Dumocracy rules!

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

A definition is not required because there is no law against it.

I live in a state (VA) that actually had an anti-blasphemy law on the books until the 19th century. So when some of the CR's propose making a human action, like blasphemy, illegal, they need to provide a definition of the action so that people can intelligently discuss their proposal. If they avoid doing so, it gives the appearance that they are trying to hide something that perhaps many people would find unworkable.

Another alternative is that they just haven't thought things through yet (after all, it's only been 3800 years) ...

Until we see an answer, we don't know what they're actually proposing...

Remember, "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple" – Oscar Wilde.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

First, a couple of things. I no longer attend my CR congregation and do not consider myself a Christian Reconstructionist any longer. As far as my theology goes, I consider myself "reformed," that is, the post-mil Calvinistic tradition, and that's about where my theological similarities with CR end. I do not, in other words, advocate public stoning (not that I ever did).

Thanks for clarifying that. It's surprising at how quiet these CR-related threads become on a board owned by people who allegedly support such teachings though. :think:

As far as my former church goes, the definition of blasphemy was simply never discussed. (Maybe not surprisingly; I mean, how often do you hear sermons defining blasphemy?) Based on what Rushdoony says, however, "blasphemy," in his definition, seems to involve a willful undercutting of the law word of scripture. Sutton, in That You May Prosper, gave an example from the 17th century--some rabble rouser publishing a statement spitting on Christ, the cross, referring to Mary as a whore, etc. That, in Sutton's mind, defines "blasphemy": a profane, vile, and uncouth attack against religious symbols and characters.

Thanks, that helps some. :thumb:

Unfortunately blasphemy may be a bit like pornography, something hard to actually define, but "I know it when I see it" type of thing. If so, that makes it very difficult to codify into law...

 

[Granite]

The difficulty of definining obscenity or blasphemy leads to a situational ethic determined by the judge of the moment. And if someone's life is on the line this is simply unacceptable.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

The difficulty of definining obscenity or blasphemy leads to a situational ethic determined by the judge of the moment. And if someone's life is on the line this is simply unacceptable.

That seems to be sound thinking, granite1010. Basing life and death decisions on a whim seems a very poor way to run a criminal justice system, to me.

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Zakath

I live in a state (VA) that actually had an anti-blasphemy law on the books until the 19th century. So when some of the CR's propose making a human action, like blasphemy, illegal, they need to provide a definition of the action so that people can intelligently discuss their proposal. If they avoid doing so, it gives the appearance that they are trying to hide something that perhaps many people would find unworkable.

Another alternative is that they just haven't thought things through yet (after all, it's only been 3800 years) ...

Until we see an answer, we don't know what they're actually proposing...

Remember, "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple" – Oscar Wilde.

I don't know what their answer would be.

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Zakath

Do you recall, which costs were lower than what? :think:

The costs of the current judicial system vs. the cost of the proposed system with 1 judge/10 households.

BTW, the "household" judges would never decide the capital cases.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

The costs of the current judicial system vs. the cost of the proposed system with 1 judge/10 households.

The cost of the current federal Justice System is a miniscule portion of the government's budget, about 3/10ths of one percent of the federal government expenditures in the 2003 Federal Budget - pg 79.

BTW, the "household" judges would never decide the capital cases.

You may have mentioned this already, if you have, please forgive my inattentiveness, are you a former Shadowgov'er? If so, I've got some questions... :think:

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Zakath

The cost of the current federal Justice System is a miniscule portion of the government's budget, about 3/10ths of one percent of the federal government expenditures in the 2003 Federal Budget - pg 79.

You may have mentioned this already, if you have, please forgive my inattentiveness, are you a former Shadowgov'er? If so, I've got some questions... :think:

Consider that the SG'ers also want to abolish all social programs and regulatory agencies as well.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Gerald

Consider that the SG'ers also want to abolish all social programs and regulatory agencies as well.

