Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: knoodelhed on April 15, 2010, 01:16:08 am

Title: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: knoodelhed on April 15, 2010, 01:16:08 am
This will be interesting to see how street crimes, here a larceny and a resisting, could be handled in an AnCap society.

For the discussion, beyond simply denouncing Robyn's act as theft, should Babette have said "I'm detaining you" or "You're under arrest" ?
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: terry_freeman on April 15, 2010, 02:11:36 am
I'm not certain that resisting per se would be considered a crime in an ancap society. The damage done in resistance might be treated like any other incident of assault. ( or is it battery? )

On the other hand, I am reminded of the policies in Iceland, described by David Friedman. If one killed another, one had an obligation to report the crime before passing three houses. If so, it was a civil matter, one paid a penalty, and that was the end of the matter. If a person did not self-report, then that person would become an outlaw - outside the protection of the law; there would be no penalty for killing an outlaw.

I anticipate that the "terry" thief will work off her debt in the kitchen, or something of that sort. Her back story is likely to be interesting. How did she manage to get to Ceres?
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: Azure Priest on April 15, 2010, 07:07:24 am
Getting TO Ceres is easy to imagine. Stowing away in the UW fleet, stealing an escape pod from a passing tug, hitching a ride on a passenger ship/ liner, etc. How she got OUT of prison on the other hand, should be quite interesting.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: sams on April 19, 2010, 06:24:53 am
1 design flaw since 1980  ::) what a unimaginative way to put the story ... you anarchist freak just slander the govern....[Sacarstic reference to generic dumb speak from close minded people]

This scene of the tram is very similar to the pompous ceremony in my country to revive an obsolete rail system conceived in the 1930 to meet the need of few hundred of thousand of Portuguese colon and especially transport the crop they were planting ....

Now in 2010, not only the crop are no more [we can all thanks the Negro supremacist nationalist who insisted of sending back all who could remember the colour of European sky] ... but the economic reality of the country have changed so the train will serve the most stagnant regions lol  ;D

So lets bet for tomorrow scene : She killed the congressman  ;D
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: Azure Priest on April 19, 2010, 08:59:56 am
NO, I bet she goes to prison for some incredibly exaggerated charge. "Sabotage," "Unlawful interference with interstate commerce," "Willful and malicious tampering of a public vehicle," "Endangering the public." Something along those lines. Or maybe ALL of them, each charged and tried seperately, stacking the sentence(s) on top of each other consecutively, so the combined sentence would in effect be "LIFE."
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: SandySandfort on April 19, 2010, 09:14:04 am
1 design flaw since 1980  ::)

It was during the time I lived in Singapore that the infamous chewing gum law was passed. Everyone gets it wrong. Chewing gum was never banned in Singapore, merely the sale of chewing gum. (Stupid law on multiple levels.)

But why? Well it turns out that the MRT cars did have a design flaw that immobilized a train if any one of its twenty photocell door sensors were blocked. This single point of failure was exploited by rebellious teens. As they exited the train, they would surreptitiously remove a wad of chewing gum from their mouth and stick it in one of the photocell recesses. Bingo, the train goes nowhere until the all of the cells were inspected and de-gummed.

So instead of addressing the design flaw, the government of Singapore banned the sale of chewing gum.  Of course, you could still buy chewing gum across the causeway in Jahor Baru, Malaysia, so the gumming of the MRT continued. As far as I know, it is still happening, even though the punishment has probably gotten more severe.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: SandySandfort on April 19, 2010, 09:24:49 am
NO, I bet she goes to prison for some incredibly exaggerated charge. "Sabotage," "Unlawful interference with interstate commerce," "Willful and malicious tampering of a public vehicle," "Endangering the public." Something along those lines. Or maybe ALL of them, each charged and tried seperately, stacking the sentence(s) on top of each other consecutively, so the combined sentence would in effect be "LIFE."

