Crime; universal and cultural

[sunspot]

If we look at criminal offenses like murder, assault, stealing, etc., these are treated as crimes in all cultures. These are examples of universal crimes that are independant of cultural bias. The way they are treated within various cultures, may vary from culture to culture, but in all cultures something will be done to achieve their version of justice.

 

The other type of crimes are culturally dependant and therefore will vary from country to country. These are not universal crimes but crimes made up by people for various reasons, usually self interest. For example, in a very repressive country, reading the wrong book, can have severe consequences. One may be beaten, their property siezed, maybe they will thrown into prison and maybe even tortured or shot. If we do the math, such a culture perpetrates three or more universal crimes to deal with one subjective cultural crime. The real criminals (state) are not punished for their universal crimes, but may actually get rewards (promotions, split the booty) for their crimes.

 

The inforcement of cultural crimes, using actions that violate the universal standards of crime, is not limited to repressive fourth world cultures. It occurs within our own country; USA. The easiest example to see is connected to property siezure during drug related crimes. The inforcement of this cultural crime, which is not the same in all cultures, makes use of the universal crime; stealing. The more that is legally stolen by the state the more rewards are split among the violators of the universal crime. Don't get me wrong I do not advocate drugs; too many/much drugs will make you stupid. This includes the legal stuff that is often overprescribed. On the other hand, in the right amounts, both can be useful.

 

An example of criminal violation of constitutional rights, is connected to the presumption of innocents until proven guilty. Drug testing allows one to be assumed guilty until they prove their innocence with the drug test. If one refuses the test, they are guilty even if they are innocent. Even a murderer has more rights than that in our culture. I am not sure why a class action suit has not been file to gain civil damages suffered at the hands of legal criminals. I think criminal charges would go too far.

 

Here what we can do, we will just presume that the bums that advocate this policy are guilty of this offense against the constituiton and they must prove their innocents with a random lie detector test. We will give them a taste of their own medicine. If they refuse to take the test, they get fired. If they take it and fail, we will probe deeper in other possible violations of law that we can assume them guilty of. Three strikes and their out. I am just kidding about this last stuff. I believe in a person being innocent until they are proven guilty. It should apply to all and not just the universal crime type criminals like murderers, rapists, etc.

[sunspot]

One of the stronger arguments for the drugs laws and the need to bend the rules to deal with it, is do to the inability of leadership to solve the problem. They are usually better at creating problems than solving them. I am no activist, even on my own accord. But that does not mean I do not have a little common sense.

 

As a hypothetical social thought experiment, I would like to create a social parallel to the drug problem so one can see how it forms and evolves. The group I would like to bully are the natural remedy marketplace. My prescription drug business is losing money and the shareholders are on my ass to do something. A cost effective path is to lobby Washington since R&D is more expensive and may not give me what I need in the short term. I am willing to grease many palms. What I need them to do is outlaw the entire natural remedy market. I did my homework, I am can make a strong case using 10% of the data that shows a wide variety of these products can cause harm. The other 90% of the data I will ignor since it would weaken my case. Besides, these guys want the money, they just need a good prefabricated line of bull so they can create the illusion of doing something good for the American people.

 

I realize many of these natural drugs are actually useful, so I also need to grease a few palms at the FDA. They do not have to reject things, that would look to suspicious, they only have to delay them long enough for the politians to muddy the water. Then it will be easier to reject them without raising as many eyebrows. My hope is that the market will shift back to my synthetic products. If the stockholders see the ball starting to roll they will cut me some slack.

 

Once the ball gets rolling, good citizens who yesterday were going about their lives, as usual, full of hope, now become instant criminals. The lawyers will love this since I just created thousands of new cases. I may even get a kickback from the lawyers to offset some of my investment.

 

Because it is an unjust law, people will sense that and refuse to go along. Those who don't lose anything by the law, since they do not use natural remedies, won't care either way. But eventually will realize that they can use the law as an excuse to be a-holes. I hate my neighbor, now I have a way to legally stick it to him. Besides he is inferior to me because he is an criminal and I am not.

 

The former shop keeper, who was making a descent living to feed his family and enjoy life, will want to continue. With supplies being cut back, he will have to raise prices and maybe even go underground and become part of the blackmarket. This strategy may actually increase his profits so he can go from tee-shirts to gold chains. In his mind, there is nothing wrong with what he is doing since he is helping people get what they want, or now what they need, because things are getting scarcer.