Yeah Zakath. If most government agencies were abolished, Gerald would have to fight for his existence in the real world like a man instead of just suckling on the government nipple like an infant.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Yeah Zakath. If most government agencies were abolished, Gerald would have to fight for his existence in the real world like a man instead of just suckling on the government nipple like an infant.

I'm sure there are any number of organizations hiring mercenaries.

Perhaps they'll offer a bounty on every Christian head brought in...
:chuckle:

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Zakath

The cost of the current federal Justice System is a miniscule portion of the government's budget, about 3/10ths of one percent of the federal government expenditures in the 2003 Federal Budget - pg 79.

Yeah, it would still be smaller at, oh, I'm guessing, 10% of the total Federal budget. O suppose the numbers could be figured, but I don't see the point. The judges aren't being paid. There just would not be the infrastructure required to process the lower amount of crime. Penalties would be inexpensive to administer, and carry out. It seems hard to even find the costs.

are you a former Shadowgov'er? If so, I've got some questions... :think:

I think so. If not officially, at least in spirit. Ask away.

 

[Gerald]

But seriously, folks...

But seriously, folks...

Originally posted by Jefferson
Yeah Zakath. If most government agencies were abolished, Gerald would have to fight for his existence in the real world like a man instead of just suckling on the government nipple like an infant.

Actually, I could survive and prosper easily under the regime you envision.

Before I became a Feddie, I worked for some years as a printer, a noble occupation unlikely to become obselete anytime soon. Some of my biggest customers were local churches :noway:

Now, don't give me that look, Jefferson; contrary to what you may have been told, atheists do not react like vampires to the presence of religious materials.:chuckle:

An atheist making money off a church; ironic, no?:chuckle:

 

[Granite]

I think most churches would still burn you at the stake if they could. (Not just you in particular, Gerald; anyone branded as a "heretic" in general.)

One of the best things that's happened, I think, to the Christian church is that it has largely lost its teeth, short of excommunication (and that doesn't even carry much weight anymore).

Theocracy, monarchy, whatever you want to call it--there is a definite autocratic bent to these solutions that most people, Christian and otherwise, should oppose.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
I think so. If not officially, at least in spirit. Ask away.

Here's one for you.

Let's say you're a high-ranking agent of the Crown and you receive a letter from the king, detailing a proclamation he'll be handing down soon, one that declares members of certain organizations "traitors who are fomenting rebellion" and calls for their arrest.

The letter goes on to say that the proclamation will not be handed down immediately, as to do so would afford the rebels an opportunity to escape, and attached is a list of names and addresses of people in your jurisdiction who are to be picked up and detained.

You have your orders, signed and sealed by the king. Do you carry them out?

(And don't dodge the question by saying "a just ruler wouldn't do such a thing", as we are not discussing a just ruler...)

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by granite1010
I think most churches would still burn you at the stake if they could. (Not just you in particular, Gerald; anyone branded as a "heretic" in general.)

One of the best things that's happened, I think, to the Christian church is that it has largely lost its teeth, short of excommunication (and that doesn't even carry much weight anymore).

Theocracy, monarchy, whatever you want to call it--there is a definite autocratic bent to these solutions that most people, Christian and otherwise, should oppose.

Well done, granite! :thumb:

As to your first paragraph, nobody would know I'm an atheist unless I tell them.

In a society such as that proposed by Rushdoony, North, Enyart, et.al., when someone asks if you're a Christian, the correct answer is "Yes!", whether you are one or not. There isn't really a way to determine if you're lying, especially since the Enyartian model in particular makes no use of pro-active policing; if the authorities don't see it, it didn't happen.

So it would be quite easy for the unbeliever to move about quite undetected, as most people are hesitant to come knocking on your door asking "how come I never see you at church?"

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Yorzhik

Yeah, it would still be smaller at, oh, I'm guessing, 10% of the total Federal budget. O suppose the numbers could be figured, but I don't see the point. The judges aren't being paid. There just would not be the infrastructure required to process the lower amount of crime.

Interesting assumption. Is there a copy of the legal code you propose substituting for the current Federal Code available for exmaination somewhwere?
Merely reducing the number of laws doesn't guarrantee anything about the frequency that they would be broken; why do you assume the crime rate would be lower?

