Mountain man in court

[poptab]

He's a lawyer. Kirk S. Freeman, look him up.

I'm aware.

 

[rambone]

People have foraged for food off the land for all of human existence. What should be the penalty for doing so in the Land of the Free?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

These questions seemed reasonable to me but you only respond with disrespectful snark.

Those questions were not reasonable and you know it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

People have foraged for food off the land for all of human existence. What should be the penalty for doing so in the Land of the Free?

Whatever the people of Montana decide. You cannot forage for food from the property of another.

 

[rambone]

Whatever the people of Montana decide. You cannot forage for food from the property of another.

If the land belongs to "the people" as you claim then Mountain Man is a part owner of the land. He has a right to forage and survive off of it.

 

[poptab]

There's a difference between catching enough to eat and commercial fishing. If he is only guilty of the former then the tax payers will be worse off by putting him in jail.

My questions were only aimed at reaching this conclusion.

How is that unreasonable?

 

[phylodog]

If the land belongs to "the people" as you claim then Mountain Man is a part owner of the land. He has a right to forage and survive off of it.

As well as a responsibility to contribute to its preservation.

 

[poptab]

The fish are partly his as long as he just enjoys their company from the banks but as soon as he tries to catch one they are not his and he is guilty of stealing.

This seems absurd to me.

Private property rights are the only know working solution to the tragedy of the commons.

 

[88GT]

I believe many people need to be told what not to do.

I happen to agree. But I believe it is the parents' responsibility to do the telling. We don't pass laws to tell people what to do. Laws don't stop behavior. Laws only provide a legal means for punishing those who violate society's norms.

We (society) get to decide what people should or shouldn't do, it's the basis for laws and how our government is set up to work. The collective decides what is acceptable and the collective elects representatives to take those beliefs and establish them as laws. You may try to twist my words all you want, I am not advocating ruling every aspect of someone's life, far from it.

I'm not trying to twist your words. I am taking them at face value and following them to their logic conclusion. You are the one that made the comment that it was acceptable for society to tell people what to do. I'm asking you where, if they exist, are the lines that society cannot cross when dictating how a man lives his life?

As it relates to the topic at hand, if someone wants to fish on public property the collective has decided that a fishing license is required. Don't want to get one? Don't fish public waters. Don't get one and fish anyway? Suffer the consequences established by society. Don't like the laws as they are written? Gather like minded individuals, make your arguments and get the laws changed.

As it stands, I understand the licensing scheme of the use of public goods and I'm not entirely opposed to it. What I have a problem with is your implicit argument that the mere existence of a law or regulation is justification enough for its existence. By your argument, there is no law that is universally immoral or bad or wrong as long as the majority of those living in society want it. Under your paradigm there is no such thing as freedom, just permissions granted and revoked by the whims of the majority. So tomorrow society decides a particular subset of the population has to do X. Are you okay with that? If not, do you oppose it because you oppose X or because you oppose the tyrannical nature of one man dictating to another how the latter can live his life?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Private property rights are the only know working solution to the tragedy of the commons

A reasonable solution that other states have concluded in their game laws, but in Montana, as many other states, the animals belong to the state. Thus, you are stealing if you are fishing without a license.

Rationalizing theft does no one any good.

 

[phylodog]

What I have a problem with is your implicit argument that the mere existence of a law or regulation is justification enough for its existence. By your argument, there is no law that is universally immoral or bad or wrong as long as the majority of those living in society want it. Under your paradigm there is no such thing as freedom, just permissions granted and revoked by the whims of the majority. So tomorrow society decides a particular subset of the population has to do X. Are you okay with that? If not, do you oppose it because you oppose X or because you oppose the tyrannical nature of one man dictating to another how the latter can live his life?

If humans were perfect there would be no need for laws. If humans could be counted on to do the right thing we wouldn't need to have this discussion. The reality is that humans aren't perfect and cannot be relied upon to do the right thing so we have this system in place to establish guidelines, rules and consequences. I won't argue that it's perfect but I've yet to see a better option. You are relying on hypothetical perfection and I am utilizing reality. You can isolate any law or rule and minimize its necessity or relevance but very few have been created without cause. Have we gone overboard as a society on many of these laws? Absolutely. I'm well aware that laws don't change behavior but they do provide a means to implement consequences which can.

You will find rule of law no matter where you venture on this planet. The reason is because we, as human beings, cannot coexist without them. What I want to do, you won't like. What you want to do, I won't like. The compromise becomes law. The argument that no laws should exist because someone might not agree with them is doomed to failure and rather childish in my opinion.

 

[88GT]

If humans were perfect there would be no need for laws. If humans could be counted on to do the right thing we wouldn't need to have this discussion. The reality is that humans aren't perfect and cannot be relied upon to do the right thing so we have this system in place to establish guidelines, rules and consequences. I won't argue that it's perfect but I've yet to see a better option. You are relying on hypothetical perfection and I am utilizing reality. You can isolate any law or rule and minimize its necessity or relevance but very few have been created without cause. Have we gone overboard as a society on many of these laws? Absolutely. I'm well aware that laws don't change behavior but they do provide a means to implement consequences which can.

