STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
How to go From a Broken Taillight to 18 Months in Prison
By The Daily Bell Staff - August 21, 2017

It is amazing the amount of “crimes” one broken taillight precipitated.

A recent court case in Massachusetts highlights the insanity of statute law, versus common law. That is, relying on laws made by politicians, rather than assessing a claim brought by a victim.

Time, money, and freedom are all poured down the drain in favor of arbitrary statutes.

It started with a guy being pulled over for having a taillight out.

He was arrested for not having a license to drive a car. Already, this is a violation of rights. Why should you be forced to pay for a license in order to travel down public roads?

Licensure does little in the way of public safety. It is a vehicle to collect more money and keep track of citizens.

So society says it is better to kidnap a man and throw him in a cage than to allow people the freedom to travel unmolested. He victimized no one but was victimized by the state.

Next, cops saw a gun muzzle poking out of the pocket in the back seat. Apparently, seeing a bit of a gun is probable cause to search. Are guns illegal? No. Ah but again, those pesky licenses! The government requires licenses to exercise rights. You have to pay in order to be free.

When they performed the search, which was based on the gun, which was discovered because no driver’s license, which was revealed because of the broken headlight, the police found he also had some drugs in the vehicle. Add another victimless crime to the rap sheet.

This guy would never have been in the crosshairs of law enforcers at all, except a statute says a car must have two working taillights. Nowhere in any of this did the suspect victimize anyone.

Judges and lawyers then spent time (and thus tax dollars) arguing over things like:

  • Should he be charged with another crime, based on whether or not the gun was loaded?
  • Was there probable cause to find out if the gun was loaded?
  • Did the defendant know the gun was loaded?

The Appeals Court decision acknowledged that “proving knowledge that a firearm was loaded will often be quite difficult,” and that the effect of the ruling will likely be that few people will be convicted under that section of the law.

But the judges concluded that because the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in an earlier case that prosecutors must prove someone knew they were in possession of ammunition, they must also prove someone knew if that ammunition happened to be inside of a gun.

Blah, blah blah, blah blah. Was there a victim? No? Let the guy go. That is how simple true rule of law is.

Unless a law protects a victim, it creates a victim. Laws are not the same thing as the rule of law. Under rule of law, mere possession of an item would not see you imprisoned.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Of Course, the government doesn’t abide by the rights enumerated in the Constitution, let alone implied rights.

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • james chappell

    Great article. Totally true. We have a Right to travel. We also have a Right to waive that Right and convert it to a privilege called driving by license. We have a Right to keep and bear Arms. The controlling state blatantly usurps our Constitutional Rights on a daily basis. We the People have had enough of this government. The pitch forks are coming. In fact, they are already here!

    • disqussted999

      Really, where? Don’t disagree with the rest of what you say, but I don’t see much resistance vs the usurpers. I see those that love the system b/c they’re fourth and fifth (and ?sixth) generation of those that learned to abuse it for their own benefit and don’t mind being peons as long as they’re fed, housed, given free medical care, encouraged to make babies out of wedlock (abort ’em if they want and make some more) supported by the State, and given enough cash and credit to own their own Mercedes without making an honest living. I see those that don’t give a crap b/c they are blissfully ignorant and brainwashed by the MSM and like it that way. I see those that intend to become one of the usurpers b/c that’s where the money and power are. I read a lot written by those who talk about resistance. But I see very few actual resisters. Where are they? When does it all begin? Who’s organizing it? Who’s invited and how will they know? What’s the plan for getting back our “Rights?” Inquiring (and disenchanted and disgusted and mad-as-hell) minds want to know.

      • Iterative secession. And this time don’t make the same mistakes that were made with the War of Independence and the so-called Civil War. Once it becomes war … it can only end badly. Just build up a critical mass, institute a “proper” Medium of Exchange process (http://moneydelusions.com/wp/) in competition with the Fed, and then quit paying “all” taxes that you physically can. Governments are taking 3/4ths of the fruits of your labor already folks. We’re way past the tipping point and judgement day.

    • Before you start waving that word “Right” around, know what it is: A “right” is a “defended claim”. Make no claim, you have no right. Make a claim and fail to defend it, you have no right. It’s common sense … and the concept of a god given right or a human right is far from common sense.

      • Col. Edward H. R. Green

        Jeremy Bentham’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding (“rights are simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, — nonsense upon stilts”), legitimate individual rights have a factual basis in the nature of human beings, specifically, they have their source in the exclusively human faculties of reason and volition, faculties that are not divine (supernatural) endowments, not favors that government may grants or withdraw, but the result of the fully natural process of human evolution.

