# Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009 "2015-08-04T21:07:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/201 "2015-08-12T17:22:23Z")
Hey, c’mon, if he turns out to be a native Arabic or Russian speaker or whatever, we could help him refine his thesis instead of mocking him. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/202 "2015-08-12T17:22:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Whoever gave that guy a thesaurus for Christmas should be shot. I agree, provided that person is given a trial by a common law jury, not the fake juries we have today. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/203 "2015-08-12T17:32:04Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > As to the questions, statements, accusations, land mines, concerning the capacity to understand meaning through language, those changing the subject from what the subject is to the subject of comprehending language are those who further divide the whole into greater divisions. You have to have a common language before you can agree on what the subject _is_. Your language is apparently unique to you. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/204 "2015-08-12T17:38:11Z")
Josf, you have a very serious problem in communicating. Incomprehensibility makes discussion impossible. Although what you have posted might make sense to you, to others it appears more as: [INDENT]\*…ereh .ytliug eb ot dias era “sedis htob” erehw ,raw emalf a sa ot derrefer yllacitsimehpue won ,lebiL dellac emirc a sa dootsrednu ecno saw hcihw ,noitanissassA retcarahC etutitsnoc taht senots tsrif eht gniworht esoht fo )tnuocca etarucca( kcart peek ot thguo enoemoS .2# )noitasucca( etabeD naelcnU taht lebal lliw I .etabed naelcnu fo elpmaxe rehtona tey eb ot sraeppa tahT “.ogniB drowzzuB namdeirF notliM fo emag a ekil sdaer tsop taht ,sekiY” :etorw srekE nayrB ?etabed naelc fo elpmaxe na taht si dna ,noitcejorp ro ecnerefsnart fo elpmaxe na taht sI .ecnetnes hsilgnE evoba eht ni srorre 3 stroper rekcehc lleps ehT “kcals emos yug eht evig os egaugnal tsrif sih tnsi hsilgne gnisseug mI” :etorw loocrisdam ?etabed naelc fo elpmaxe na taht sI “?skivehsnem eht ro ,stsilaredeF eht troppus snaicurcisoR eht diD .yzah adnik sti os ,elihw a neeb stI” :etorw rotadicule /gro.kcolctbedsu.www//:ptth “.denoitseuq eb ton llahs ,noilleber ro noitcerrusni gnisserppus ni secivres rof seitnuob dna snoisnep fo tnemyap rof derrucni stbed gnidulcni ,wal yb dezirohtua ,setatS detinU eht fo tbed cilbup eht fo ytidilav ehT” :sredro lacipyt gniwollof eht eussi revo ekat ohw slanimirc eht hcihw ta tniop ot waL fo eluR dna ,ssecorp eud ,yruj yb lairt secalper “yroehT ycaripsnoC” neht ,gnikrow waL fo eluR regnol on si ereht dna ,revo sekat eluR lanimirC fI “.retrab fo meti na sa yeksihw desu nemsreitnorF eht dna tseW eht ni ecracs saw hsaC .reitnorf eht no gnivil snaciremA delknar yeksihw fo noitcudorp eht no xat eht dna dnim sih degnahc noos yrusaerT eht fo yraterceS eht ,rewop nI .tnemnrevog lanoitan eht yb desu elttil eb dluow sexat hcus “,wal esicxe fo tirips yrotpmerep dna evitisiuqni eht koorb lli lliw elpoep eht fo suineg eh]t[” esuaceb taht deton notlimaH ,21 .N tsilaredeF nI .yeksihw no esicxe na ssap ot ssergnoC eht decnivnoc notlimaH ,tbed eht no tseretni eht yap pleh oT” .margorp tbed s’notlimaH desoppo snacilbupeR ,slevel naeporuE ot esir yllautneve dna sremraf namoey eht no llaf dluow nedrub xat siht taht gniveileB .tbed lauteprep eht no tseretni eht yap ot tsuj yrassecen eb dluow ,detacitsongorp snacilbupeR ,noitaxat fo slevel hgiH .deniur si tiderc ro diap eb tsum ,deton flesmih notlimaH sa ,tbeD .tbed yb thguorw yresim eht fo egdelwonk dnahtsrif dah suht dna srotiderc hsitirB ot smus suomrone dewo ,nacilbupeR yltnanimoderp erew ohw ,htuoS eht fo sretnalp dna sremraf ehT .ysereh erew slasoporp tbed eht snacilbupeR oT .tnecrep 5.4 tuoba gninnur kcots eht no tseretni htiw ,setacifitrec tbed lanoitan dna etats rof egnahcxe ni deussi eb dluow kcots laredeF “.yenom fo sesoprup eht fo tsom semussa ti” ,notlimaH denialpxe “,ecnedifnoc dehsilbatse fo tcejbo eht dna ,dednuf ylreporp si tbed lanoitan eht hcihw ni seirtnuoc nI” .stifeneb s’tbed deviecrep notlimaH ,dediova eb ot ecanem a sa tbed was ohw snacilbupeR ynam dekcohs erugif egral a hcus hguohT .noillim 08$ saw tbed lanoitan eht ,tiderC cilbuP no tropeR sih evag notlimaH emit eht tA .noitercsid s’tnemnrevog eht ot tfel eb dluow lapicnirp eht fo noitpmedeR .noitairporppa launna na tuohtiw tseretni s’raey hcae yap ot seunever xat fo noitrop a edisa gnittes ssergnoC eht denoisivne notlimaH ,tbed lanoitan gnidnuf yB .tiderc cilbup gnihsilbatse ni tsissa dluow tbed lanoitan dednuf a deveileb eH .noitpmussa tbed naht rehtraf og ot detnaw notlimaH tuB" :etouQ 7303693041/pd/…emA-gnimialceR/moc.nozama.www//:ptth :)tsixe selpmaxe ynaM( waL fo eluR ylppa ot eruliaf a fo elpmaxe nA “.yroeht” a ton ,tcaf dehsilbatse yllufwal a sa redruM ycaripsnoC setartsnomed ybereht hcihw ;redruM ycaripsnoC fo ytliug dnuof si desucca eht ,krow ot dednetni si waL fo eluR sa ,skrow waL fo eluR retfA .lairt “ydeeps” a htiw hguorht swollof noitasucca dias neht ,krow ot desoppus si waL fo eluR sa skrow waL fo eluR fI .redrum ycaripsnoc fo desucca enoemos tsniaga enoemos yb edam noitasucca lamrof a sedulcni taht ssecorp a si ereht ,esaC redruM ycaripsnoC .rJ gniK rehtuL nitraM eht sa hcus ,secnatsmucric suoicipsus rednu derujni eb ot dnuof si enoemos nehW ?sthgiR fo lliB eht dna ,evoba detouq setabeD s’toillE ni sdrow esoht ,ecnednepednI fo noitaralceD ehT ,21:7 wehttaM eht ni hguone llew denialpxe sa wal fo ssecorp eud fo erawanu yltnerappa yadot elpoep era yhW " .stsilaredef-itna eht ekovni evreseR laredeF eht tuoba seiroeht ycaripsnoc emoS ?knab lanoitan a saw stsilaredef-itna eht yb desoppo sgniht eht fo eno taht tcaf eht htiw od ot gnihtyna sah PO eht fi rednow I tub ,sseug dliw a tsuj si sihT" :etorw nigriVreliopS :nwardhtiw si rehto eht nehw gnisaec eno eht ,lacorpicer era noitcetorp dna ecnaigella taht ,wal ni noitisop niatrec a gnieb ti ,noitcetorp sih fo tuo su devorp oga gnol sah hcihw tcaf a - su no raw gniyvel sih yb dna ,noitcetorp sih fo tuo su seralced eh hcihw yb ,tnemailraP fo tca etal eht ot tnessa sih yb devlossid won saw dnob siht taht tub ,ecnaigella yb mih ot dnuob neeb dah ew ,gnik eht ot sa ,tahT :seitilitsoh fo tnemecnemmoc eht yb devlossid won saw dna ,ylno laredef neeb dah noitcennoc ruo ,raf os ,taht dna ;meht gnisopmi fo dessessop yeht sthgir yna morf ton dna ,ylno ecnecseiuqca ruo morf ycaciffe gnivired edart ruo no stniartser rieht ,meht fo tnednepedni neeb syawla dah ew ,dnalgnE fo tnemailraP ro elpoep eht ot sa ,tahT :stsixe ydaerla hcihw tcaf a eralced dluohs ew rehtehw tub ;ton era ew tahw sevlesruo ekam dluohs ew ,ecnednepedni fo noitaralced a yb ,rehtehw ton saw noitseuq eht tahT :etouQ :)ypoc fdp ni 47,37( 85 ,75 egap I emuloV .demrof gnieb saw esnefed lautum rof noitaredef a sa ,delbmessA ssergnoC ni aciremA fo setatS detinU ehT ni setabed gnimrof eht gnirud nekops saw ti sa )waL fo eluR( noitaredef fo gninaem eht fo elpmaxe na si )etouq txen( setabeD s’toillE morf nekaT .setabeD s’toillE sknil msacrazC ?srebmem murof eht fo eno no kcatta na etaitini ot eno siht kcip yhw ;selur yb denrevog murof yna no daer ot ton sreferp rekcatta eht taht sdrow eht tsap llorcs ylisae nac rekcatta diaS .won dna ereh noitasucca lamrofni na gnihsilbup ma I .rotaredom a I ma ron ,renoitucexe dna ,yruj ,egduj ton ma I .denrecnoc ma I sa raf sa 1# etabed naelcnu si tahT “.t’nod esaelP” :kcatta na setaitini ecaM nhoJ .sitnA dellac erew ohw esoht dna stsilaredeF )eslaf( fo senil eht gnola noisivid eht si PO eht ni denialpxe ydaerla noisivid A .eluR lanimirC susrev waL fo eluR gnola snoisiviD :si cipoT ehT .cipoT eht fo tniop eht gnissim eb yam enoemos neht ,spuorg owt tsael ta otni srednuoF dias gnidivid tuohtiw srednuoF tuoba skaeps enoemos fI .noitutitsnoC )tneluduarf( 7871 eht ot sthgiR fo lliB eht si elpmaxe rehtonA .wal nommoc dna ,dnal eht fo wal eht ,ytrebil fo muidallap eht ,earret megel sa nwonk osla ;yruj yb lairt dellac gnihtemos yb deifilpmexe si elpmaxe rehtonA lmth.tpircsnar…ahc/stibihxe/vog.sevihcra.www//:ptth :elpmaxe rehtona si ereH “.stehporP eht dna waL eht pu smus siht rof ,uoy ot od meht evah dluow uoy tahw srehto ot od ,gnihtyreve ni oS” :elpmaxe na si