You will find rule of law no matter where you venture on this planet. The reason is because we, as human beings, cannot coexist without them. What I want to do, you won't like. What you want to do, I won't like. The compromise becomes law. The argument that no laws should exist because someone might not agree with them is doomed to failure and rather childish in my opinion.

So you're okay with mob rule. Gotcha.

ETA: on a side note, I am not arguing a no-law position. I am arguing against the 'right' of society to dictate to its members how they have to live their lives. I stated up front that laws prohibiting behavior that infringed on the rights of others were acceptable. That is actually the one role of government that I don't have a problem with. This isn't about utopia. This is about you saying that society via the majority has a right to tell others how to live. So I'm asking you to take it to the logical conclusion and explain to me where that right ends before it just becomes "too much." I posed questions to you. Will you answer them?

 

[phylodog]

It becomes too much when society decides it has become too much. Unless you're fond of the idea of a dictator deciding for you or a believer that some supreme being is going to show up and decide for us.

One person, refusing to contribute to the necessary limits and monies spent to protect a resource, and taking whatever they want because they don't believe in anyone having the authority to limit their behavior infringes on the rights of those who play by the rules.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I can appreciate what you're saying, but the laws on the books are black and white. If an officer of the law has discretion, how is that discretion definable in a court of law? That said, where does a citizens discretion play into the law, or are citizens not afforded discretion?

EDIT: DISCRETION - "the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation."

Even many of the laws aren't black and white. That's why you have mountains of case law, deciding what the result is when different circumstances are applied to the same law. Discretion is recognized in the courts, its part of checks and balances, the executive's check of the legislature. Of course citizens have discretion. Do you report every crime you see? If your favorite bar has an illegal poker game on Saturday nights and you elect not to report it, did you not just use discretion? Of course, and its legal. There are very few situations where the citizen has no legal discretion to act or to report. IC Code makes it mandatory to report the finding of a human corpse, for example, so if you happen upon a suicide in the woods you have no legal discretion as to if you report the presence of the corpse or not.

 

[Sgtusmc]

Even many of the laws aren't black and white. That's why you have mountains of case law, deciding what the result is when different circumstances are applied to the same law. Discretion is recognized in the courts, its part of checks and balances, the executive's check of the legislature. Of course citizens have discretion. Do you report every crime you see? If your favorite bar has an illegal poker game on Saturday nights and you elect not to report it, did you not just use discretion? Of course, and its legal. There are very few situations where the citizen has no legal discretion to act or to report. IC Code makes it mandatory to report the finding of a human corpse, for example, so if you happen upon a suicide in the woods you have no legal discretion as to if you report the presence of the corpse or not.

You are right in your described definition of discretion as it applies to reporting crimes, or more appropriately Judicial Discretion. I believe I'm thinking more on the lines of ethical discretion. I would say much has to do with your acquired acumen into the philosophies of jurisprudence.

 

[sun]

As far as discretion goes, the accused has a right to a trial by a jury which can exercise its discretion to not convict him.
And then if convicted, the defendant can appeal all of the way up to the SCOTUS.
And further still, the defendant can ask for and receive clemency or to be pardoned by the Governor or POTUS.
So there are checks and balances on laws from their enactment to their enforcement.
There's plenty of food sources besides fish that can be obtained without needing to buy a fishing license.
I don't suppose that the fellow ever considered eating worms or any of the other number of free sources of protein, but he chose not to and then got caught by the enforcement authorities.
His problem is that he allowed himself to get caught, just like the fish that he was constantly poaching.

 

[88GT]

It becomes too much when society decides it has become too much. Unless you're fond of the idea of a dictator deciding for you or a believer that some supreme being is going to show up and decide for us.

One person, refusing to contribute to the necessary limits and monies spent to protect a resource, and taking whatever they want because they don't believe in anyone having the authority to limit their behavior infringes on the rights of those who play by the rules.

So slavery is okay as long as 50%+1 say so. Banning firearms is okay as long as 50%+1 agrees to it. Confiscation of property is okay when "society" realizes it's majority rule power can take it from others.

freedom doesn't exist in your society. Like I said above, it would be nothing more than permissions and prohibitions. Every act could and would be controlled by the group with the most members. Your society sucks.

 

[phylodog]

You've been studying under Rambone I see. Quite the sensationalist and perhaps even better at twisting words and jumping to conclusions. Congratulations.

Show me an example of your self absorbed, inconsiderate anarchist utopia and perhaps you'll change my mind. Otherwise all I read are the rantings of a child who can't stand authority.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Bunnykid68]

Scoot over