        For elaboration, read Ayn Rand’s essay, “Man’s Rights”.

        • Replying to: Col. Edward H.R. Green

          EG:Jeremy Bentham’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding (“rights are simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense, — nonsense upon stilts”), legitimate individual rights have a factual basis in the nature of human beings,

          TBM: “nature of human beings is an abstraction”. I can guarantee you, you and I have different natures.

          EG: specifically, they have their source in the exclusively human faculties of reason and volition, faculties that are not divine (supernatural) endowments,

          TBM: And in my sphere of reference as an athiest “not-divine” is everything.

          EG: not favors that government may grants or withdraw, but the result of the fully natural process of human evolution.

          TBM: Now that is just straight out double talk.

          Dissect any instance of rights you want to bring to the table for inspection. You will find it totally empty without a defense.

          Someone makes a claim (e.g. you can’t hit me in the face). Someone else makes a claim (e.g. I can hit you in the face). The two claims are in conflict. If both were rights, one right would encroach on the other right. The two can’t coexist.

          But at this point, neither is a right. The one that prevails is the one where the defense prevails. The defense is the distinction. And the defense doesn’t stop at the instant the claim is breached … it includes downstream consequences … ask Bruno.

          It’s not a simple concept, but it’s not a difficult one either. People wave rights around (like saying something is a human right … or a god given right) like that has some meaning. As an atheist, I recognize “no” god given right. If I was a Grizzley bear, I would not recognize a human right. In almost all cases the defense if forceful … until you get into advanced societies like we have now where we can no longer even distinguish between male and female human beings.

          EG: For elaboration, read Ayn Rand’s essay, “Man’s Rights”.

          TBM: Her Atlas Shrugged was a entertaining story. Nothing else I have read by her was worth the time … and she sure didn’t lead what I would view as an exemplary life … which is all beside the point here … that being “a right is a “defended” claim”.

          Dispel it at your own risk. As a Colonel, you presumably are in the defense and force business, and you see every day that your business is about defending claims … or piercing others defenses of claims.

          On that note, in these days of being an occupied country (witness the mysterious collapse of WTC7) I don’t know what it means to be patriotic and support our military … do you?

          Or are you are a purveyor of chicken.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            “As a Colonel, you presumably are in the defense and force business, and you see every day that your business is about defending claims … or piercing others defenses of claims.”

            I’m not a military colonel, so relax.

            “TBM: “nature of human beings is an abstraction”. I can guarantee you, you and I have different natures.”

            Please explain how your nature as a human being fundamentally differs from that of other human beings. Are you a radically different species ?

            We have genetic differences that make us unique, but all human beings possess the faculties of reason and volition as the result of human evolution.

            “TBM: Now that is just straight out double talk.

            Dissect any instance of rights you want to bring to the table for inspection. You will find it totally empty without a defense.

            Someone makes a claim (e.g. you can’t hit me in the face). Someone else makes a claim (e.g. I can hit you in the face). The two claims are in conflict. If both were rights, one right would encroach on the other right. The two can’t coexist.”

            Ayn Rand discusses this point in her essay “Man’s Rights”, which I recommended that you read. In it she objectively defines the concept of rights and explains why legitimate rights do not conflict.

            As for your opinion about Rand, one’s ideas do not depend upon one’s personality or lifestyle, but on their correspondence to reality, so try to set aside your opinions about her as a person, and read her essay.

            And please refrain from the use of ad homines (“purveyor of chicken”) and other fallacies if you are sincerely interested in having a serious discussion.

  • jackw97224

    Well, first off, the government, the cop, the prosecutor, the judge and all politicians and bureaucrats associated with this case must provide factual evidence that the constitution and law apply to the alleged victim just because he was physically present (thank you Marc Stevens and Lysander Spooner).

    Indeed, there is no claim as there was no injured party and no one suffered damaged to his property. The alleged claim is fraud and the court, the judge, is complicit in the crime of fraud and there should be jail time for such judge or judges.

    Political government is violence; it is aggression; it is force. These actions are applied to people who have done no harm and indeed are used to loot A to satisfy B. The government uses “legalized plunder” to satisfy itself (thank you Frederic Bastiat). Government is organized crime and people sanction it by voting. We have met the enemy an they are us.

  • jackw97224

    Yes, we live on the plantation state by commie/socialist masters/politicians and their overseers/bureaucrats. And we live in “the land of the free?” How shamefully and diabolically ironic is that?

    • Recognizing the a full 3/4ths of the fruits of your labor go to government, what does that ratio need to get to for this to no longer be “the land of the free”?

