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" ?

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?

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 04:15:46 pm by sams »

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.

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.

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.
I'm a slacker, hear me snore...

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.

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''

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.

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.