Topic: a society question about prison time (Read 598 times)

Guns are private property. As property, they'd have to throw out all the foundational governmental documents to take private property away. Of course, then it wouldn't be legal.

badecker you dont know
you just quote something and then pretend its your personal experience

i never followed the freeman crap. but i done research on many sides of what different people thought about different laws
and so that involved looking into freeman crap

the issue you have is to just read something and believe it. rather than research it

by the way.
you have trouble getting passed the concept that there is more than just 'no harm no damage no loss' because you cant grasp the concept of tresspass. and so i have not yet mentioned the next bombshell that would double spark and blow your mind. contract law
but im trying to give you baby steps to help you escape the freeman hole you dug yourself into before going into the bigger stuff..

you really need to accept that your freeman stuff has many flaws and doesnt work.. as your favourite freeman guy 'la la la's himself out of explaining

i still laugh that you think you can go to a fed court and announce that your a fiction and not the accused and pretend the accuser isnt present and how you dont recognise their rules and want the court to only follow your law, whether it freeman youtube videos or sharia law.. sorry that just aint how things work

by the way. as for law changing
citizens dont write laws. they elect a representative and hope that representative shares the electorates wishes and has the sway to get laws changed. problem is the election itself is not a guarantee that the 'promises' candidates make will flourish
after all.. trump still wants a wall.. and years later it aint happened
after all trump wanted to buy greenland.. and that aint ever gonna happen

and as for gun control.
in a couple years another senator could be elected and repeal the virginia changes and make gun control stricter

^^^ You're just upset because you didn't really know what you were doing when you did it.

The laws better change to what the people want, or a lot of lawmaker-heads will roll, just like is going to happen as the Trump impeachment jokers start to back down.


In Virginia, and elsewhere, gun supporters prepare to defy new laws

firstly you are the naive one by saying the daft 'fictional person' freeman nonsense
you love them buzzwords and phrases, your still not ready to look passed the freeman concept and to look at the reality of what goes on

you really need to delete the bookmarks referencing freeman stuff and actually look at real stuff

'fictional person' (facepalm)
you are really stuck in a decades old myth

...
so here is the reality check
the highway is not your property and the court is not your barn. you have to play by their rules and procedures

police officer follows policies and rules and has the responsibility to make sure that others do not break certain rules. this includes the highway code. meaning you can drive however you like on your own private land. but if your on public property you have to follow the highway code.. and if your on someone elses property you have to follow their rules.

trying to pretend your a fiction and how you the blood being are not the same blood being witenessed driving on a highway without a licence. where the witness is the police officer who identifies you..
you will not get away with it by playing the 'fictional person' debate. instead the case will be rescheduled for another date if you kept up the disruption to the court process.

pretending courts rues policies and procedures dont apply to you is foolish in court.

some things that can happen is this
by you denying that the defendant is in the court. is the same as just not turning up. thus the court could get a warrant for your arrest or just put the case in the governments favour as your acknowledging you as the accussed did not turn up to defend it, thus there is no defense.. meaning prosecution instant win
by you denying being the accused. but witnesses identify you. you could be locked up for messing with the court and maybe even put on a psych hold and assessed for mental competance.

you have no clue what really happens in a court or the real court procedure or why things are done a certain way.
EG going to a hearing and doing the freeman dance demanding a jury..
sorry a jury is at trials which is a separate event AFTER a hearing. which are for times where there is doubt and the evidence needs to be brought in and where the accused pleads not guilty. again a hearing and a trial happen at separate times

your freeman strategies you read have been done by people that have not even used them where it has actually truly worked. even karl lentz la la la la'd over stuff to hide what really happened.

anyways back to the point


imagine you had a family farm. the whole family owned it in equal shares
no one could decide what to do without majority vote for a certain plan.
but each day someone who didnt want to be part of the family and was treated as a stranger just drove into your farm at top speed and wheelspinned and drove out.
then the kept doing it 5 times a day, every day for a year
what would be the punishment
knowing there is a risk of an animal or family member getting hit someday, or even damage to the land

in this scenario the person was not wanted on your property. what would the punishment be

go on. admit it. when you want to sue them for tresspass.. doesnt it then counter your 'no harm no damage' freeman stance?
are you going to continue with the murder is a victimless act because the victim cant accuse anyone so there is no crime
are you going to continue with stalking and entering peoples home is a victimless act so there is no crime
are you going to continue with speed whilst driving without licence and insurance and say there is no crime

or are you going to wake up that people have to take responsibility and follows the laws/acts/statutes.. otherwise the acts become empty of power. including the acts that say right to bar arms, which would suddenly become meaningless in your world

How in the world dumb can you be? It isn't a trespass when someone is invited. It isn't a trespass when the owner doesn't care.

If the owner doesn't like it, then it's a trespass. If the owner doesn't do something about it but doesn't like it, it is still a trespass.