      • jackw97224

        Well, I don’t know but it is clear that the voters have approved of that level of looting if indeed it is accurate. Tolstoy had an observation:
        A Confession and Other Religious Writings Leo Tolstoy
        Excerpt, Chapter 4, p. 165
        ‘When among one hundred men, one rules over ninety-nine, it is unjust, it is despotism; when ten rule over ninety, it is equally unjust, it is an oligarchy; but when fifty-one rule over forty-nine (and this is only theoretical, for in reality it is always ten or eleven of these fifty-one), it is entirely just, it is freedom! [he is saying this in mockery, not as a statement of approval]

        Could there be anything funnier, in its manifest absurdity, than such reasoning? And yet is this very reasoning that serves as the basis for all reformers of the political structure.’

        Oh, and Étienne de la Boétie said that people vote to enslave themselves and their neighbors and strangers because it is traditional. And that is the condemning truth about mankind.

        • J: Well, I don’t know
          TBM: Yes you do. It’s quite easy to get to 30 to 40 % taxes directly (i.e. sales tax and income tax and property tax). Then you add in all the hidden taxes and fees (gas tax, phone tax, auto registrations, etc.) You quickly get to 50%. Then consider that everything you buy has that 50% (that the seller incurs) in its price. So 50% of that 50% is another 25%. That gets you to 75%. Then figure in what you pay to the money changers in interest … and bogus insurance premiums … and government in inflation … and bingo. You’re out of dough.

          Further recognize: Democracy “cannot work” with more than 50 people involved. After that it just becomes a propaganda / advertising charade and an ugly contest … that is when they don’t simply fake the vote counts.

          • jackw97224

            I agree. Democracy is a defective idea. The US Army Training Manual On Citizenship from 1928 made it clear that the colonists detested democracy and why they thought a republican political form of government would be better. That manual stated that democracy leads to mobocracy. The colonists were wrong of course in imposing the constitution and the politicians were wrong to use it as a device to dictate their opinions, as history attests. Politics is violence; it is aggression; it is force. Politics is immoral as is evident to even the most casual observer, yet people vote, they participate in the immorality. Remember how Wilson proclaimed that America would make the world safe for democracy? Remember how Truman or someone said the US would be the arsenal of democracy? Now one only need substitute mobocracy for democracy and the picture is clear!

          • J: I agree. Democracy is a defective idea.

            TBM: Democracy isn’t defective. It works perfectly well when below its 50 participant limit. Unfortunately it exceeds that limit in all cases where representatives are chosen.

            J: The US Army Training Manual On Citizenship from 1928 made it clear that the colonists detested democracy and why they thought a republican political form of government would be better.

            TBM: If you form that “republican form” by limiting all groups to 50 or less, and those groups then chose a representative to lower levels (where issues they can’t address because of scope are submitted), then with just 6 levels (with the individual being at the top … working any issues there that they can … like their own retirement plans) you can represent all the people on Earth several times over … and have workable democracy. And you don’t need a “state” at all.

            J: That manual stated that democracy leads to mobocracy. The colonists were wrong of course in imposing the constitution

            TBM: You need some form of written agreement. The constitution is flawed in may ways … having no buy/sell agreement is the most glaring.

            J: and the politicians were wrong to use it as a device to dictate their opinions, as history attests.

            TBM: States (governments) are instituted by money changers to protect their interests. They are not “of the people”. Know your enemy.

            J: Politics is violence; it is aggression; it is force. Politics is immoral as is evident to even the most casual observer, yet people vote, they participate in the immorality.

            TBM: So is religion (actually it’s just another form of politics and brainwashing).

            J:Remember how Wilson proclaimed that America would make the world safe for democracy? Remember how Truman or someone said the US would be the arsenal of democracy? Now one only need substitute mobocracy for democracy and the picture is clear!

            TBM: Remember Monroe … and his doctrine? It’s all run by money changers. So is Trump. If he wasn’t he would have brought up the mysterious collapse of WTC7 by now and gone after the people who occupy our government and thus our country.

            Iterative secession. We need more spaces so all these ridiculous ideas can have a domain to operate … and not be in mine.

          • jackw97224

            When I see specific numbers, like 50 people is the ideal for democracy, I get uncomfortable. Who determined that specific number? It is like determining tax rates or the number of hours that distinguish part-time from full-time employment.

            The kind of written agreements I like are individual contracts, not rules imposed by the 51% over the 49%.

          • J: When I see specific numbers, like 50 people is the ideal for democracy, I get uncomfortable.

