Mountain man in court

[Lebowski]

I jay walked yesterday. The street was empty, and I needed to cross it. I didn't use a cross walk.

Should I get a lawyer now?

 

[traderdan]

I jay walked yesterday. The street was empty, and I needed to cross it. I didn't use a cross walk.

Should I get a lawyer now?

You REBEL! You shall soon suffer the wrath of the authoritarians!

 

[Lebowski]

You REBEL! You shall soon suffer the wrath of the authoritarians!

I went ahead and put my dog in the kennel so it doesn't get shot when my door gets kicked down by SWAT later for this crime.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Scoot over

We all gotta scoot over. The wife and kids showed up...

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

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.

It seems to me that this argument is having an effect on both of you that I experience from time to time, specifically that a polarizing topic pulls me further from center than where I truly reside. The republic was designed to prevent either extreme from happening as neither anarchy nor an authoritarian state are acceptable. While the conditional state ownership of animals grates at me, especially with the repudiation of responsibility when they cause damage, it is also true that without such controls, there wouldn't be any left as has been proven in the past. I would also point out that dropping lunch money for a fishing license is a much better deal than getting soaked on property taxes for he privilege of catching your own fish.

You both have valid points and I suspect that you are not really as far apart as the argument is carrying you given our natural tendency to back into the corner rather than our comfortable spots nearer the center. I would also point out that, as phylodog mentioned, we can trust ourselves but that cannot be projected onto other. Significantly, this includes others in our own group which is easy for us to forget, and I believe is happening on both sides of this argument. I cannot say that we have a perfect balance but it has worked well enough that we still hunt and fish and have not exterminated the population of game animals/birds/fishes as has happened in times past. Most of us cannot remember the time when seeing a deer in Indiana was only one step removed from seeing a leprechaun. Today, we may well need to trim the numbers a bit, but we have both deer and the opportunity to hunt them.

While I am no fan of government solutions for the most part, I also recognize that there is a reason why the Articles of Confederation did not work. This principle also applies to anarchy, only more so. This leaves me in the position of believing in the smallest and least invasive government necessary to maintain an acceptable society. Unfortunately, left to the goodwill of each citizen, there would be no game. As for the man fishing to feed himself, perhaps one 'free' fish (no license) per day per person should be acceptable?

 

[88GT]

Yeah we really are that far apart if his idea of society is a collective that gets to decide the fate and behavior of each individual. We are not a collectivist society. We do not pass laws for the good of "society."

ETA: this straw man attempt to discredit my position by arguing that we cannot trust others is irrelevant to my position. I do not rely on perfect behavior from each individual as a premise for my position. There is zero correlation to the idea of a majority rule tyranny of the state that gets to dictate every aspect of our lives to is and the fact that some people will break the rules. What justification can anyone offer for a state that has the power to control every aspect of or lives?

 

[phylodog]

Yeah we really are that far apart if his idea of society is a collective that gets to decide the fate and behavior of each individual.

What justification can anyone offer for a state that has the power to control every aspect of or lives?

Minus the improperly calibrated clairvoyance, sensationalism and word twisting, no one would be looking for a justification because no one is proposing it.

 

[CarmelHP]

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.

If that's true, then I have a "right" to an aircraft carrier, where do I pick it up?

 

[88GT]

If that's true, then I have a "right" to an aircraft carrier, where do I pick it up?

A perfect illustration of the fallacy of "collective" ownership if ever there was one.

ETA: Though in reality you only have a proportionate right. Your piece of the pie is going to be awfully small. Perhaps about 2 square inches of a bunk.

 

[Jludo]

If that's true, then I have a "right" to an aircraft carrier, where do I pick it up?

It's really more of a waiting game but the elusive aircraft carrier hatches in the late spring and can be caught on just about any bait.

 

[CarmelHP]

A perfect illustration of the fallacy of "collective" ownership if ever there was one.

ETA: Though in reality you only have a proportionate right. Your piece of the pie is going to be awfully small. Perhaps about 2 square inches of a bunk.

Then let's take the Solomonic approach, give the man his fish scale, or whatever his proportionate share would be, and prosecute him for the rest.

 

[Jludo]

If that's true, then I have a "right" to an aircraft carrier, where do I pick it up?

But in all reality it's not the same thing as fish are a natural resource and aircraft carriers are not. A 'right' to an aircraft carrier would necessarily mean the right to someone else's labor, where as the right to fishing does not.

 

[CarmelHP]

But in all reality it's not the same thing as fish are a natural resource and aircraft carriers are not. A 'right' to an aircraft carrier would necessarily mean the right to someone else's labor, where as the right to fishing does not.

Whose labor? We don't pay people who build aircraft carriers, you say? Do they have some kind of lien on it? Are they enslaved? Who knew?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Then let's take the Solomonic approach, give the man his fish scale, or whatever his proportionate share would be, and prosecute him for the rest.

Add my portion to his, I hate fish, catch and release only here

 

[CarmelHP]

Add my portion to his, I hate fish, catch and release only here

Sorry, only citizens of Montana, please.

 

[Jludo]

Add my portion to his, I hate fish, catch and release only here

Same here, catch a chicken on the other hand...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Who here is free to hunt wild buffalo on the Great Plains? Right. No, if you want to hunt a buffalo now you're paying a private party about $3k-$4k for the privilege of taking one of theirs. Sort of makes a Montana fishing license seem like a bargain at $26 for a year.

The most egalitarian system for fair access to natural resources by the most people that we've yet devised but its tyranny because you have to pay $26 a year for a Montana resident license. What a ridiculous spin. Its tyranny because you can't be a tyrant and make decisions about the use of public resources without input from all of the other stakeholders? A lack of government regulation isn't the only thing that makes you free. You're legally free to own a private jet, but that's meaningless because you don't have the financial freedom to do so. The effect is the same, you can't own one. History has repeatedly shown that free and unfettered use of easily harvested resources leads to the rapid depletion of those resources. If there were no game laws, game would be depleted, and the effect would be no one would have the freedom to hunt or fish. Again, $26 seems like a pretty reasonable "hardship" to preserve that freedom for yourself and future generations.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Same here, catch a chicken on the other hand...

But how do you kill it?

 

[Lebowski]

Who here is free to hunt wild buffalo on the Great Plains? Right. No, if you want to hunt a buffalo now you're paying a private party about $3k-$4k for the privilege of taking one of theirs. Sort of makes a Montana fishing license seem like a bargain at $26 for a year.

An estimated 20 to 30 million bison once dominated the North American landscape from the Appalachians to the Rockies, from the Gulf Coast to Alaska. Habitat loss and unregulated shooting reduced the population to just 1,091 by 1889. Today, approximately 500,000 bison live across North America. However, most of these are not pure wild bison, but have been cross-bred with cattle in the past, and are semi-domesticated after being raised as livestock for many generations on ranches. Fewer than 30,000 wild bison are in conservation herds and fewer than 5,000 are unfenced and disease-free.

Difference between fish in a stream and a large beast that was once almost hunted to extinction isn't an apples to apples comparison.

$26 for a fishing license isn't much, sure. Not going to argue that, but still, if a man is hungry I don't see the issue with him nabbing a wild fish. It's not like he was caught poaching/trapping or reselling. I believe he was genuinely hungry, and considering his address was listed as a storage unit where he sleeps, I'm willing to bet that $26/YR isn't chump change for him like it may be for you or me.

This is why I hate laws that are seen as black and white. I'd rather have the guy try to feed himself and live off the land then sit at an intersection begging for money or being a leach on society by living on wellfare, talking on his Obamaphone, and living on foodstamps.

 

[88GT]

Then let's take the Solomonic approach, give the man his fish scale, or whatever his proportionate share would be, and prosecute him for the rest.

Not so quick. The fish are renewable. The proportionate allotment is an unknown quantity. We can neither know what the total fish population during the course of this man's lifetime would be, nor does the unit time portion (how many fish per day/week/month/year) remain constant over time. The population of Montana as well as the population of fish will change through time.

But then I don't think I ever said I had a problem with regulatory policies that contribute to a steady state of renewable critter populations either.