If the corporation tries to sue the man/woman doing the trespass, why does the corporation make up a fictional "person" to sue? If the man/woman who is doing the trespass treats the corporation's fictional person just as it is, a fictional person, he can sue the pants off everyone involved with the fictional person, because they are damaging him/her, but are not calling the man/woman to account. They are only calling some fictional person to account.

Let each man/woman member of the corporation sue for damages because it is hurting the pocketbook of each, or it is threatening each, or maybe it has damaged the person of one or two of them. If the men and women of the corporation bring claims against the man/woman doing the trespass, then the trespasser just might be convicted.

As it is, the idiot trespasser thinks he was called into account when the fictional person was called the trespasser. So, he accepts the position of being the fictional person. And that is the way he is found guilty. He isn't the person on the indictment. Why not? Because the indictment person doesn't bleed when the indictment is stabbed with a knife, but the man/woman does.

Wake up, and stop accepting that you are the fictional person on the indictment.

i know you dont believe in the concept of tresspass.
as long as it means you dont get a speeding ticket for breaking the rules of the road because the same no harm or damage was done..
means the police officer can open your car door and search your car and ask you any questions and waste your time
because there was no harm or damage

so your other topic where no damage or harm was done, means you cant invoice a police officer. right?

also to note. anyone who knows badeckers address can happily walk into his house and stand there stalking his family, watching them. and just use the front entrance hallway and back door as a path for people to just walk along and not be told to get out

Across the hall from notbatman, right?     

know that
gmaxwell prefers a judge and witness court room where witnesses follow judges rule and just agree or get removed from court
gmaxwell does not prefer juries that decide and set the precedence of rule where the judge simply gives options of different charges that could be set

so .. now i wonder
if gmaxwells society preference for having a central leader like himself deciding whats good or bad for bitcoin whiie suppressing opposition is due to his genetics or how he was brought up

personally i think its the megabucks income from the corporations he founded and got investment pumped into that swayed his morals.
it may have begun much earlier, via upbringing or a birth defect.. though i just think it was money related in recent years


evidence
gmaxwells hatred of opposing dev teams because HE feels HE would have to review their code and it would be too much work for HIM
gmaxwell doesnt want to have bitcoin reference client wrote in a new coding language that may benefit others because HE doesnt want to learn it

also to note
HIS evidence of trying to quote satoshi has been taken out of context, as satoshi was realising that people were starting to see him as a central point of decision making due to such questions. thus he left. to break that centralising aspect
 
it was not to be taken as context to prove a central point of reference of a single client and no opposition is the direction bitcoin should be taken

P.S
its my damn topic so dont go censorship crazy deleting this post, just because its not a thing you want to see being said

The linkage between generics and most forms of dysfunctional behaviour are very weak to statistically insignificant-- human genetics is already well optimized by evolution to produce consistently good outcomes. Worse, some of the strongest genetic connections that exist appear to be for traits that also produce HIGH ability in some people-- greater intelligence, creativity, etc. So if you were to try to breed out the dysfunctional people, you might also breed out the most capable.

Sometimes seemingly bad traits are preserved by evolution because they confer advantages in some situations, with some upbringings, by chance, or in combination with other genetic traits.

Plus what we consider 'dysfunction' is highly dependant on social context.  Galileo Galilei was considered a bad guy and a trouble maker by the powers that be in his time.

And every one of us has had ancestors who were lesser than ourselves.

Besides, human beings don't deserve to die just because they're losers even if you could somehow objectively determine that they were.

Since it has been shown in the "Evolution is a hoax" thread, that Darwinism doesn't exist... LOL! You make a good joke.



If there wasn't any government, a thief would get caught and be forced to pay the price for his thievery... forced by the good people of the area.

Once the thieves saw this, they would realize that they would have to band together and form a thieves' government to survive.

Once the TG was active, the good people would realize they would have to form a good government to protect themselves from the TG.

Once the TG crooks realized that they were losing to the GG, they would become nice on the outside, so they could penetrate into the GG and be thieves from within.

This is what we have today... governments within governments within governments, on and on... Deep State.

The local jury is the authority - judge - in all things that affect the local area they are in. This is the way that the good people can rule, at the same time keeping the bad people from becoming country-wide dictatorial.

The only thing that is wrong is that the local people don't understand that they can pick up the local jury for anything, and change the country through jury nullification. So, they don't do anything, and nothing changes.

For there to be no harm or damage done, the owners would be enjoying the spectacle. But at least they wouldn't care.

Darwinism.. And the world would be rid of them, and their possible "dysfunctional' genetics, for good..


Many won't make it far enough to be protected when the free people have the right and mindset to protect themselves and solve their own problems without appealing to the authority of a higher power, if that is even an option..

ok lets test out your freeman stance

imagine you had a family farm. the whole family owned it in equal shares
no one could decide what to do without majority vote for a certain plan.

but each day someone who didnt want to be part of the family and was treated as a stranger just drove into your farm at top speed and wheelspinned and drove out.
then the kept doing it 5 times a day, every day for a year

what would be the punishment
knowing there is a risk of an animal or family member getting hit someday, or even damage to the land

but with no one YET physically harmed no damage done.

what would be the punishment
or
just allowed free spirit to just wheelspin on someone elses property owned by multiple people and put them at risk

There should NEVER be any prison time given if the court hasn't found any harm to a human being, or damage to human-owned property. This should be made into a formal law of the courts, with evidence and proof of both, that there is injury in some way, and that the defendant did the injury.

The problem you have with that is that an unacceptably high number of people who end up incarcerated ... kinda suck.  Certainly not all, and I don't mean to suggest that they deserve to be in jail because of it. But a lot of people are addicted, stupid, or just dysfunctional in various difficult or impossible to cure ways that contribute to them making the sort of bad decisions which predictably end up with them in jail.

The military doesn't want those folks: Even as cannon fodder-- if you can ignore the moral problems with ever using a human that way-- they can be more trouble than they're worth.

Already one of the serious moral problems with the military is that participation to is isn't particularly voluntary for many people:  Many people feel forced into service because their economic situation leaves them justifyably feeling they have few other options. Beyond the ethical issues of forcing people into life threatening situations, a non-voluntary participant has an even weaker position to stand up against abuses of military power. A penal participant would be far worse.

And then there is the question of incentives:  If prisoners frequently go into the military to avoid sitting in a cell that creates a powerful incentive for the state to create more prisoners.

I think it should probably be considered a human rights abuse to make any use of prisoners which doesn't benefit the prisoner (or at most their fellow prisoners) primarily such as education, therapy, or employment like activities *at market rates* where all the proceeds would go to them when they leave prison. Perhaps it would be okay for them to defray their incarceration costs up to whatever they'd be spending for housing/food outside of prison, but I think even that is sketchy. They certainly shouldn't be performing public service as a prisoner (though I think limited amounts of public service is an alternative to incarceration). I think this should hold even where the prisoner would voluntarily agree otherwise just like how someone can't consensually enter into slavery. -- it isn't as if an incarcerated person can ever actually consent in any case: Consent under duress isn't consent.  Anything else has too much risk of bad incentives, and when it comes to locking people up-- that isn't a place where society should be tolerant of bad incentives.

Well, prison in my country sucks but in this guy's case he began eating regularly and I suppose started to have a regular sleep pattern. Can't stay up late when you are being monitored. I think that's one more reason to actually reduce the prison time, prisons get less crowded and there can be more focus on rehabilitating people in for non-violent crimes. Reduced expenses since you'd have fewer inmates.

Also, thanks for image. I would have LOLed had I been handed that receipt. 

How much more bitcoins do we need to buy an island and start a society from scratch?

my points was about not 11k but an acceptable assumption of $£30k.. however seeing places like america that are charging $80k is obvious sign of extreme funds wastage
yes 11k is the minimal cost for people.. and yes add in guards(£5k per inmate) and hidden costs like extra hygiene checks can bring things upto say £$30k sound reasonable. but the $80k seems very iffy to explain

anyway. even with the differential of say 11k for a nominal living in the community non convict on benefits vs a 30k prisoner.
my main topic point was is that 19k difference spending on prison a good resource for certain crimes. could that 19k difference instead go towards putting people into community projects, rehab, victim reimbursement, social services, healthcare to solve the underlying causes of the crime, to actually offer a better chance of the prisoner to not repeat their illicit acts again

My input was based on all the hidden factors that contribute to the costs of running a prison, and not just for water, and food costs, but for everything. I'd agree 11k is no where near that of the American prisons, but I can't possibly comment on that. Although, water charges for a prison will be much more than your regular household due to the fact that they would need regular quality assurance checks. This isn't one sample per prison. Its a sample of each length of water main over 5 meters I believe.

However, my point being is its these little things which aren't often public knowledge that we don't think of. My original point which was poorly presented I'll admit wasn't about justifying the costs, but giving a little insight into the hidden factors of running something like this with all the rules, and regulations that are put in place.

AFAIK, UK prisons actually provide very good quality of food to the prisoners. I think it was either Charles Bronson or another high profile prisoner who has publicly said that they have been treated extremely well compared to 30 years or so ago.

I have to agree that prison food in many countries is better than hospital food. I saw the menu and they even had fried chicken on holidays, things like pizza day and such while people in the hospital have to eat jelly all the time

I wasn't referring to any particular meme but the way people in Rome would have reacted after seeing that sodomized lover walking with a fish sticking out of his butt.
Anyway, hope this satisfies you.
https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/a44O4ry_700bwp.webp