            TBM: And when I see comments like yours I see an “avoider”. Have you ever commented that you’re uncomfortable with 500,000 people democratically selecting your representative … none of whom, including you, who directly know anything about the person they are choosing?

            Do you really think there is an “exact” number? Think of the obvious principle instead … then pick the number that is reasonable … and it will never be something like 100,000,000 … the number you don’t seem to be concerned with now.

            The principle: Participants in a democracy must be fully and equally versed on the intricacies and implications of the issues being democratically decided. You are not fully and equally versed if you are spoon-fed propaganda or if you are submitting to an “ugly” contest.

            The principle is that when a representative is “democratically” chosen to go “down” to the next lower democratic group (for issues outside the scope of the group sending the representative), the candidates chosen from must be known personally to all doing the choosing … and those candidates must know “all” the choosers so they can know they share their judgement. Get a number bigger than about 50 and you are in a different domain … you’re in the propaganda and advertising and corruption domain.

            But you already knew that didn’t you. You just wanted to be a stick in the mud didn’t you. You just kick up sand don’t you. That’s what avoiders do.

            J: Who determined that specific number? It is like determining tax rates or the number of hours that distinguish part-time from full-time employment.

            TBM: As I said, you are an avoider. Losing sight of your objective you kick up sand and redouble your efforts to muddy the water. Are you the same stickler about how the “right” inflation is determined? (Hint: Perpetually “zero” is the answer). Or how the “right amount of interest collected” is determined? (Hint: cumulatively and perpetually equal to cumulative defaults experienced).

            J: The kind of written agreements I like are individual contracts, not rules imposed by the 51% over the 49%.

            TBM: Oh really? You signed an “individual contract” when you bought your house. Did you know you agreed to provide “replacement cost” insurance as long as there is any balance due … even if all that is due is less than the land value … which can’t be destroyed? And even if the premium you pay implies a 50% probability of complete destruction over 30 years? Signed it didn’t you. Had to didn’t you … because it was a state/money-changer contract that was not negotiable. Wasn’t determined by 51% was it. You had no say in it did you!

            The kind of environments I thrive in are those naturally governed by principles … like the golden rule. Think how much you would have to write to cover everything the golden rule would cover.

            But as an avoider, you will never have to do that. You just need a constant supply of sand to kick up.

          • Don Duncan

            “You had no say in it did you!” Wrong. I quit my first job in 1954 (at 12) when I saw .75% deduction for S.S. tax. I became self employed (mowing lawns) out of principle. Since I have avoided the income tax (mostly). Resistance is NOT futile, especially if you are committed to freedom.
            The propaganda such as “the long arm of the law” and “You can’t fight city hall” are lies.
            I have no respect for my fellow humans who submit to authority with resignation and blame their lot on others or “the way of the world” or fate.

          • TBM: “You had no say in it did you!”

            DD: Wrong. I quit my first job in 1954 (at 12) when I saw .75% deduction for S.S. tax. I became self employed (mowing lawns) out of principle. Since I have avoided the income tax (mostly). Resistance is NOT futile, especially if you are committed to freedom.
            The propaganda such as “the long arm of the law” and “You can’t fight city hall” are lies.
            I have no respect for my fellow humans who submit to authority with resignation and blame their lot on others or “the way of the world” or fate.

            TBM: It’s pretty difficult (impossible) to exist in our society and stay out of their reach. I think if the truth be known, you are lying. If you are not lying, then you’re pretty amazing … and probably have paid dearly as does someone being chased by someone they have harmed … even if they’re not yet caught … and I’m not talking by cops.

            You’re not young, so you’ve been flying under the radar for a very long time … and they make that very inefficient and dangerous.

            I too am not young. I have challenged them, mostly in my later years when I had the time and nothing to lose … and they overtly cheat. I have a documented city hall incident as proof. I have documented bank incidents as proof. I have documented IRS incidents as proof. I have documented retirement incidents as proof.

            In the case of my retirement, because I didn’t follow their rules (though did adhere to principles), they cleaned out my bank accounts and put a lien on my free and clear property (where I have lived off the grid now for 14 years).

            They got kind of ticked off when I wrote them I couldn’t pay them what they demanded, even if I was wrong and they were right … which they weren’t. WTC7 proved beyond all doubt they are a criminal enterprise and RICO statutes prohibit my financial support of them.

            Within 19 days of my “sending” that letter, they had a lien on my property (and still do … they won’t answer my letters any more). I never saw the judge who signed the order. i don’t even know if one exists.

            I have documentation. I’m not lying.

