Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Libertarians and conspiracy theories (Read 6818 times)
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4259
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Reply #40 - Dec 19th, 2013 at 10:56am
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 19th, 2013 at 10:52am:
Which we should note are violations in whole or in part of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and/or 14th Amendments to the US Constitution as well as numerous statutory laws of the United States (and international laws established by treaty if we refer to the cases of about 80 of the GITMO detainees). 

I'm confused. I thought the flaw of lawsuits is that they require all that unnecessary "evidence" stuff. Isn't the alternative to arrest people based off little to no evidence? What position do you take?
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Reply #41 - Dec 19th, 2013 at 12:19pm
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Dec 19th, 2013 at 10:56am:
I'm confused. I thought the flaw of lawsuits is that they require all that unnecessary "evidence" stuff. Isn't the alternative to arrest people based off little to no evidence? What position do you take?


No, the problem is that people put forward the proposition that lawsuits will stop the violations but in fact they will not. Similar to criminal law enforcement rarely is there enough evidence to convict the guilty person.

What percentage of home burgaries are successfully posecuted in the US would you estimate? I would bet that it's well less than 1% are actually solved by police based upon evidence that leads to conviction. What percentage of shoplifting are prosecuted. I would bet it less than 1/10,000.

I'm not opposed to either lawsuits or criminal prosecution that require compelling evidence and I will always take the side of the "accused" in those cases as the evidence must be compelling. Like a criminal prosecution I'd rather see ten people that are guilty not be convicted as opposed to one innocent person being convicted.

That does not imply that the person didn't "commit the crime" but merely represents that the evidence didn't support the prosecution be it in a civil or criminal court.

What we cannot claim is that lawsuits or criminal law prevent the violations of the Rights of the Person and that is what those stating "Lawsuits are the magic bullet that prevents violations of the Rights of a Person" are implying. It is a false belief unsupported by fact as most violations of the Rights of the Person can't even be prosecuted due to a lack of evidence. 


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4259
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Reply #42 - Dec 19th, 2013 at 12:37pm
Print Post  
Holy crap. How do you type so much and say nothing?

Your positions so far:
Requiring evidence to convict someone of a crime = ignorant solution
Not requiring evidence to convict someone of a crime = unconstitutional and wrong

So what position do you take? Should we not require evidence or should we? If we should, why the hell were you going off on me about how requiring evidence is an ignorant solution?
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Reply #43 - Dec 20th, 2013 at 7:00am
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Dec 19th, 2013 at 12:37pm:
Holy crap. How do you type so much and say nothing?

Your positions so far:
Requiring evidence to convict someone of a crime = ignorant solution
Not requiring evidence to convict someone of a crime = unconstitutional and wrong

So what position do you take? Should we not require evidence or should we? If we should, why the hell were you going off on me about how requiring evidence is an ignorant solution?


Once agian that is not what I'm stating.

We have a very high standard of evidence related to convictions under both civil and criminal law and that is as it should be. Many misrepresent our "justice system" by believing it is about "convicting the guilty" when it is actually about "protecting the innocent" in both civil and criminal cases.

In both civil and criminal proceeding the verdict is always based upon a defendent being either "guilty" or "not guilty" based upon the evidence and a person is never found "innocent" by a court. When the defendent is found "not guilty" it does not imply that they didn't commit the "crime" but instead that there simply wasn't enough evidence to prove that they committed a crime.

OJ Simpson was not found "innocent" in killing of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman during the criminal for example. He was found "not guilty" because of a lack of compelling evidence. The evidence pointed to his guilt but was not compelling enough to obtain a conviction. There is little doubt in most peoples minds that OJ actually did murder Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman but the evidence presented by the prosecution was not "compelling" enough to obtain the conviction. 

The fact is that related to most criminal and civil matters the "guilty person" is not convicted and claiming that either criminal law or civil law is the answer to either problem is a false proposition. It simply doesn't happen.

The laws, both civil and criminal, can and do prevent many violations of the Rights of Persons but they are not an answer to preventing those violations. When someone states that a "lawsuit" is the answer the the problem they are wrong on two counts.

First and foremost is the fact that the Rights of the Person have already been violated and secondly the odds of winning a lawsuit in such cases is actually remote because of the high standard of evidence that is justifiably required. 
   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4259
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Reply #44 - Dec 20th, 2013 at 9:45am
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 20th, 2013 at 7:00am:
The fact is that related to most criminal and civil matters the "guilty person" is not convicted and claiming that either criminal law or civil law is the answer to either problem is a false proposition. It simply doesn't happen.

The laws, both civil and criminal, can and do prevent many violations of the Rights of Persons but they are not an answer to preventing those violations. When someone states that a "lawsuit" is the answer the the problem they are wrong on two counts.

