Comments by "Clown Life" (@Clownlife432) on "Innocent Mom Jailed, Dystopian Policing, and Eminent Domain on Trial - EP 02" video.

@davemi00 no, I think perhaps you misunderstood and I was not clear enough. I’ll be clearer, apologies if it was an error on my part. It’s not “amazing civil asset forfeiture is still allowed”. That is because the state as an entity loves to seize wealth from its subjects, and it particularly prefers to do it in the ways that are simplest it can get away with. Operating under that premise, reality, it would be no surprise that these types of policies and programs exist. I hope that’s clearer.
12
I’d like to see institute for justice the their views of defending individual rights to the logical conclusion, and argue free people’s right not to be suppressed by any state, and any all property seizure is immoral. Many will point out, how would the state exist then, and that is the point.
6
@ I agree with you that people need their property rights, my disagreement is where you appeal to authority. It’s time we look beyond government. We had a constitution with clear laws and limits that provided for a small government, and we’ve ran the experiment, it was still too restrictive and too costly imposing on our rights. As time progressed, it increased in strength, size, scope, and wrath. It’s time to make the argument to shut the whole thing down. I want everyone to question the legitimacy of the government period, and choose to be a part of structures of their own choosing.
6
It’s not, any way the state can feed easily you shouldn’t be surprised exists. Civil asset forfeiture is the easiest way it can.
5
Thanks for your hard week.
3
@ it’s not stunning, what’s stunning is that you don’t seem to see the choice was by design. You say they will abuse these policies and laws, and they say of course, that’s why we wrote them that way.
3
@ no, it’s not. Take the line of logic to its end. If it’s immoral for someone to take something from you against your will, it’s immoral for ten, a hundred, a thousand, or a million. Therefore, any act taken by the state against an individual who only seeks to remain unmolested is an attack. Therefore, any state that says it speaks for every person and singles out taking any persons or any groups property is immoral. Therefore, the state is immoral. Where is the error in the rationale. It is the only defensible position if you believe governments shouldn’t take people’s property. If you do think it’s ok to take people’s property at all, then there is no reason to put any property off limits. It is further foolish to assume over time your governments wouldn’t seek to take more from you once they realize how much they can already take. It’s a large feedback loop that only gains momentum overtime. It is only interrupted through peaceful or non-peaceful intervention. As your rights have been trampled on further and further, how would you suggest putting the genie back in the bottle? There is only one feasible solution in the end. We retain the right to be unmolested in our property outside of direct harm committed against another to gain that.
2
@ and those that want to take part in that will gladly pitch their support behind such a thing. The assumption you make is that common law has yet to be finished being fleshed out. Further, common law is downstream of natural law. Natural law is largely what anyone needs for a flourishing society. You don’t have the right to to use violence except to use violence being brought against you, including by the state. You don’t have the right to another person, and obviously by extension their property without their permission. These are largely the two rules needed. Further, a decreased state will allow those to put themselves under the laws of their choosing. Peoples who want to band together will, by choice, and people that don’t will form their own communities, like the Amish. The Amish don’t require their people stay, yet about 80% return from rumsrpinger. Further, they still trade with those they don’t agree with on their way of life. What you’d find if you allow people to live under the rules of their choosing is you would have much less strife because people wouldn’t elect one party to rule the other half of the country. You want to join a group that has universal healthcare you need to pay into, sure, you can do that. Somewhere else wants to have no universal pot for healthcare, also fine. You need consent still. Further, you assume that the pull back in government won’t provide us with more diverse options and many better options than our current legal system. Good news there too, you’ll have the option to consent to those as well. Your claim proves too much, I suggest you reevaluate.
1
@ it’s not impractical at all. How does a free market work? Spontaneous order, we all make our individual decisions and an emergence of systems and structures occurs to support those choices. It’s not impractical at all. To address it being fringe, yes, I agree due to indoctrination in government camps, schools, it is seen as fringe. It does not make it wrong though, a man once had a fringe thought the world revolved around the sun. Further, that doesn’t mean that idea hasn’t been more mainstream at different times, and can’t be again. Lastly, you say natural law isn’t really law and therefore can’t work. Laws not really law, they change interpretation based on who has power to wield against another. Again, voluntary choice lets you participate in the legal structures and systems of your choosing.
1
@ “failed idea, worldwide”, according to whom and by whom? If you believe in free markets, that’s is voluntarism. All I’m asking to expand that to the rest of society. Yes, people won’t pay taxes, they’ll pay for services, and to be a part of structures. You already do that, and it’s the best part of our society. It’s true, with no government you’ll have no child support. You will also have people making better decisions about who they decide to lay with and under what conditions. You will also have people who make mistakes still, and they will live with the consequences which is the best way to have change occur, pain is very powerful that way. You have it backwards, it’s precisely my understanding of human nature that makes me against large governments.
1
@rickb3650 😹 I can tell you’re not gay because you get butt hurt so easily. You gotta love it when someone can’t refute the points so they resort to an ad hominem attack. To be clear, since you’re not that bright, you are that someone. You probably don’t all through life wondering how everything happens to you. I feel pity for you.
1