Standing

[WorBlux]

RealSkinny Wrote:

WorBlux Wrote:How do you create a right without an agreement?

I'm explaining how the system works. You don't have to agree with it.

Yes, I do or I'll fucking be killed. If I didn't have to agree with it that would be one thing, but if people in guns come after me for acting on that disagreement, it is a sort of having to agree with it. Yes theoretically I could decide that today is just as good a day as any other to die, and then act upon and defend my disagreement. However, if I have to more or less commit suicide to disagree, then my ability to disagree really doesn't really mean much.

The same system that works in a manner fundamentally and qualitatively indistinguishable from the methods criminals use to operate? The same system who claims representation and agreement by methods that would get anyone else laughed out of their courts and sanctioned?

I'm quite aware how the system works on it's fundamental level, which is why you can always get a judge to contradict the appearance of justice. It seems that you are the only one avoiding that knowledge here.

[WorBlux]

RealSkinny Wrote:It's interesting that once we make the duty more explicit, you believe the Courts would follow it. Maybe you're not upset because you think the duty does exist, but instead you're upset because you think the duty should exist?

I have no problem saying we should hold police liable if they fail to prevent crimes, but there is a difference between saying they should be liable and saying our current system does make them liable.

Nope.

Let's say the mafia comes by and extorts you for "protection" money. Do they actually owe you protection? Even if they happened to give some protection, it still can't be said in any meaningful sense that the mafia has a duty to protect you as a result of extorting you. There was no consent, and corporations (political or otherwise) can only be formed only by consent. No consent is the main issue, no duty to protect is just easier to prove.

[holipsism]

RealSkinny Wrote:

n2q0 Wrote:Well, this was my understanding, which may very well be totally incorrect.

Not at all. You raise a very important distinction for us.

n2q0 Wrote:Civil:
"...a cause of action is based upon the injury suffered by a plaintiff..."


Criminal:
"(1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm"
If I murder someone, the "State" has standing as the murdered person has been harmed.

Notice that in a civil action, Standing requires the injured party to be the plaintiff, but in a Criminal action, this requirement no longer exists. The State will bring the charges, despite the fact that they are not the victim. There's no way this would ever happen in a civil case. If the State tried to sue someone on your behalf, they would be dismissed for lack of Standing. In Criminal Law, however, the corpus delicti is still satisfied.

Clearly Corpus Delicti and Standing are distinct. The State satisfies Corpus Delicti in criminal law, but would never satisfy Standing in a civil case.

How can "The State" satisfy anything when THERE IS NO STATE? ???

[NonEntity]

holipsism Wrote:How can "The State" satisfy anything when THERE IS NO STATE? ???

[move]... :bootyshake: ...[/move]
[center]Kudos, Dude!
Kudos![/center]

- NonE

[RealSkinny]

indio Wrote:

RealSkinny Wrote:

indio Wrote:The basis of the State regulating the highways is that driving is rebuttably a dangerous nuisance.
I'm not sure how corpus delecti applies to nuisances.

Probably about the same as Standing does in a civil case. If Nuisance can satisfy the injury requirement in Standing, it will probably satisfy it under Corpus Delicti as well.

Well here's what it boils down to. Corpus delicti would be the charred remains of a burned house or the body of a murdered man combined with the criminal intent.
With nuisance, you have the tortious interference with the quiet enjoyment of some right.
Unless someone with "standing" complains, that their quiet enjoyment was interfered with, there can be no corpus delicti for a nuisance.
Standing is nothing more than the right to complain. I think it a relatively new term used in law. I can't find it defined in any older law dictionarys or encyclopaedia's .

It is very new. While the idea has probably been floating around for some time, the actual phrase Standing has probably only been used for about the last hundred years or so.

I agree with everything you've said, so the question is... is Standing required in criminal law? And if it is, why doesn't the State have it in a speeding violation? If speeding is a nuisance, why can't the State claim a right to have its highways free of this nuisance?

[RealSkinny]

WorBlux Wrote:

RealSkinny Wrote:It's interesting that once we make the duty more explicit, you believe the Courts would follow it. Maybe you're not upset because you think the duty does exist, but instead you're upset because you think the duty should exist?

I have no problem saying we should hold police liable if they fail to prevent crimes, but there is a difference between saying they should be liable and saying our current system does make them liable.

Nope.

Let's say the mafia comes by and extorts you for "protection" money. Do they actually owe you protection? Even if they happened to give some protection, it still can't be said in any meaningful sense that the mafia has a duty to protect you as a result of extorting you. There was no consent, and corporations (political or otherwise) can only be formed only by consent. No consent is the main issue, no duty to protect is just easier to prove.

If we agree the police don't owe any duty to protect, then what are we arguing about?

[RealSkinny]

holipsism Wrote:How can "The State" satisfy anything when THERE IS NO STATE? ???

You raise a very good point. So if the State doesn't exist, then doesn't Marc's argument work against any crime? It shouldn't matter if it's speeding or murder. The State brings the charges in both, and if the State doesn't exist, then both cases are dismissed, right?

This has been my point the entire time. Marc's Standing argument either dismisses all crimes, or it doesn't dismiss any. If it works, it won't be limited to crimes without physical injuries, like speeding.

That's not to say Marc is intending to promote murder, it was just an unintended consequence of his argument.

[WorBlux]

RealSkinny Wrote:If we agree the police don't owe any duty to protect, then what are we arguing about?