First and foremost is the fact that the Rights of the Person have already been violated and secondly the odds of winning a lawsuit in such cases is actually remote because of the high standard of evidence that is justifiably required. 

So people shouldn't have a fair trial? I honestly don't understand what alternative you're trying to convey.

And civil cases don't determine "guilt."
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Reply #45 - Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:48am
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Dec 20th, 2013 at 9:45am:
So people shouldn't have a fair trial? I honestly don't understand what alternative you're trying to convey.

And civil cases don't determine "guilt."


Our "criminal justice system" is based upon the principle that it is better to allow ten guilty people to go free than to convict an innocent person. Even with that "safeguard" many innocent people are convicted and that is a failure of our criminal justice system.

There is no "perfect" solution to the criminal justice system where no innocent people are convicted. We do the "best we can" pragmatically but even with that there are improvements that can be made to ensure that fewer innocent people are convicted. Of course with that also comes the probability that more "guilty" people will probably go free and commit future crimes.

What we should never assume is that just because someone is found "not guilty" that it implies they were innocent because a jury did not establish that as a fact. I've sat on the jury in a rape trial were we all agreed that a rape probably occurred but also agreed that the prosecution had not presented a compelling case. We found the defendent "not guilty" but our hearts also went out to the woman. It was sad that we couldn't express that feeling to the woman but that's not allowed.

Civil cases most certainly deal with "guilt" in their determinations. Did the party to contract violate the contract and, if so, what damages is the plaintiff entitled to for example. In environmental cases, such as Love Canal, did the defendant violate the Rights of the People living along Love Canal by polluting the water and, if so, what damages are they entitled to. In a civil action the "guilt" of the defendant must always be established. If they're found "not guilty" then they have no obligations to the plaintiff.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4259
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Reply #46 - Dec 25th, 2013 at 2:43pm
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 24th, 2013 at 10:48am:
Civil cases most certainly deal with "guilt" in their determinations.

Wrong. Again, please don't pretend as if you know something when you don't.
Power of Google:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law

Anyway, that's not what I care about. Someone brought up what would happen if pollution affected multi people. I said "class action lawsuits." You objected to this comment going off about how that was a lousy solution because court cases require evidence. WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE? That is what I'm asking you.
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Shiva_TD
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1593
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Re: Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Reply #47 - Dec 26th, 2013 at 8:51am
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Dec 25th, 2013 at 2:43pm:
Someone brought up what would happen if pollution affected multi people. I said "class action lawsuits." You objected to this comment going off about how that was a lousy solution because court cases require evidence. WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE? That is what I'm asking you.


Prevent the pollution in the first place by imposing regulation.

As I noted a lawsuit can be of limited effectivity in some cases but not in many others when it comes to "pollution" of the environment. I will provide examples of where it has been shown to be highly ineffective.

We have heavy metal pollution of our water supply in WA that was created by hard rock mining during the 19th Century. By the time this pollution, which can kill people, became known all of those mining companies were gone so there is no one to file a lawsuit against.

Agent Orange was used by the US government in Vietnam and it caused deseases like Type II diabetes in those exposed to it. This was eventually addressed by a lawsuit and the federal government does compensate us for the illness that many of us Vietnam vets suffer (I'm one of them) but the lawsuit does not add back those years to our lives that will be lost because of the illness.

No amount of money can replace lost years from a person's life. The damage from the pollution has already occurred and the money doesn't change that fact.

So ultilmately only regulation, enforced at the time which prevents pollution, is effective. The lawsuits are too little and too late to prevent the damage which has already occurred even in cases where regulations have been ignored by enterprise.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4259
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Reply #48 - Dec 26th, 2013 at 9:36am
Print Post  
Shiva_TD wrote on Dec 26th, 2013 at 8:51am:
Prevent the pollution in the first place by imposing regulation.

Okay, you do know that, in order to prosecute someone for violating a regulation, you have to go through the criminal justice system, correct? In fact, the burden of proof is to a much higher standard, since regulation makes it a criminal case and not a civil case, which means you have to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" instead of "preponderance of the evidence" as in civil cases. Your solution to getting around that pesky "evidence" thing is to shift the problem into courts that require much more compelling evidence. That makes no sense.
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Coopers
Libertarian Senior Member
****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 434
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Joined: Dec 22nd, 2010
Re: Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Reply #49 - Dec 27th, 2013 at 8:47am
Print Post  
I'm pretty sure our conspiracy theorist Truther historical revisionist friend has left the conversation. I'll respond to the rest of his "points" if he returns.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Libertarians and conspiracy theories
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy