But wait, we already have a word that describes this violation of liberty, “injustice”. “Crime” is defined as a violation of the law. A sentance like “In the antebellum south it was a crime to teach slaves how to read,” is perfectly understandable, isn’t it? That teaching slaves to read was a crime was unjust, surely, but that doesn’t mean that teaching slaves to read wasn’t defined as crime.
You contend that Judges should enforce justice, according to self-evident Truths. Sounds good to me. However, how can I be sure that what is evident to me is also evident to a particular judge? My plan therefore (just pulling ideas out of the air here) how about we write down–in advance–what we consider those just actions to be. And perhaps publish them in some sort of books, so that the judge can read them ahead of time, get some idea about what We The People consider self-evident Justice. Then the Judges could use those prewritten examples of Justice as guidelines when making their decisions. With me so far? And if Judges didn’t follow our self-evident guidelines, we’d have another layer of Judges on top of that…who would review the Judges decisions and reverse them if they didn’t follow the prewritten rules? We’d have to have a name for these prewritten declarations of what is Just and what is UnJust of course. If only there were a simple word to describe such a complex idea. Well, we could just use the acronym, PDOWIJAWIU until something better comes along. That way, Judges wouldn’t be able to use their own idiosyncratic notions of what is just and unjust, instead they’d be obliged to follow the PDOWIJAWIU. Doesn’t that seem like a worthwhile proposal?
Also, please explain why a raven is like a writing desk.
Sometimes the lack of clarity reflects a lack of understanding - a flaw in the speaker, not in his language.
Actually, I believe a “tort” is a civil wrong not involving a breach of contract. So this would be an example, not of a shortage of words, but a tendency to use them incorrectly.
I believe it is almost impossible to produce understanding in the minds of an audience unless there is already understanding in the mind of the speaker. I imagine if you could address some of the objections in this thread, it might be easier to believe you really understand what you are saying.
Okay. Law can both guide and dictate a decision, depending on how stringently the law is written. Personally, I prefer some room be left for judicial discretion.
I’d encourage judges (indeed all government officials) to respect inalienable rights, since they’re required by the letter and spirit of the constitution to do so.
So much for generalities. Are you going to start discussing (anytime soon) specific instances where you feel a judge has not been sufficiently encouraged? And can you name a non-dictatorial nation?
Ugh.
Maybe I’m simply confused by the OP’s complete lack of sensical writing, but the only thing I think he’s said is, “Judgesshould use their own judgement.” If so, this is a very long thread for a very short idea. :dubious:
I think he is objecting to judges using their own judgement. He wants some kind of objective standard judges should use to make their judgements, base on some vaugue concept of inalienable rights and liberty, but we have no idea what he means by these.
Oh, it’s easy to understand what he’s talking about. It’s “unalienable rights” that are the objective standard. We all agree exaclty what those rights are, so there is no reason that we can’t have philosopher judges who can preside over courts without being encumbered by the inconvenience of “law”. I mean “law” is overrated anyway, when compared to “unalienable rights”. It’s self evident. Q.E.D. Case closed. Yada, yada, yada.
If our rights are so self-evident that we don’t need to bother even talking about exactly what those rights are, even in the vaguest of ways, then why exactly is the US a tyranny? Why did we decide to have these “laws” in the first place, when all we needed were a few judges able to apply Justice according to Self-Evident Truth?
The problem for RW is that we all have different ideas about what those “Truths” are. So, we write down, in advance, in as detailed a way as possible, what exactly those rights are and how and when they should be applied. Those written down detailed examinations of what exactly Justice should entail are given a name in the english language, we call them "PDOWIJAWIU"s. Wait, no we don’t. Anyway, since not everyone agrees all the time with everyone else, especially when the controversy is over who’s ox gored who’s ox, can you agree that it is usually pretty helpful to have rules written down in advance for judges to follow, and that we can give those rules a simple english word to describe them?
Your response is greatly appreciated. I applaud your stand.
Are they being encouraged? I am not convinced that is always the case. Mandatory sentencing comes to mind. Do you have evidence either way?
America seems more confused than others in the words: sin and crime.
A sin is a tort (injury) against god.
A crime is a tort against liberty.
Those that do not recognize this difference call criminal to those that do not harm or threaten liberty.
Which countries regulate what we prohibit? In truth I find that regulation minimizes social problems (secures rights) where prohibition exacerbates problems (takes rights) and unjustly creates “criminals”. That is where we will find the answer to your question.
Saudi Arabia regulates the execution of apostates. The United States prohibits it. So I guess Saudi Arabia isn’t a dictatorship, while the US is. OK, that’s one.
If you are afraid to nominate a country yourself, please allow me to nominate Denmark. They are less dictatorial in vices. Are you aware of any rights they unjustly take?
Afraid? Heh. I just wanted you to offer up some kind of evidence of your incoherent claims.
Less dictatorial? Is there no nation that is wholly undictatorial? If not, doesn’t that suggest every nation is dictatorial, thus rendering the concept of dictatorial meaningless.
I see you are still having difficulty in understanding. Please try to follow:
A sin is not a crime, even though some would call it a crime.
No one, especially a government, has the right to punish in the name of god.
To do so is a crime, even though some would call it not.
Pre-meditated murder is the worst crime.
A country that takes unalienable rights in the name of law is a dictatorship.
prohibition (def): the denial of an unalienable right.
regulation (def): the mechanism to protect conflicting rights.
Murder is not an unalienable right. Murder falls outside of the realm of prohibit-regulate.
It is impossible to prohibit, even murder. We can only do our best to protect as many rights as possible, not take them in the name of god. We must encourage and even insist that all follow their obligation to Liberty.
I invite you to answer my questions.