 

If a lot of the citizens are ignoring the govenment, since they believe they are on someone's payroll, the government will have to get tougher and set some target examples to scare the others. The little old lady who has grown a medicine root for sixty years, that she makes tea from, and shares with her neighbors, because it settles the stomach, becomes the center of a swat bust. In the eyes of the law she is as guilty as anybody who disobeys the law and taking her down will show everyone that the law applies to everyone (expect those at the top).

 

Eventually, the blackmarket gets organized and is able to lobby the local polititians and police forces. These officals personally don't see the big problem with these natural remedies, but their duty is to enforce the law. If they turn their heads every now and then, it may actually satify some of the guilt assoociated with doing the jobs. The internal complacency causes the govenment to need to act even stricter and begins to decentralize and spread its tenticles into the country. The parallel result will be addiction and dependancy that didin't happen before the law. Some people are compulsive with the sweetest fruits the forbidden fruits. Other are low in self esteem and this a way to reinforce that believe with the negative help of the self rightoeus.

 

If we let the experiment run long enough we forget about the original cause and only look at the predictament we are in. One assumes that if we ever repeal the law all hell would break loose. The fact of the matter, the law caused this hell to break loose. If we changed the law this late in the game, it would also mean a lot of lost jobs. There are a lot of lawyers, judges, prison workers, police, rehab, etc type jobs dependant on this law. The solution is to use the law as a way to create even more jobs. It is a perfect job creator because it will never end, since the more jobs created the worse the problem becomes, requiring more jobs, etc.. All these jobs are based on blood money, the blood of victumless crimes.

[sunspot]

One of the stronger arguments for the drugs laws and the need to bend the rules to deal with it, is do to the inability of leadership to solve the problem. They are usually better at creating problems than solving them. I am no activist, even on my own accord. But that does not mean I do not have a little common sense.

 

As a hypothetical social thought experiment, I would like to create a social parallel to the drug problem so one can see how it forms and evolves. The group I would like to bully are the natural remedy marketplace. My prescription drug business is losing money and the shareholders are on my ass to do something. A cost effective path is to lobby Washington since R&D is more expensive and may not give me what I need in the short term. I am willing to grease many palms. What I need them to do is outlaw the entire natural remedy market. I did my homework, I am can make a strong case using 10% of the data that shows a wide variety of these products can cause harm. The other 90% of the data I will ignor since it would weaken my case. Besides, these guys want the money, they just need a good prefabricated line of bull so they can create the illusion of doing something good for the American people.

 

I realize many of these natural drugs are actually useful, so I also need to grease a few palms at the FDA. They do not have to reject things, that would look to suspicious, they only have to delay them long enough for the politians to muddy the water. Then it will be easier to reject them without raising as many eyebrows. My hope is that the market will shift back to my synthetic products. If the stockholders see the ball starting to roll they will cut me some slack.

 

Once the ball gets rolling, good citizens who yesterday were going about their lives, as usual, full of hope, now become instant criminals. The lawyers will love this since I just created thousands of new cases. I may even get a kickback from the lawyers to offset some of my investment.

 

Because it is an unjust law, people will sense that and refuse to go along. Those who don't lose anything by the law, since they do not use natural remedies, won't care either way. But eventually will realize that they can use the law as an excuse to be a-holes. I hate my neighbor, now I have a way to legally stick it to him. Besides he is inferior to me because he is an criminal and I am not.

 

The former shop keeper, who was making a descent living to feed his family and enjoy life, will want to continue. With supplies being cut back, he will have to raise prices and maybe even go underground and become part of the blackmarket. This strategy may actually increase his profits so he can go from tee-shirts to gold chains. In his mind, there is nothing wrong with what he is doing since he is helping people get what they want, or now what they need, because things are getting scarcer.

 

If a lot of the citizens are ignoring the govenment, since they believe they are on someone's payroll, the government will have to get tougher and set some target examples to scare the others. The little old lady who has grown a medicine root for sixty years, that she makes tea from, and shares with her neighbors, because it settles the stomach, becomes the center of a swat bust. In the eyes of the law she is as guilty as anybody who disobeys the law and taking her down will show everyone that the law applies to everyone (except those at the top).

 

Eventually, the blackmarket gets organized and is able to lobby the local polititians and police forces. These officals personally don't see the big problem with their neighbors using these natural remedies, but their duty is to enforce the law. If they turn their heads every now and then, it may actually satisfy some of the guilt assoociated with doing their jobs. The internal complacency causes the govenment to need to act even stricter and begins to decentralize and spread its tenticles into the country. The parallel result will be addiction and dependancy that didn't happen before the law. Some people are compulsive with the sweetest fruits being the forbidden fruits. Other are low in self esteem and this a way to reinforce that believe with the negative help of the self rightoeus.

