fellow citizens in a formal manner under laws that apply to everyone equally, something you clearly reject, what's left?

-----

Okay. You failed the question concerning the role of courts. Let's try a parallel path to see if you have any inkling at all.

What is law for?

Why do men create governments?

If governments are not necessary, what's the alternative?

1. Control
2. Power
3. Markets

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Again, there are numerous ways, with numerous penaties. However, I think you are under the false assumption that Justice is provuded for in current court systems. It's not. Justice is a concept of a "return to balance" thus the well regonized "lady justice" statue. also, I am generally focues on crimes (violations of rights), not generic monetary disputes as handled by civil courts, which, as we see could be handled by arbitrators (problems in current arbitration systems notwithstanding).

That what you think, is it? The word "justice" isn't really relevant to the question. I erred in including it, since it provided you with a spillway around the great dam of your inability to answer the question "how is the guilt of the accused determined".

When are you going to answer that question, anyway?

If a person is accused of murder, how does locking them in a cage provide any justice to the family? The murdered is not back, the economic loss is not recouped, and the family often has to pay, at the point of a gun, to keep the murder alive or have the state execute them. There is a three fold INJUSTICE to the murder victim's family.

Oh, so your answer to the qustion of how the guilt of the accused is determined is to say that such determinations are not beneficial so why bother?

Don't you think, perhaps, that if a man is accused of a crime he deserves to have the accusation cleared up? Isn't the accused the principal party in the question I asked?

Again, you're pursuing a non-sequitur in your desperation to dodge the question of how is the guilt of the accused determined.

I think I should call you "Marllin", 'cause I got you hooked.

Again, crimminal Justice is about convienience, not justice, no matter what your handlers taught you, they lied. Or they were just ignorant of this as well.

Well, no. Criminal justice is about protecting the innocent, first and foremost. And one of the potentially innocent parties is the accused. Is this missing you, or are you deliberately hiding from this simple fact?

186 people died in OKC bombing, killing McViegh was just how?

Because it's not relevant to the question of how the guilt of the accused is determined, I guess, so they killed him in exasperation?

Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda killed thousands, killing them is just how?

I don't know. I would certainly pay a couple hundred bucks for a front row seat when they ride the guillotine, though. What's justice got to do with war?

What's justice got to do with determining the guilt or innocence of the accused? Man, do you string you non-sequiturs out into Tom Clancy novels, or what? Super long and roaming from Texas to Afghanistan and on into Pakistan.

Thier deaths can not "pay" for all the lives lost.Their incarceration can not pay for lives lost. AT BEST they prevent the accused from doing it again, ebcause it's more convienient to remove them from the rest of society, than it is to have them make proper ammends for their crimes, and easier than bringing the deead back to life.

So is it really that you don't have a clue to my question, or that you know any answer you make to the actual question will merely provide me with the means to further ridicule your silly assertion that courts aren't necessary?

How is the guilt of men accused of crimes determined again? I didn't hear you the last time you didn't answer the question.

Again, a small part of the overall perview of courts, is the Jury. Important part, but small none-the-less. I generally don't view the Jury as part of the insitution of courts. (Remember, it is the courts and lawyers that choose the jury anyway, another flaw in the current system).

Ah, the jury. The panel of amateurs which can't vote on what to have for lunch is tasked with voting on guilt or innocence.

Now your dodging in process-specific details in an attempt to get fishing line snagged in a kelp bed. Do I have to ask under what authority a jury is convened and where that authority comes from. I had some experience this summer pulling teeth. I could practice on you, I suppose.

What do you mean? the court does none of those functions? None at all? courts don't collect revenue for the state? Courts don't maintain state power? News to me. Maybe you would care to explain why each of those is wrong?

No. I don't care to explain anything until you manage to answer one simple question in sufficient detail to show you understand your answer.

So, how is the guilt of the accused assessed again? Never mind that "again", just answer it once.

1. Control
2. Power
3. Markets

Control? You mean the accused can control the outcome of the trial by having the power to shop for a sympathetic judge, or that the victim's family can control the outcome by the power of the mob?

You don't have a clue, do you? You've read some books that made you feel good, and now you're discovering that you can't answer simple questions because the answers you know are right don't agree with what you believe.

This is even more fun than poking fun at Christians.