Don't know, maybe it's time now to kick back and partake of scotch and cigars.

[WorBlux]

RealSkinny Wrote:That's not to say Marc is intending to promote murder, it was just an unintended consequence of his argument.

Right, though it is a lot harder to to make them contradict the appearance of justice, since they actually have some sort of real and tangible loss, harm, or damage, and most likely I'm not going to let a murder suspect in on the loop, unless there are some tangible alternatives to the current system.

Probably also the reason it's never been directly address in a published case (like Spooner's No treason argument) because to rule against it would to go against centuries of PR and black letters, but if they were to agree with it they'd be out of a job. It's between a rock and a hard spot, so no wonder some judges have been reported as flying of the handle when the subject is brought up.

[Marc Stevens]

I remember the leader at quatloos had a problem with my article bureaucrats never have a case because the logical end was there would be no case even with murder.

Yeah: and that's because the system is a fraud, not because I advocate murder (yeah a voluntaryist advocating murder ). The system is a group of killers, thieves and liars pretending to be administering justice, of course there are going to be issues with it.

If you start with an irrational idea, it can only lead to an irrational end.

[Dionysus]

I'm not worried in the least about real criminals like murderers, rapists, thieves, etc. getting away wtih it in a society free from the state. Since time immemorial such behavior has been considered by humans to be immoral in the extreme and has not been tolerated-- even if it was the "law of the west" (string the bastards up). I'm much more concerned about the other end of the spectrum and the current state of affairs-- dirty baboon busybody statists outlawing and punishing totally peaceful activity between consenting humans.

[RealSkinny]

Marc Stevens Wrote:Yeah: and that's because the system is a fraud, not because I advocate murder (yeah a voluntaryist advocating murder ).

I'm definitely not saying you advocate murder, but if the judge realizes the argument would work just as well with a murder charge or another serious crime, I have a hard time seeing how he can possibly agree with your interpretation. What's he honestly going to do? Let you off the hook because the State doesn't exist, and then when a murderer tries your defense say in Murder trials the State does exist for some reason? I just have a really hard time seeing what the point of the whole method is except to make the judge look like an ass, and if he's deciding my fate I'd rather avoid that messy proposition.

Me: Is this a Civil case or Criminal?
Judge: Civil.
Me: Then can you please explain to me how a legal fiction like the State could possibly satisfy Standing?
Judge: I mean it's criminal. We don't need to satisfy Standing.
Me: Haha! Jackass.
Judge: It's time for me to make my ruling...
Me: Doh.

[RealSkinny]

WorBlux Wrote:

RealSkinny Wrote:If we agree the police don't owe any duty to protect, then what are we arguing about?

Don't know, maybe it's time now to kick back and partake of scotch and cigars.

I knew there was a reason I like having discussions with you.

[Nomos]

RealSkinny Wrote:Me: Is this a Civil case or Criminal?
Judge: Civil.
Me: Then can you please explain to me how a legal fiction like the State could possibly satisfy Standing?
Judge: I mean it's criminal. We don't need to satisfy Standing.

Judge: It's time for me to make my ruling...
Me: Doh.

Doh

I got a good chuckle out of that scenario.

Instead of":

RealSkinny Wrote:Me: Haha! Jackass.

It would be:

-ALTERNATIVELY- RealSkinny Wrote:Me: Well can you please show me evidence of the state? Then, please show me evidence of its injury?

You can't recognize state of fiction in civil actions but then disregard it with criminal actions. In other words the fiction remains a fiction. Just as important is whether civil or criminal the "plaintiff (individual or STATE) must show injury." Because the state is a fiction it can have no citizens, because there are no citizens, the state can never show injury to itself.

I notice you consistently say that this is "Marc's argument" or "Marc's interpretation." It's what the COURTS say. Look at when government employees injure non-government employees. It's the same thing. No injury, no claim UNLESS there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP AT THE TIME OF THE INJURY.

~Nomos 8)

[RealSkinny]

Nomos Wrote:

RealSkinny Wrote:Me: Is this a Civil case or Criminal?
Judge: Civil.
Me: Then can you please explain to me how a legal fiction like the State could possibly satisfy Standing?
Judge: I mean it's criminal. We don't need to satisfy Standing.

Judge: It's time for me to make my ruling...
Me: Doh.

Doh

I got a good chuckle out of that scenario.

Instead of":

RealSkinny Wrote:Me: Haha! Jackass.

It would be:

-ALTERNATIVELY- RealSkinny Wrote:Me: Well can you please show me evidence of the state? Then, please show me evidence of its injury?

You can't recognize state of fiction in civil actions but then disregard it with criminal actions. In other words the fiction remains a fiction. Just as important is whether civil or criminal the "plaintiff (individual or STATE) must show injury." Because the state is a fiction it can have no citizens, because there are no citizens, the state can never show injury to itself.

I notice you consistently say that this is "Marc's argument" or "Marc's interpretation." It's what the COURTS say. Look at when government employees injure non-government employees. It's the same thing. No injury, no claim UNLESS there is a SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP AT THE TIME OF THE INJURY.

~Nomos 8)

Two things: I only say Marc's argument meaning...The Argument Marc wants me to make. Or.... If you prefer, the Questions Marc wants me to ask.

Second: What if Marc's argument works just as well for a murderer or someone who clearly stole valuables, should we still exploit it to get out of trouble?