ereH .smrof ynam ni deifilpmexe neeb sah waL fo eluR “!elur lanimirc” dnefed ot siht ezilareneg ot tnaw t’ndluow erus I tuB .su ot seoreh tub ,nworc eht fo thgis eht ni “slanimirc” erew yehT .t’ndid ylniatrec setatS detinU eht fo srednuof eht taht nevig “?wal eht fo rettel tcaxe eht wollof syawla ew oD” ,eb thgim noitseuq eht stseggus 6771 ot noisulla ehT :etouQ :etorw suponirT .lleW eluR lanimirC a ot enod neeb gnivah gninosioP lleW evissaM fo esac a eb ot 21:7 wehttaM redisnoc yam tniopweiv eluR lanimirC a morf enoemoS “.denoitseuq eb ton llahs ,noilleber ro noitcerrusni gnisserppus ni secivres rof seitnuob dna snoisnep fo tnemyap rof derrucni stbed gnidulcni ,wal yb dezirohtua ,setatS detinU eht fo tbed cilbup eht fo ytidilav ehT” :ereh deifilpmexe eb dluoc tniopweiv waL fo eluR a morf gninosioP lleW evissaM fo elpmaxe nA .dnim ni waL fo eluR htiw enod ,slanimirC yb eluR ot enod gninosioP lleW evissaM sa nees eb nac evoba tahT “.rehtom daed reh ot gnignilc llits ybab a eucser dna niaga dnal ot saw nospmohT ,retaL .latipsoh ymra tseraen eht ot nwolf ,nerdlihc evif gnidulcni ,snailivic enin eht dah nospmohT ,dednal retpocileh eucser a nehW .esemanteiV eht dna nem s’yellaC neewteb flesmih tup eH ).os enod gnivah rebmemer ton did eh dias retal nospmohT tub ,snailivic eht ta derif yeht fi “snaciremA eht no pu nepo” ot feihc werc retpocileh sih dlot nospmohT stroper tnuocca enO( .snailivic eht detaucave eh elihw ereht nem sih dloh ot yellaC dlot dna retpocileh sih dednal eH .evila llits erew ohw elpoep wef a gnidulcni ,hctid eht ni seidob was ,citnarf tsomla won yb ,nospmohT hguH” lmth.ortni\_lyM…tcejorp/ytlucaf/ude.ckmu.2wal//:ptth :siht sa hcus selpmaxe sedulcni waL fo eluR “.sredro gniwollof tsuj” neeb evah ot dias erew srelur lanimirc eht gniyebo esoht dna smitciv tneconni ot sgniht elbakaepsnu od ot deredro erew slanimirc eht yberehw ,yrutnec tsal eht ni ylerem si taht dna ,elur anihC tsinummoC ,elur kivehsloB ,elur izaN edulcni sesac cissalc ehT .smitciv rieht nopu elur lanimirc fo gninaem eht enifed slanimirc sa noitseuq tuohtiw deyebo dna deussi si redro )lanimirc( larommi nA :eluR lanimirC gninifeD .waL fo eluR drawot skrow enoemos nehw llew eluR lanimirC eht gninosiop ylevissam enoemos ees yam eluR lanimirC drawot gnikrow enoemoS “.gninosiop-llew evissam” eb ot raeppa yam eluR lanimirC neht ,eluR lanimirC drawot gnikrow enoemos ta skool waL fo eluR drawot gnikrow enoemos fI ?eluR lanimirC ro waL fo eluR ot ecnerefer a taht sI ?gninosiop-llew evissam setutitsnoc tahW “.nosiop eht ro llew eht rehtie ezingocer tonnac I tub…gninosiop-llew evissam s’ti kniht I” :etorw msacrazC .eluR lanimirC susrev waL fo eluR gnola snoisivid snrecnoc cipot ehT ?gninrael fo erusaem etarucca eht ,morf stcartbus taht ro ,sdda taht neht ,smelborp ecnamrofrep cificeps etacinummoc ot elbanu si dna ,gnitirw si esle enoemos tahw dnatsrednu t’nseod eerged eht gnidloh eno eht fI ?denrael ro detcurtsni saw tahW .eerged eht nrae ot hguone llew demroferp sah eerged eht gnidloh eno eht erofereht dna ,gninrael ro noitcurtsni gninrecnoc ecnamrofrep cificeps rof drawa na si eerged A eluR lanimirC susrev waL fo eluR gnola snoisiviD :si cipoT ehT “.gniyas era uoy tahw dnatsrednu t’nod I dna ,waL dna yrotsiH naciremA htob ni seerged evah I” :etorw sutsurcorPesrever ot txet epyT\*[/INDENT] I encourage you to step back and work hard on your writing skills, so that you can share your information and discuss your ideas, rather than make posts that are gibberish to those who read them. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/205 "2015-08-12T18:03:27Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Hey, c’mon, if he turns out to be a native Arabic or Russian speaker or whatever, we could help him refine his thesis instead of mocking him. Two other alternatives involve medicine and crackpot argot. The 2nd would probably be more difficult to assist with, as it involves an outside social support group. As a third alternative, the OP might be presenting idiosyncratic and individually developed ideas. But the jargon seems a little too entrenched for that. At any rate I agree we could fight ignorance better if we could establish where he’s coming from. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/206 "2015-08-12T18:24:53Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > I remain undivided as far as my subjective opinions reach you? > > You do not know which side I am on? Can’t even find a “side” for you to be on. > [@Josf](#): > > The topic is Divisions along Rule of Law versus Criminal Rule. Neither of which you have defined in plain English without resorting to some sort of idiolectic jargon to which you alone are privy, so, aside from the clear notion that you are against the current Constitution (as amended) of the U.S. and the clear understanding that you enjoy misusing the word “criminal” a lot, no one knows what you are on about. (Note that even those choosing to engage you cannot agree on what you mean and you continually have to “correct” everyone as to your meanings.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/207 "2015-08-12T18:30:00Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Two other alternatives involve medicine and crackpot argot. Let’s not go down the road regarding speculations about medicine. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/208 "2015-08-12T18:58:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Can’t even find a “side” for you to be on. Well there’s thems wots on th’ inside, and them’s wots on th’ outside. I reckon he’s on th’ inside. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/209 "2015-08-12T19:11:25Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Well there’s thems wots on th’ inside, and them’s wots on th’ outside. I reckon he’s on th’ inside. You sure? 'Cause he appears to be against the U.S. government, which would put him on the outside. Of course, he feels he is among the few people, (maybe the only person), who knows the “truth,” so he would be on the inside. But, then, since he would not want to be cooped up with a bunch of “criminals,” he would be on the outside. On the other hand, (I have five fingers), he probably regards the Constitution on a par with the Zombie Apocalypse, so he would want to be on the inside. This is so confusing. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/210 "2015-08-12T19:20:50Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Two side once again are spelled out well enough for anyone capable of discerning language. > > Side A is offered by John Adams. Or rather, by your interpretation of John Adams. > [@Josf](#): > > Side B is offered by the opposition (once again): That is the definition in the various dictionaries I consulted, yes. > [@Josf](#): > > Side B above offers no message contained in the words quoted that concern the nature of the formation of “separate states.” Is the nature of the formation of a federal union a voluntary association or an involuntary association? I suppose it could be either. Whether it was voluntary or coerced isn’t part of the definition. Voluntary ones are probably more common, historically, depending on whether you consider empires like Germany under Wilhelm II a federation or not. Are you at least conceding that “federation” applies to countries, and not any association a person could have? > [@Josf](#): > > Side A offers words that concern the nature of the formation and the nature of what causes the formation to end. It is a voluntary association for mutual defense when it is a federal union, and when members of the former federal union attack members of the former federal union the union is no longer federal. > > As to the questions, statements, accusations, land mines, concerning the capacity to understand meaning through language, those changing the subject from what the subject is to the subject of comprehending language are those who further divide the whole into greater divisions. > > Side A explains the nature of the association as a voluntary association and when members of the former association attack members of the former association the attackers (breaking the peace) are accurately accountable as the cause causing the end of the formation known as a federal union. > > Side B makes no distinction as to the nature of the association for reasons that only side B knows, or confesses. > > Side A explains, in English, the nature of the association. > > Once again: Words mean what they mean. If you wish to stipulate that the nation formed by the American Colonies was a mutual self-defense pact undertaken voluntarily, I won’t argue with you. If you argue that government requires the consent of the governed, and an attack by part of a state on another part is grounds for revoking that consent, I won’t argue with that either. It’s not exactly a radical idea in the United States, for obvious reasons. I will argue with your idea that all federations must be understood through the prism of your ideas about the American Revolution. > [@Josf](#): > > If someone alive today cannot read, comprehend, and understand the nature of the federal union as explained in the quote above, then perhaps someone can reword the intended message in words that can be understood by the reader. Wait, now it’s **the** federal union (ie, America) and not federations generally? Ok, problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/211 "2015-08-12T19:26:53Z")
> [@Josf](#): > > Side A: > > Side B: > The two sides (divisions) along Rule of Law versus Criminal (Tyrannical) Rule are clearly expressed in English (not by me) for anyone caring to participate in the subject matter of the Topic; whereby the subject matter of the Topic is not me personally. Huh? Even under the Articles, the federal government a) existed and b) was ensconced in a capital city. What possible reason is there to place that capital in one of the states, and thus allow that state’s government an undue influence on lawmaking, up to and including [refusing to enforce the law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Mutiny_of_1783)? If anything, such a situation smacks of, well, “criminal law”. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/212 "2015-08-12T19:30:31Z")
And could we maybe move on to discussing actual ideas, not dickering over definitions and “sides”? You plainly have some strong ideas about what the government should do, and be. Why not discuss those? **Czarcasm** , for some reason I am unable to quote your post #188. The law-from-the-bible twist is a new one on me. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/213 "2015-08-12T19:43:11Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > And could we maybe move on to discussing actual ideas, not dickering over definitions and “sides”? You plainly have some strong ideas about what the government should do, and be. Why not discuss those? > > **Czarcasm** , for some reason I am unable to quote your post #188. The law-from-the-bible twist is a new one on me. He has been asked more than once how he wants to proceed, but now that you’ve asked…😃 He has quoted that particular bible verse as if our government is(or damn well should be) based around it more than once in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/214 "2015-08-12T19:50:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > He has been asked more than once how he wants to proceed, but now that you’ve asked…😃 We’ll see. I think there’s an interesting discussion to be had about trying to have a government that protects its citizens’ freedoms, without taking away their freedoms in the process. I haven’t yet heard an adequate explanation for how that’s supposed to work…it’s something every libertarian has to grapple with at some point (for the record, I think democracy should win out). > [@Czarcasm](#): > > He has quoted that particular bible verse as if our government is(or damn well should be) based around it more than once in this thread. He has, alarmingly. Libertarianism has enough of an image problem as it is without throwing theocracy into the mix. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/215 "2015-08-12T20:04:04Z")
There are variations, such as Christian Libertarianism and Libertarian Christianity(which, believe it or not, are totally separate things). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/216 "2015-08-12T20:31:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > There are variations, such as Christian Libertarianism and Libertarian Christianity(which, believe it or not, are totally separate things). Splitters! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/217 "2015-08-12T20:43:20Z")
**Human Action** , it is not fair to ask you, but could you post what you think is **Josf** ’s position? If you get it wrong, maybe **Josf** will then correct it and maybe I can figure out what is being discussed. The more I read his posts, the more confused I get. What is it about the US government that makes it a rule of criminals rather than a rule of law? The only thing I read that seemed responsive was, on the one side, Jefferson said the colonies were no longer federated with the British Empire when the War of Independence began, but on the other hand, Washington DC is a federal city. And I don’t know what that is supposed to mean. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/218 "2015-08-12T21:58:13Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > **Human Action** , it is not fair to ask you, but could you post what you think is **Josf** ’s position? If you get it wrong, maybe **Josf** will then correct it and maybe I can figure out what is being discussed. > > The more I read his posts, the more confused I get. It’s worth a shot. The usual idea is that the only moral societies are voluntary ones, meaning societies without any form of compulsion in behavior. The sole governing principle is the [non-aggression principle.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) The _only_ demand a citizen may make of another is that they refrain from physically harming or stealing from him. The _only_ demand the state - if there is one - can make of a citizen is that they don’t harm or steal from anyone. **Josf** has linked to a few writers who’ve undertaken the onerous task of sussing out how such a society would actually work; his references to bonded policemen (as opposed to government-appointed ones) is part of that. I’ve read various elaborate plans for private law enforcement - some involve buying insurance, others paying a fee to a firm, others are basically just neighborhood militias. Representative democracy is unacceptable, because it requires people to abide by laws they don’t agree with and is thus coercion. Taxation is unacceptable, because it is coercion. Mandating that everyone abide by the non-aggression principle _isn’t_ coercion, because something something mumble mumble. The people must either agree that the voluntary model is best, or leave the country; there is no mechanism to give the state more power, nor can there ever be. These folks pay particular attention to voluntary societies that they can point to as success stories. The US under the Articles of Confederation are supposedly one such example, but it was supposedly ended by ratification of the Constitution. Oh, and there can evidently be no honest disagreement about any of this; either you believe in a society governed solely by the non-aggression principle, or you’re a predator who wishes to steal from others. Or, you’re a deluded fool. I associate these ideas with [Murray Rothbard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), but today you can found countless Internet screeds devoted to the idea of a voluntary society. That’s the usual spiel. **Josf** might differ in some ways. > [@Shodan](#): > > What is it about the US government that makes it a rule of criminals rather than a rule of law? It can, and does, make you do things that you didn’t agree to, and your state government didn’t necessarily agree to. Like paying taxes, or going to war, or paying taxes, following zoning laws, or paying taxes. Mainly the taxes. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/219 "2015-08-13T04:16:52Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > These folks pay particular attention to voluntary societies that they can point to as success stories. The US under the Articles of Confederation are supposedly one such example, but it was supposedly ended by ratification of the Constitution. Excellent post and thank you. I quoted this portion because I’m curious as to why these people believe that life under the Articles of Confederation was a bastion of freedom. In the sense that the national government exercised very little power over the states, there was more freedom, but as a citizen in relation to one’s individual state, the coercion remained the same. In some sense it was greater than today as states at the time had laws (that they actually enforced) against sodomy, fornication, adultery, travelling on the Sabbath day, and using profanity in public, and a host of other laws that would be considered terribly restrictive by today’s standards. Why is it freedom simply because two steps up the government chain of command has a great deal of freedom with respect to the third step above? For example imagine if Nazi Germany was a collection of 15 different states that all subscribed to the same general policy of aggression and genocide. These 15 states were all loosely connected (similar to the AOC) with Hitler at the head. It seems that under the OP’s definition (as you describe it) this type of society would be a shining example of freedom that we should strive for. All the Constitution did was transfer power from the states to the national government. Although we can quibble about which is best, if the end result is “coercion” from one government source, then why do I care which level of government is doing it? If jack booted thugs are kicking down my door without a warrant or probable cause, is it somehow better if it is the state police instead of the U.S. Marshals? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009/220 "2015-08-13T12:28:25Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It’s worth a shot. The usual idea is that the only moral societies are voluntary ones, meaning societies without any form of compulsion in behavior. The sole governing principle is the [non-aggression principle.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle) The _only_ demand a citizen may make of another is that they refrain from physically harming or stealing from him. The _only_ demand the state - if there is one - can make of a citizen is that they don’t harm or steal from anyone. > > **Josf** has linked to a few writers who’ve undertaken the onerous task of sussing out how such a society would actually work; his references to bonded policemen (as opposed to government-appointed ones) is part of that. I’ve read various elaborate plans for private law enforcement - some involve buying insurance, others paying a fee to a firm, others are basically just neighborhood militias. > > Representative democracy is unacceptable, because it requires people to abide by laws they don’t agree with and is thus coercion. Taxation is unacceptable, because it is coercion. Mandating that everyone abide by the non-aggression principle _isn’t_ coercion, because something something mumble mumble. > > The people must either agree that the voluntary model is best, or leave the country; there is no mechanism to give the state more power, nor can there ever be. > > These folks pay particular attention to voluntary societies that they can point to as success stories. The US under the Articles of Confederation are supposedly one such example, but it was supposedly ended by ratification of the Constitution. > > Oh, and there can evidently be no honest disagreement about any of this; either you believe in a society governed solely by the non-aggression principle, or you’re a predator who wishes to steal from others. Or, you’re a deluded fool. > > I associate these ideas with [Murray Rothbard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), but today you can found countless Internet screeds devoted to the idea of a voluntary society. > > That’s the usual spiel. **Josf** might differ in some ways. > > It can, and does, make you do things that you didn’t agree to, and your state government didn’t necessarily agree to. Like paying taxes, or going to war, or paying taxes, following zoning laws, or paying taxes. Mainly the taxes. Thanks very much, **Human Action**. **Josf** , is this accurate? Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/divisions-along-rule-of-law-versus-criminal-rule/727009.md?page=12)