 

If we let the experiment run long enough we forget about the original cause and only look at the predictament we are in. One assumes that if we ever repeal the law all hell would break loose. The fact of the matter, the law caused this hell to break loose. If we changed the law this late in the game, it would also mean a lot of lost jobs. There are a lot of lawyers, judges, prison workers, police, rehab, etc type jobs dependant on this law. The curent political solution is to use the law as a way to create even more jobs. It is a perfect job creator because it will never end, since the more jobs created the worse the problem becomes, requiring more jobs, etc.. All these jobs are based on blood money, the blood of victumless crimes.

[Jim]

An example of criminal violation of constitutional rights, is connected to the presumption of innocents until proven guilty. Drug testing allows one to be assumed guilty until they prove their innocence with the drug test. If one refuses the test, they are guilty even if they are innocent.

 

I'm not informed about criminal law but cops can't pull people off the street at random to test for drugs. There must be probable cause. In a similar way, police can make suspected criminals exhibit themselves in a lineup or may make a suspected rapist provide DNA.

 

If the police violate the Constitution as it has been interpreted by case law, the evidence gathered will likely be excluded from the trial. The Judges I know take that kind of issue very seriously even when they have to take heat for letting criminals "off on a technicality." Fortunately, most Judges do not view the Constitution as a technicality.

 

The presumption of innocence, in any event, applies when the case is tried with whatever evidence has been lawfully gathered and admitted.

 

The procedures seem fair to me although I agree there is a legitimate issue as to what drugs should be criminalized.

[sunspot]

I believe that someone is innocent unil proven guilty. This should go across the board, not just in the criminal sense. Farming out the dirty work to vendors should not buffer the government against the consequences of breaking the spirit of American justice. However, if that how the game is now suppose to be played than maybe we can extrapolate the theme. Anything worse or that costs more than drugs in the workplace should also be subject to the same treatment. One thing that comes to mind are lying polititians. We should have random lie detector tests since these lies can add up to a great deal of expense for the American people.

[Jim]

I believe that someone is innocent unil proven guilty. This should go across the board, not just in the criminal sense. Farming out the dirty work to vendors should not buffer the government against the consequences of breaking the spirit of American justice. However, if that how the game is now suppose to be played than maybe we can extrapolate the theme. Anything worse or that costs more than drugs in the workplace should also be subject to the same treatment. One thing that comes to mind are lying polititians. We should have random lie detector tests since these lies can add up to a great deal of expense for the American people.

 

What dirty work is being farmed out to vendors by the government? Your complaint is drug testing in the private sector?

[sunspot]

That policy of the private sector is an extension of the govenment policy. It is not job performance or heath care dollar that is in question but conformity to the policy. The rational arguments of all the wasted time and extra health care costs does have a hint of truth. Maybe this should be the litmus test instead of the current cart blanche invasion of the privacy that takes away the right to be presumed innnocent until proven guilty.

 

When labor unions were busted up, business decided to go back to the 1900's and exploit even the worker's private time. The next thing is to require that they only buy from company stores. Or they can give the employee low interest rates loans for housing and then fire them so they violate the contract, allowing them to repossess the house. If they decide to control private time, them the employee is on the payroll at home working overtime. Maybe this could be the basis for a class action suit; lost wages.

[Jim]

I'm bored tonight, so I'll play.

 

That policy of the private sector is an extension of the govenment policy.

 

I can't see why.

 

It is not job performance or heath care dollar that is in question but conformity to the policy.

 

You wouldn't oppose testing for all jobs would you? What about an airplane pilot?

 

The rational arguments of all the wasted time and extra health care costs does have a hint of truth.

 

Who made an argument for wasted time and extra health care costs? I'm confused. Who, exactly, are you arguing with here?

 

Maybe this should be the litmus test instead of the current cart blanche invasion of the privacy that takes away the right to be presumed innnocent until proven guilty.

 

There is a carte blanche invasion of privacy in America? Can you describe the form of this invasion?

 

When labor unions were busted up, business decided to go back to the 1900's and exploit even the worker's private time.

 

There are no labor unions in America? All labor laws past post 1900 have been repealed?

 

The next thing is to require that they only buy from company stores.

 

Who is arguing for a return to the days of company stores?

 

Or they can give the employee low interest rates loans for housing and then fire them so they violate the contract, allowing them to repossess the house.

 

But if the loans were low rate, why wouldn't the employee keep the loan and get another job?

 

If they decide to control private time, them the employee is on the payroll at home working overtime. Maybe this could be the basis for a class action suit; lost wages.

 

Who is controlling private time?