Hey, you're getting pretty good at this.   ;D

FYI there is a "rat" in "separate." That's how Mrs. Pugh told us to remember how to spell it. BTW, Mrs. Pugh's husband was named, "U.R. Pugh." If that weren't bad enough, the "U.R." stood for "Ulna Roach." I kid you not.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: sams on April 19, 2010, 04:04:46 pm
1 design flaw since 1980  ::)

It was during the time I lived in Singapore that the infamous chewing gum law was passed. Everyone gets it wrong. Chewing gum was never banned in Singapore, merely the sale of chewing gum. (Stupid law on multiple levels.)

But why? Well it turns out that the MRT cars did have a design flaw that immobilized a train if any one of its twenty photocell door sensors were blocked. This single point of failure was exploited by rebellious teens. As they exited the train, they would surreptitiously remove a wad of chewing gum from their mouth and stick it in one of the photocell recesses. Bingo, the train goes nowhere until the all of the cells were inspected and de-gummed.

So instead of addressing the design flaw, the government of Singapore banned the sale of chewing gum.  Of course, you could still buy chewing gum across the causeway in Jahor Baru, Malaysia, so the gumming of the MRT continued. As far as I know, it is still happening, even though the punishment has probably gotten more severe.

Whoa ... what really interesting stuff :)

I'm pretty predisposed to belief in such lvl of government incompetence but a product with a flaw of more than 20 years is still outstanding  :o

ETA : Why don't Singapore Malaysia to put end to those acts of terror ;D Just joking
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: Sean Roach on April 19, 2010, 04:28:38 pm
Consider cell phones in the late 80's, early 90's.  It was very feasible to intercept cell phone conversations. Some older scanners were very capable of it.  So, what did the US government do?  Encourage people to be aware their conversations may not be secure?  Let the phone manufacturers come up with a technical solution?  No.  They made it illegal to listen in on open air broadcasts that happened to be cell phone conversations.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: SandySandfort on April 19, 2010, 05:38:27 pm
Consider cell phones in the late 80's, early 90's.  It was very feasible to intercept cell phone conversations. Some older scanners were very capable of it.  So, what did the US government do?  Encourage people to be aware their conversations may not be secure?  Let the phone manufacturers come up with a technical solution?  No.  They made it illegal to listen in on open air broadcasts that happened to be cell phone conversations.

Which, of course, could not be enforced to any significant degree. During the wildly popular CB craze, the FCC decided to get those cowboys to follow some rules. ("Without rules, there will be chaos!")

So they decreed that CBers were required to use their government issued call sign. Furthermore the were forbidden from using "handles." Basically, no one complied. Truckers and others did what they wanted and it was business as usual.

To save face, the FCC "relented." "Okay," they said, "we will allow you to use handles, but you are still required to use your government issued call sign." Again, no one complied. Truckers and others continued to use handles and not use call signs.

Before the FCC finally threw in the towel, I believe they then ruled that you could use a handle, but you had to register it. Yeah, right.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: Gillsing on April 19, 2010, 10:00:19 pm
FYI there is a "rat" in "separate." That's how Mrs. Pugh told us to remember how to spell it.
You mean that there's "a rat" in "separate"? Because the "rat" is still there in "seperate". Very important placement of that quotation mark. ;)

And thanks for telling the story about the chewing gum in Singapore. I think most people assume that it was outlawed because people left the gum on the pavement, which seems to go hand in hand with spitting being illegal. Or so I've heard anyway. I don't plan to ever go there, so I haven't checked my facts.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: terry_freeman on April 20, 2010, 12:56:46 am
I had a chat with some friends from Singapore who wanted me to move there, but I sort of balked when they told me the penalty for merely owning a firearm: death. Odd thing, they have universal military/police service, everyone has some experience with firearms, but AFAIK, all firearms must be left at the station when one goes home.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: sams on April 20, 2010, 03:33:51 am
I had a chat with some friends from Singapore who wanted me to move there, but I sort of balked when they told me the penalty for merely owning a firearm: death.
:o This is insane ... the worst thing is that when you will really need the gun it will be the occasion they will convict you for having

From today episodes

It is a characteristic of government prosecutors to make such broad accusations ... if she had been convicted by a private individuals, she would only be charged for only the loss not for sabotaging the ''operations of the state''
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: Azure Priest on April 20, 2010, 08:33:02 am
NO, I bet she goes to prison for some incredibly exaggerated charge. "Sabotage," "Unlawful interference with interstate commerce," "Willful and malicious tampering of a public vehicle," "Endangering the public." Something along those lines. Or maybe ALL of them, each charged and tried seperately, stacking the sentence(s) on top of each other consecutively, so the combined sentence would in effect be "LIFE."