  • n2

    Um, am I the only one who thinks he should probably have working taillights so others don’t run into him and get hurt? Seems like a valid safety issue to me. I’m no fan of big government, but I’m not crying that someone got pulled for not having a functional vehicle. This article is very one-sided. Government certainly oversteps its bounds frequently; however, that doesn’t imply that anarchy is better. Often government makes money off of doing things that at least in theory can be justified, like making someone demonstrate a minimum amount of competence in order to be granted a license to drive. No license, nothing to be taken away. So drunks and drug addicts could be driving away, and hey, no licensing requirements, why not?? Really, you want to share the roads with people that are held to no standard whatever? And if you reply that if and indeed someone causes harm to another, they will be held accountable, well, all I will say is prevention beats cure, any day.

    • Milton

      Well, It looks like the other posters do not believe as you and I. They seem to feel that no one deserves be able to drive on the U.S. and State highways and expect the other vehicles to have functional taillights or proof that they are competent drivers….I guess we should just take our chances..

      • Col. Edward H. R. Green

        You are taking your chances the moment you step off of your property and interact with others, when you enter anyone else’s residential or business property, when you pass them on the sidewalk, or drive among them on the roads and highways.

        If you “think” that government licensing and testing will prove and assure everyone’s continual competence in any activity, whether it be driving a vehicle, or practicing any occupation, etc. you are either certifiably and willfully deluded, or you are a sociopath or psychopath, an aspiring dictator and an enabler (voter) of dictators.

    • Just this week I got stopped for a license plate light out. They used that opportunity to “check my papers”. They were really hoping to score a big revenue generating DUI … but I wasn’t. As soon as I got home, I checked the light. It was “not” out! I filed a 4 page complaint the next morning at the Sheriff’s office … as the deputy who stopped me … and his wife (the secretary) just smirked. I’m for iterative secession. You who want to continue to be beholden to these ex-juvenile delinquents turned Ranger Ricks can have them in your space. In my space laws will not prevail (or even exist) … only principles will exist.

      • rob

        Althouh

      • rob

        Your light doesn’t have to be out, it has to be visible at 50 feet, so if the light is diminished by intensity or degradation, its a legitimate safety violation.

        • What nonsense!. And tell me … what the hell does a license plate have to do with safety? When we accomplish iterative secession and we can split up into our own spaces as we choose, I choose not to be in your space … and you won’t find it comfortable in mine.

        • Keith Liberty

          you must be a storm trooper or an anti-liberty person…where does this violation threaten one’s person or property?

        • Don Duncan

          Wrong! No “stop” need be justified by actual circumstances. (You were driving erratically or changed lanes unsafely.) Just as no killing need be justified by actual circumstances, e.g., is “I feared for my life” a provable circumstance? No. It is the shooter testifying as to “state of mind”. Since when does a fear, regardless of its rationality justify murder? Since cops were judged by themselves, that’s when. You shoot a cop, even if he was shooting at you mistakenly, and you don’t get a “fear for life” defense, you go straight to jail where “if” you survive, you get convicted with max sentence, no matter the other circumstances.

        • Col. Edward H. R. Green

          A license plate light’s purpose has nothing whatsoever to do with safety. Its purpose is solely to enable someone, primarily an armed government employee, i.e. a cop, to read the license number.

          • paul

            Sorry but it might have to do with safety. It might involve the safety of the officer trying his do his job.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            I have functioning rear lights. My license plate light is burned out.

            Please explain how my non-functioning license plate light undermines the “SAFETY [emphasis added] of the officer trying his do [sic] his job”.

            As for his “job” where my license plate is concerned, its light is not for “safety” but so that he can see it, run a “criminal” background check on it, and–he hopes–score a fine that will help to fund his compensation package at my forced expense.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      “Government certainly oversteps its bounds frequently; however, that doesn’t imply that anarchy is better.”

      You do not understand anarchy. It does not mean “without rules”; it means “without rulers”. A society based upon self-governance (which is based upon the right to self-ownership) and rational and just rules that are so because they defend legitimate individual rights is superior to one based upon the false premise that certain human beings have a “right” to rule others.

      Government licensing is based upon this false premise that one is obliged to obtain permission from one’s “betters”, one’s “superiors/masters”, in order to engage in a peaceful action that one is free to take by right, i.e. freedom of movement, which is based upon one’s right to self-ownership and personal liberty.

      A license does not guarantee or prove competence, sobriety, etc. on the part of its holder One can obtain it, then proceed to act incompetently, destructively, a reality that occurs every day, everywhere.