Penalties would be inexpensive to administer, and carry out. It seems hard to even find the costs.

I disagree. The CR's propose the institution of "restitution" for certain property crimes. Such court ordered restitution must be tracked and administered to make certain it's being paid to the recipient in a timely manner.

Our current legal system has something similar to restitution in place for one small segment of the population - children on child support. It's nicknamed the "Deadbeat Dad" program and it provides for administration of cour-ordered child care payments. It is maintained by the US Office of Child Support Enforcement, created in 1975, under the US Dept of Health and Human Services. Monitoring and administering "restitution" for the 17 million cases in this one program alone costs the US taxpayers $4 billion for the fiscal year 2002 (Budget info here). I fail to see how the proposed reorganization is going to do away with the need for such programs or the cost of administering them.

Any thoughts?


(edited for typo so kindly pointed out by G-man! - Z)

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Zakath
I disagree. The CR's propose the institution of "retribution" for certain property crimes. Such court ordered retribution must be tracked and administered to make certain it's being paid to the recipient in a timely manner.

[pedant]

Pssst! I think you mean "restitution"...

[/pedant]

 

[Zakath]

Re: But seriously, folks...

Re: But seriously, folks...

Originally posted by Gerald
An atheist making money off a church; ironic, no?:chuckle:

For an example, I give you L. Ron Hubbard.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Gerald

[pedant]

Pssst! I think you mean "restitution"...

[/pedant]

:doh:

[runs off to change previous post]

Thanks G!

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Zakath

Interesting assumption. Is there a copy of the legal code you propose substituting for the current Federal Code available for exmaination somewhwere?
Merely reducing the number of laws doesn't guarrantee anything about the frequency that they would be broken; why do you assume the crime rate would be lower?

No. There is no proposal on paper that I know of, excepting the bible, which will only make sense if you understand the nature of God.

And yes. The number of laws does not theoretically dictate the frequency that they will be broken. However, fewer laws can more easily be made clear. And clearer laws are easier to follow than arbitrary or muddled ones.

But the strength of the system is in the correct principles it is founded on and the efficiency of the penalties used when the priciples are violated.

I disagree. The CR's propose the institution of "restitution" for certain property crimes. Such court ordered restitution must be tracked and administered to make certain it's being paid to the recipient in a timely manner.

Oh. Actually I'm not arguing the CR position. I would be arguing the ShadowGov position.

So now that we are aware of that, the administration would not be nearly as burdensome as you think. It won't work the same as todays government administration because the judge is not getting paid.

Our current legal system has something similar to restitution in place for one small segment of the population - children on child support. It's nicknamed the "Deadbeat Dad" program and it provides for administration of cour-ordered child care payments. It is maintained by the US Office of Child Support Enforcement, created in 1975, under the US Dept of Health and Human Services. Monitoring and administering "restitution" for the 17 million cases in this one program alone costs the US taxpayers $4 billion for the fiscal year 2002 (Budget info here). I fail to see how the proposed reorganization is going to do away with the need for such programs or the cost of administering them.

Some examples:
You get caught shoplifting. You pay 2 to 5 times the amount of the goods stolen. If that means clothes worth $100 - then you pay as much as $500 on the spot.

Let's say it's a $3000 diamond ring; You pay up to $15000 on the spot. Let's say you don't have that in the bank but your assets are worth that. The judge puts those assets in the hands of a liquidator, and the liquidator takes care of the rest.

Let's say you don't have anything to your name and you stole a $3000 diamond ring. Then you get to work for an indentured servant company until the debt is paid. And no, the household judges don't do this, and indentured servants are limited what can be done to them.

Any way, the judge does not need to do THAT much.

Child support - there wouldn't be any. Child support is a bad idea, there is no place for it in the law.

Okay. Your're going to ask how THAT's going to work. Well, a divorce will be a divorce. The 2 parties have basically nothing to do with each other anymore. If there are kids, the father gets the kids (unless he is a criminal) and that is the last word on the subject.