Hey, you're getting pretty good at this.   ;D

FYI there is a "rat" in "separate." That's how Mrs. Pugh told us to remember how to spell it. BTW, Mrs. Pugh's husband was named, "U.R. Pugh." If that weren't bad enough, the "U.R." stood for "Ulna Roach." I kid you not.

Poor woman. What possible crime could she have committed in a past life to earn such a sentence.

As for the analysis, I watched "Triple x (XXX)" with Vin Diesel. I highly recommend it. The premise of the movie is that a government agency is trying to infiltrate this criminal organization, but the "boss" is spotting agents so easily that their lifespan makes being a mayfly look like a long term gig. As a result, the "spooks" go and recruit criminals with "three strikes" to infiltrate the gang instead. Vin Diesel's character pulls off a "crime" by stealing a wildly unpopular senator's car (a car "gifted" to him by some Lobbyist or another) and destroys the car by driving it off a bridge as a form of protest for many of the senator's wildly unpopular initiatives (videotaping himself in the process) and the head spook, breaks the incident down into three separate felonies, forcing Diesel's character to either work for the spooks, or face life in prison without parole. The rest of the movie runs like a Bond flick with a slightly punk twist.

I do NOT recommend watching "Triple X (XXX) State of the union" which is the sequel. It takes everything that was good about the original, shoots it, blows it up and sets the pieces on fire, including the "original, witty" dialogue between Diesel's character and the head spook.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: Jtuxyan on April 20, 2010, 10:01:50 am
Quote
From today episodes

It is a characteristic of government prosecutors to make such broad accusations ... if she had been convicted by a private individuals, she would only be charged for only the loss not for sabotaging the ''operations of the state''

Or they could have just decided to beat the everloving shit out of her so she won't do it again and send her on her way, instead of charging her with anything. Anarchy is like that.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: SandySandfort on April 20, 2010, 10:35:33 am
I had a chat with some friends from Singapore who wanted me to move there, but I sort of balked when they told me the penalty for merely owning a firearm: death...

This is not quite true. Anyone may own firearms. However, they may keep and fire them only at a gun club. This I know for sure. When I lived in Singapore, our Chinese business partner was a gun owner.

Also, I seriously doubt that the death penalty applies to mere possession of a firearm outside of a gun club. A citation would be appreciated.

What your friends probably meant was that the aggressive use of a firearm meant the death penalty. While I was in Singapore, a criminal hijacked a taxi at gun point, while fleeing the crime scene. He lead the police on a wild car chase across the island. At some point, he bailed from the taxi and ran into an undeveloped area. When the police approached, he warned them off with shots. He realized that now, if he were captured, he would be executed. So he used the gun to take his own life.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: sams on April 20, 2010, 11:04:10 am
Quote
From today episodes

It is a characteristic of government prosecutors to make such broad accusations ... if she had been convicted by a private individuals, she would only be charged for only the loss not for sabotaging the ''operations of the state''

Or they could have just decided to beat the everloving shit out of her so she won't do it again and send her on her way, instead of charging her with anything. Anarchy is like that.

I staid 10 min in front of my monitor and couldn't find an appropriate way to respond to this utter piece of nonsense

Do you really see that in the context of the present episode if she was victim of sabotaging a privately owned Tram she would be lynched ?

Please at least try make some humanly reasonable argument next time you decide to taint your computer keyboard
I had a chat with some friends from Singapore who wanted me to move there, but I sort of balked when they told me the penalty for merely owning a firearm: death...

This is not quite true. Anyone may own firearms. However, they may keep and fire them only at a gun club. This I know for sure. When I lived in Singapore, our Chinese business partner was a gun owner.