      The best kind of prevention or disincentive to behaving harmfully towards others is being held completely accountable, financially and in all other respects, for one’s actions when one’s actions cause harm to other people’s person or property. Government has continually and inevitably failed to do this; in fact, it has incentivized people to behave irresponsibly on the roads because people have stupidly allowed the government to be in the business of picking up the tab–at everyone’s forced expense–when people are injured in accidents.

  • Milton

    Why did he only get 18 months? He was in possession of a gun while committing the felony of transporting drugs. Should have gotten at least 36 months. That is unless he has a prescription..

    • James Clander

      Now I understand WHY the USA is Prison Planet – 2.3Million !
      Stupid comments show stupid thinking -allowing the State to run riot.

    • J Peters

      That is true, but a ‘felony’ with no victim is not a legitimate felony at all, it is at best a regulatory infraction which in a just society wouldn’t even rise to the level of a misdemeanor.

      • CAI

        In this case the State is the victim.

        • J Peters

          ‘State as victim’ is a legal fiction, in-fact one of the foundational legal fictions under which repressive systems of laws exert their weight…

          A ‘state’ is merely an abstract construct, it is not a sentient being with natural rights and thus cannot itself be ‘victimized’ in any morally meaningful way. It’s only utility is as a ‘passthrough’ placeholder for a class of actual living persons and even then those actual living persons must have a right that is infringed upon for there to be any moral validity whatsoever to their status as a ‘victim’…

          In short nobody has a ‘right’ to have others do what they (through their votes) say, whether they call it a ‘crime’ or not and whether they pretend the ‘state’ can be a victim or not, and someone’s failure to do what everyone else tells them to, but while not infringing upon the rights of another, makes THEM the victim when they are punished, not the other way around.

          • Milton

            By your reasoning there is no reason to pay taxes either..

          • J Peters

            That is correct. You want money from me? Ask for donations or offer me a product or service I want. Otherwise it’s just theft with another label. Maybe if I’m lucky I’ll get some ‘privilege’ for it but usually it’s the other way around (and the theft goes toward more infringement.) There’s very little need for forcible taxation and we should get away from it wherever possible.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            There is no rationally sound and objectively defensible moral reason to pay taxes because coercive taxation (there is no other kind) is theft. It is merely legalized theft, but theft nonetheless. Taxation does not become something other than theft by an enactment of law that imposes and enforces it, nor do laws legitimize it.

            Any and all laws that impose and compel this act of theft are bad, unjust, immoral laws, and any law that is unjust, i.e. that violates legitimate individual rights, including one’s private property rights–rights that applies to ALL of one’s peacefully-acquired income and other property–does not oblige one to comply with it.

            One does the morally right thing by defying unjust law(s) by an act of civil disobedience and by defending oneself–to the death, if necessary–against those who attempt to enforce it.

  • paul

    This article is just another example of how stupid the Daily Bell staff is. The police were right to arrest this man. He was not kidnapped as the Daily Bell is exaggerating. He was taken into custody because he was a criminal. This article reminds me of some of those silly articles on the Free Thought Project where they leave out details or even lie to make the criminal look like an innocent victim.

    • Mstrjack

      He is not a criminal in my point of view. The man never violated anyone’s rights. There are no victims. Living in a police state sucks.

      • JMiller

        He is a criminal if he commits a crime. Plain and simple

        • Mstrjack

          True enough!

          Everyone is a criminal in a police state even if one simply forgets to signal a turn or lane change.

          • JMiller

            I am talking about crimes. Misdemeanors or felonies. Not civil traffic violations which are non-criminal offenses.

          • Mstrjack

            Crime like a broken taillight? If he hadn’t committed the crime of driving with a broken taillight, then his other crimes would not have been discovered.

            JMiller, in the police state, in which we live, with so many laws on the books, everyone commits a crime, somehow. Everyone is a criminal in a police state.

          • JMiller

            Now you are really being stupid. You need to read the story. He did not go to jail for a broken taillight. That was not a crime.

          • Mstrjack

            What I am saying to you, JMiller, is put down your gun. You think it okay to force people into your mold. If there is no victim, then there is no crime in nature. People like you are disgusting to people like me who do not force anything upon anyone.

          • JMiller

            Just going by the facts. And that is the commonly agreed upon definition of what a crime is and what a criminal is. Sorry it upsets you.

          • Mstrjack

            Why can’t you just live and let other people live without making a criminal out of everyone? Advocating for people to be thrown in a cage and fed slop because someone labeled them a criminal is barbaric.

            Why is it that everyone has to fit into a mold or else become a criminal? Why is it any of anyone’s business but mine what I put into my body? You don’t even know me and chances are nothing I ever do will affect your life in any way.

