Sigh this is pointless so I'll just stop w/ you LK

It's pointless because you repeat your point, and fail to actually enagage on any real objection.

In your fantasy world

My fantasy world? That's cute considering you're reducing your analysis to a political philsophy which has never existed in the real world.

Wrong yet again: I already stated several other reasons that had nothing to do with libertarianism. Shall I list them again?

1) The law is not consistent with other applications of the same power structure (employer/employee relationship for one--which IMO is even stronger power relationship than a teacher/student, pastor or priest and member of the church, etc), even for people of the same age
2) It will cost approximately $150k to incarcerate someone that isn't a threat to the greater society, not counting the cost to prosecute
3) This person will probably be on the dole now for most of the rest of their life as they will have a very difficult time finding any job and losing years of potential skills in another career which means taxpayers get screwed yet again
4) 18 year old's know what they are doing when it comes to their bodies, and in fact for the entire history of mankind was actually earlier in life when most people started re-producing

Like I said, only in your fantasy world

You're right I didn't bother remembering all those points you made. I was arguing with ten people simultaneously.

Those all seem like afterthoughts to what you care about which is applying the basic libertarian filter.

I'd be happy to address those each, too if you want to play whack-a-mole, which I don't.

It's more interesting to really boil it down to the actual debate.

Quote:

The problem with being passionate about something is that sometimes it gets in the way of clear analysis. If you allow yourself to be seduced by a simplisti,c reductive pricinciple wishing that a single unfying rule would explain everything, you leave out real concerns which deserved to be addressed.

A single unifying rule does explain everything. You infringe upon someone or you don't. If you don't then no crime has been committed. That's the perspective that I view it from. Every other law out there that does not involve crime as described above is merely opinion enforced through intimidation and violence.

Each situation is different and should be viewed independently but the simple question to first ask is was there an injury (i.e. infringement upon another's rights) and was there some form of intent to cause that injury. If you can get 12 people to agree that there was injury and intent then you have a crime.

I agree. But there is also a class of behavior where the victim is the community, broadly. Whom did Paulson hurt, LOL

LK, it is what I call clear thinking.
Our entire country is mired in a tarpit of rationalizations.

So if there is only enough to feed 800 out of 1000 people in the community should we kill 200 of them? It's for the good of the community you know...

Quote:

But there is also a class of behavior where the victim is the community, broadly.

Communities have no rights. That's the flaw in that statement. You have a group of individuals. Who did Paulson hurt? A group of individuals.

You may say it's just semantics but when you start talking about community rights you loose sight of the individual. The foundation of a constitutional republic is the protection of the individual. Taking the stance that a community has rights then you end up with a nameless, faceless entity with no responsibility. So you end up passing laws to protect nobody. That's the foundation of a police state.

In the 70's a teacher got a student preg. Both single. He married her.

That is where we 'came from' in our acceptance to here, jail for the teacher now.

Consider why. There has to be a reason or reasons thoughts changed from 'get married' to 'jail time'.

Quote:

'get married' to 'jail time'.

Is there a difference?

Yeah, married you can sneak a beer

Nomullet it's definitely clear, it's just that it's reduced... What's that nice Einstein quotaion
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

That's what you're doing here. You're reducing the complexity of reality to a two-dimensional world where one rule fits. Ahhh were it that easy....

So you've all agreed, Paulson, Bernank, Greenspan, the big banks like GS JPM etc all committed no crime or at least the nature of the laws are invalid because their behavior wasn't directed toward individuals. That's an interesting take for FedUp and all this 'Stop the Looting, Start Prosecuting' jargon I read here

Quote:

So you've all agreed, Paulson, Bernank, Greenspan, the big banks like GS JPM etc all committed no crime or at least the nature of the laws are invalid because their behavior wasn't directed toward individuals.

I don't know about others but I did not. Paulson et. al. committed intentional fraud against the people of this country. Eg a crime.

I may be splitting hairs on semantics but you need to understand that we're talking about a group of individuals, not a community. Once you start thinking community then you start to think 'community rights' and at that point the majority has just won out over the individual.

Fine, feel free to abstract away from my word community which I wasn't using in the loaded way you're reading it. I was only trying to avoid aggreations that overlap with governmental entities because I thought that would be distracting. "Aggregation of individuals," then. fine. We all know the Maggie Thatcher quotes

No, it's not a crime in your model of crime. Which is why your idea of law is too simple. There's no victim. You can't show or demonstrate a victim. No individual victim had been directly harmed.

LK, why don't you explain how your position fits Einsteins criteria, who BTW left his wife so he could shack up with his cousin.
Marrying your 1st cousin is illegal now in Texas.

Trying to simplify the question to was there a clear victim or not AND NOTHING ELSE is simplistic not simple.

Hilarious to quote someone who would be a victim of your kind of logic. You've revealed how shallow your understanding is of this matter.

Oh Einstein ****ed his 18 HS student? I wasn't aware.

Insults aside, would you like to make a point about the topic?

Quote:

No, it's not a crime in your model of crime. Which is why your idea of law is too simple. There's no victim. You can't show or demonstrate a victim. No individual victim had been directly harmed.

No victim no crime.

The people at large are the victims of Paulson et. al.

I don't like the word community because it becomes a faceless entity. There's not enough food so we're going to kill some of you. There's no one to blame, it's simply for the good of the community.

That's also how you get to drug laws; it's for the good of the community. Who's this community? If some dope head wants to smoke up I say let him. If he comes into my house to feed his habit I'll put two rounds into his chest. Problem?

Yes I'm oversimplifying it and yes it does get fuzzy at a certain point but the bottom line is that you have to focus on protecting the individual's rights. The rights of the community are irrelevant because they have no rights.

It's being argued that sex between consenting adults can be made illegal because of their relationship to each other. Lets play with changing those involved and see how it can be defended... Instead of "For the best interest of the community it should be illegal for a teacher and her adult student to have consensual sex", lets say "For the best interest of the community it should be illegal for a nigro and a white to have consensual sex"

Hey... It's the law - YOU MUST OBAY

Good job convincing nobody LK the rest of the world must be crazy.

Again, would you like to make an actual point?

The people at large are the victims of a teacher who grooms young students to become their sex partners when they reach a legal age.

I mean, they paid the teacher to spend time with their kids and teach me but that kinda sex ed was not authorized!