Also, I seriously doubt that the death penalty applies to mere possession of a firearm outside of a gun club. A citation would be appreciated.

What your friends probably meant was that the aggressive use of a firearm meant the death penalty. While I was in Singapore, a criminal hijacked a taxi at gun point, while fleeing the crime scene. He lead the police on a wild car chase across the island. At some point, he bailed from the taxi and ran into an undeveloped area. When the police approached, he warned them off with shots. He realized that now, if he were captured, he would be executed. So he used the gun to take his own life.

Thanks for the clarification ... so Singapore is kind of a freer society or a strange mixture of both ?

I'm very intrigued by singapore since it looks like a dictatorship but doesn't seems like one :-\
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: SandySandfort on April 20, 2010, 11:46:15 am
Thanks for the clarification ... so Singapore is kind of a freer society or a strange mixture of both ?

I'm very intrigued by singapore since it looks like a dictatorship but doesn't seems like one :-\

Dictatorships--and Singapore is an authoritarian state; a dictatorship, if you will--vary as to the idiosyncrasies of the dictators. Mostly, if you don't cause trouble, you are left alone in Singapore, because that's the way Lee Kwan Yew wanted it. Lee was a patriot of sorts and really did work to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Often, however, at the cost of civil liberties. What is amazing, is that he stepped down... more or less. He is now "Senior Minister Lee" and only jumps in, like a deus ex machina, to resolve problems that the current government cannot.

After I left Singapore, William Gibson and I wrote companion articles about Singapore for Wired magazine. I briefed Gibson before his whirlwind visit there and fact-checked his article before publication. Our articles can be found here:

   http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html
   http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/sandfort.html

Singapore regularly censors magazine articles they do not like. Sometimes they ban the particular issue, other times they remove the offending article, from every copy of the issue, with a scissors! Apparently, they did not like our articles, but they knew better that to ban Wired. Wired has too many free-speech advocates. So they did something very clever.

All newspapers and magazines are imported by MPH, a book distributor and seller. At the time MPH was either owned by the government or otherwise controlled. So what happened was that the Wired issue with our articles was not censored, per se. Instead, MPH "accidentally" underestimated the demand and bought only a handful of copies. See, no censorship... sort of.

The funny part was that we were contacted by pro-freedom university students who asked for permission to post the article on the internet. Of course, permission was granted immediately and at no cost. "You can't stop the signal, Mal."

 
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: sams on April 20, 2010, 12:42:56 pm
Thanks for the article Sandy  :D

I just made some reading and feel like the Dark Side of the force is taking possession of my mind  ;D
It is interesting that Singapore is #2 in Economic freedom ... Maybe one way to preserve freedom would be to negate to people the use of the government has a way to plunder others, I now this in the practical case of Singapore means to give up civic freedom

I would be great if we could take the opportunity of the Greek bankruptcy to buy and island and run a Mediterranean Singapore and install a fee based residency ... but this is just my sick twisted mind  ;D

I will try to read more about Singapore and I wait for tomorrow episode
Title: Urine detectors.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 20, 2010, 01:49:19 pm
In the elevators. How cool is that?

Insane, and dictatorial, but a man can dream... I've stepped in enough urine-logged elevators to wish heartily for something similar here in the States.
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: Azure Priest on April 21, 2010, 07:33:27 am
Quote
From today episodes

It is a characteristic of government prosecutors to make such broad accusations ... if she had been convicted by a private individuals, she would only be charged for only the loss not for sabotaging the ''operations of the state''

Or they could have just decided to beat the everloving shit out of her so she won't do it again and send her on her way, instead of charging her with anything. Anarchy is like that.

Not in front of the "newsies."
Title: Re: 2010-04-13 et seq
Post by: terry_freeman on April 21, 2010, 01:40:30 pm
You are correct about keeping guns in clubs: I had forgotten that detail. However, my friend from Singapore - who was a reserve officer in the police - was quite insistent; having a gun in one's home is a capital offense. "DEATH", as he repeatedly put it, in all caps.

I looked at the crime reports. Quite a few cases of little old ladies being robbed by young, vigorous bullies who need not fear that the lady might carry an equalizer.