            What are you scared of? Are you afraid that some Muslim will come into your house at night and slit your throat because you disagree with him? If so, then maybe you should be more afraid of the Swat team government men with badges in costumes who will kick down your door in in the middle of the night, kidnap you, and throw you in a cage because your neighbor is growing marijuana and they kicked in the wrong door.

            I wish the government would leave everyone alone and let peaceful people live their lives as they choose. What if I want two wives? What is it to you or anyone else? Don’t make everyone a criminal around you because you don’t like what they do. Yes, that is what a police state is all about. I just wish it wasn’t.

          • paul

            Mstrjack,

            You are funny. You are not going to be thrown in jail if the police get the wrong house on a drug raid. I heard of such stories happening where the police got the wrong house and nothing happened to the innocent person.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            “…and nothing happened to the innocent person.”

            But, in fact, plenty happened to the innocent person.

            His house or apartment was trashed, his belongings damaged, and he will not receive a cent in restitution from the raiders, for they enjoy immunity by virtue of their being government employees.

          • paul

            Mstrjack,

            You and some others believe that if there is no victim, then there is no crime. Well then I guess you have no problem with torturing animals just for the fun of it since no one’s rights were violated.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            If one is neglecting, abusing, or torturing one’s own animal property, for whatever reason, that is one’s own business with which no one has any legitimate right to physically interfere, for non-human animals do not and cannot have any legitimate rights because they lack both the faculties of reason and volition.

            Treating non-human animals as if they had “rights” creates a conflict between their “rights” and human being’s legitimate individual rights, which demonstrate that the animals’ “rights” are, in fact, false rights. Legitimate rights do not conflict.

            You are free to verbally condemn the animal abuser, to refuse to socially interact or do business with that person, and to encourage others to do likewise, and that is all that you or anyone else may rightly do, in accord with one’s right to freedom of association and disassociation.

            If one abuses, tortures, or kills someone else’s animal property without the owner’s voluntary consent, THAT is a real crime, and the victim is not the animal, but its owner, for the abuser has violated the animal owner’s private property rights..

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            How I would love to have you and me serve on a jury involving a case in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the “crime” of committing a victimless act, with you bellowing that the defendant is a “criminal” whom the jury must find guilty, and I tell you and the other statist jurors to shove it, and exercise my right to nullification by judging not just the facts, but the law as well, conclude that the law is unjust, and cause a hung jury, resulting in the defendant’s acquittal.

            I wager that that would piss you off to the point where you would physically attack me, thereby giving me the opportunity to exercise my right to self defense against your committing the factual crime of assault and battery.

            Of course, I would rightly interpret your attack as an imminent threat to my life and use deadly force against you. I would sleep peacefully and contentedly afterward, knowing that I have rid a statist and his sociopathic agenda from my life, and that of every other peaceful, civilized person.

    • Keith Liberty

      you sound like a criminal so I should come and arrest you too….welcome to the “land of the free”

    • Keith Liberty

      you must be a storm trooper or an anti-liberty person…where does this violation threaten one’s person or property?

    • JMiller

      I have to agree with you comment about the Free Thought Project. This article sounds just like something they would write.

    • Don Duncan

      He was NOT a criminal because he had not been charged, tried, and convicted. All arrestees are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Your ignorance of the law is understandable though. Your probably got confused by watching one of the numerous reality cop shows that show cops making the same mistake. Or maybe you are a cop. Their “modus operandi” is criminal, brutal, and typical of the statist mindset.

      • JMiller

        Sorry Don but you are mistaken. By definition a criminal is a person who has committed a crime. Not just a person who is convicted of a crime. If a man rapes a woman or molests a child, he has committed a crime and is a criminal. You seem to think that you are only a criminal if you get caught, tried and convicted. So I guess if a man rapes and murders ten woman and is never caught, then he is not a criminal. And I guess that a person who is wrongly convicted of a crime that they did not commit, then they are a criminal even though they committed no crime.

        • Don Duncan

          How does our system of jurisprudence decide if a crime was committed? Clue: They don’t call you up. They don’t ask the arresting officer. They don’t ask witnesses. There is supposed to be a long procedure culminating in a trial before a person is labeled “criminal”. No “due process”, no crime.

          But by your definition, all LEOs are criminals because they don’t follow the law, lie and cover for LEOs who lie, deny due process by violating rights, and put their self interest before all else. They do NOT serve anyone except themselves.

          And yes, you are correct about “wrongly convicted” people being criminals, LEGALLY speaking. That’s because you or I or common sense does not decide “wrongly”. The authorities do that, despite the injustice, the incompetence, the corruption, the inhumanity. A famous masterpiece portraying typical state injustice that we can all relate to (see in our system) is “Crime & Punishment”. Many such books and films (“Serpico”) exist.
          People consume them, shake their head at the horror, and quickly “forget” them. These works do not fit in with their statist indoctrination. So they compartmentalize. And the myth survives, society suffers.

          • JMiller

            You need to look up the definition of who a “criminal” is and what a “crime” is. Everything I said was true. Clear and simple.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            A Crime is not an act that violates a law; a crime is an act that violates legitimate individual rights (self-ownership; personal liberty; peacefully-acquired private property regardless of the type and amount, including firearms; privacy; self-defense; freedom of speech, thought, and conscience; freedom of association, disassociation, and contract). A criminal is any person who violates those rights.

            Clear and simple.

            Your “definition” of crime and criminal is not objective. It is Orwellian and statist.

          • JMiller

            Wrong Private. The clear definition’s of the words are:

            Crime – an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government.

            Criminal – a person who has committed a crime.

            Clear, simple, and factual.

            End of story.

          • Col. Edward H. R. Green

            “End of story”

            Your “story” is one that is rationally and morally indefensible.

            A victimless act designated by government to be a “crime” according to its laws does not thereby become a crime in fact. It does not make the actor a factual criminal.

            People who escaped their enslavement, and the people who helped them to escape, were “criminals” according to law, but not according to fact, for no human being is the rightful slave to another human being.

            Laws that criminalize victimless acts are unjust laws. They are devices of dictatorships, and they deserve to be defied and their enforcers killed, if necessary, in accord with one’s right to self-defense, until those laws are fully repealed.

            Please disabuse yourself of your irrational intrincisist notion of laws and your morally indefensible, statist defense of the criminalization of victimless acts.

  • Concerned

    You people who think that this was a legitimate arrest are nuts. You deserve to have your constitutional rights violated and taken away. Get a grip and actually read the article instead of pointing the finger. Government overreach and statutes are against the constitution. Safety violation my hind end. We have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to pursuit of happiness and ANY so called law or statuet that violates these rights is considered null and not a law.

  • georgesilver

    Oh dear. The Daily Bell has started taking lessons from the mainstream media and making stories up or just regurgitating something someone happened to read in their latest comic.
    These stories are regularly pumped out to get the sheeple annoyed and angry.

    • Samarami

      Rather agree with this comment. Stories pertaining to that brainless abstraction called “government” tend to be whiny, lamenting that if the guys and gals hiding behind the illusion that outlines that would just straighten up and act “responsibly”, everything might be OK.

      Nada. Sam

    • Don Duncan

      On what planet do you live? On earth, the MSM do NOT criticize the principle of institutionalized violence, i.e., govt. That doesn’t happen because they are part of govt., existing to promote the myth that authority is good/practical.

      Some stories are exaggerated to promote fear, so govt. will be accepted without criticism. Others are downplayed or ignored if they make that myth look bad, e.g., cops killing unarmed citizens.

  • Don Duncan

    Mankind thrived for hundreds of thousands of years without govt. With agriculture came permanent settlements, cities, and govt., i.e., institutionalized violence. No govt. justified itself, e.g., “for the common good”. It was later, when violence was resisted, that the excuses (propaganda) began, e.g., “the pharoah as god” or “divine right of kings”. Religion supported and profited by the violence. During the Renaissance govt. excuses were discredited and needed a new meme to keep exploiting. It came up with several. 1. Violence is a “necessary evil” for the common good. 2. Without violence no order exists. 3. Violence is the only way society can protect itself.

    Of course, #3 cannot answer the question: Who will protect us from our protectors?

    And #2 ignores the chaos that govt. violence promotes and the order in private cooperation.

    Finally, #1 is self contradictory in that it claims evil to be a net good.

    Since the 1800s the Western culture has indoctrinated the children to worship authority. Thus, superstition cripples the minds of the masses, makes them sanction their exploitation, and makes freedom from violence (war, law, taxes) almost impossible. With the ‘net that is beginning to change. Perhaps, the 2nd Renaissance, of peer-peer communication, will free us.

  • MountainMan

    Government gone wild. It’s the American way:–(

  • alicelillie

    This is why it should not be an offense to have a broken tail light. If there is any reason to pull a car over for that, it should be to simply tell the driver hey your tail light is broken. But that law will never be repealed nor will countless others because they are a gateway (gateway drug???) to more money and power which the government is addicted to.

loading