13 Points Agreed for New Iraqi Government

that is the nature and purpose of life, after all.

I believe that part of Zon's point is that any action which endangers no one should never be criminalized in the first place.
Since ALL authority to enforce ANY law stems directly from the use of deadly force, there is a point to this way of thinking.
Should actions which pose no danger be punishable by death?

If you think I am incorrect on my basic premise, try this on for size:
You illegally traverse an intersection against a red light at a time and place in which there is absolutely no traffic - thus, no danger posed.
However, you are spotted by a policeman in a parked patrol car down the block a ways.
The police officer figures this is a chance for some easy revenue and a tick on his citation-quota, so he pulls you over.
When he informs you of the offense, you shrug, say you have no time for nonsense, and drive off.
You are now resisting arrest.
The officer decides to pursue.
You refuse to stop.
You are now a fugitive.
The officer pursues and calls backup.
You do not pull over until you get home.
You go inside and lock the door.
The police surround your home and try to break in (all to enforce a nonsense law, remember)
You, being reasonable, think this has surpassed annoying nonsense and become intolerable tyranny, and throw down on the first officer through the door.
You are now assaulting an officer of the law with a deadly weapon...
And we all know how THAT tends to turn out.
Now, all of this over a harmless violation af a nonsensical statute.
Go figure.

"that is the nature and purpose of life, after all."

Dang, you're philosophical about the prospect, I must say. ;^)

I'm reminded of a much later figure than Demosthenes...Epictetus.

Seriously, it would be a crowning glory for America, if 2500 years hence, she is regarded by humanity as Athens is by our culture now.

Thank you, and so would I.

I disagree with point 10. I don't see why it is necessary to forbid the Baathists. I don't think they pose much risk of regaining power and you can't really have a democracy when you forbid certain parties.

Sure. Keep in mind that many people who wield the power of government will work to misconstrue the wording no matter how exacting it is. The problem is not the wording, rather, the intent of the people in their attempts to deny its clarity. It's a parasitical elite problem far far more than an issue of clarity.

How, then, will law-breakers be arrested?

Bob Jones, the victim, files a complaint with the police that Joe Smith has harmed him. Thus consisting the initiation of force if in fact Joe did to Bob what Bob claims. At this point there has been no jury trial to prove one way or the other. So the police are acting on good faith using force in self-defense to arrest Joe Smith. There's a big difference in Bob Jones initiating force and the police using self-defense force.

They police can't use force or the threat of force.

They can't initiate force or threat of force.

Many crimes do not involve danger to others, so the self-defense caveat can't be used to stop them.

You must referring to victimless crimes that are in effect the violation of political agenda law and the crimes are against the State. I hazard to guess that you advocate that the government initiates harm and suffering against people that are minding their own business and harmed no one.

Additionally, no property may be seized by the legal system. How can any court order to recompensate others ever be enforced if the accused is non-compliant?

The present legal system is wrought with political agenda laws and ego-justice. Argue for it all you like but it's still a dinosaur. BTW, eighty percent of the property seized by the DEA non person is ever charged with a crime. Less than one percent of it ever returned to the owner. The legal "system" has no qualms about that. Argue for it all you like but it's still a dinosaur.

But it sounds pretty.

You're a teacher. Children should be taught thinking skills. How to use their minds to identify pertinent pieces of information and bring them together into a context where they can then make assessments and judgments and from there create a plan of action. Unfortunately, the teacher at the head of the class has been conscripted into the indoctrination (education) system. They're responsible for polluting young minds with "it sounds pretty" dogma of which some will grow up to become parasitical elites. Isn't that special -- NOT!

There's a big difference in Bob Jones initiating force and the police using self-defense force...They can't initiate force or threat of force.

1. You're assuming that all crimes involve an initiation of force against another for the police to use the "self-defense" excuse. How about possession of controlled substances (no action or intent required), public indecency (in their own yard), zoning regulation violations (building a restaurant in a residential area), negligence (the absence of required action), etc? How will the police be able to act without being the initiators?

2. I am not an advocate of malum prohibitum ("a crime because we say so") criminal statutes, nor am I totally opposed to them as a default position, but thanks for making baseless (and serioussly wrong) assumptions. It's a good indicator of your debating skills.

Children should be taught thinking skills. How to use their minds to identify pertinent pieces of information and bring them together into a context where they can then make assessments and judgments and from there create a plan of action.

And I'm trying to show you that you've created a system that, if implemented, is more full of holes than Swiss cheese. Sadly, you stil can't see that, and you deflect into arguments about US state-initiated force in enforcing laws that you personally dislike. (And, oddly enough, you assume that a Muslim-dominated Iraq is LESS likely than the US to feature malum prohibitum laws. LOL!)

Unfortunately, the teacher at the head of the class has been conscripted into the indoctrination (education) system. They're responsible for polluting young minds with "it sounds pretty" dogma of which some will grow up to become parasitical elites. Isn't that special -- NOT!

YOU'RE the one with the idealistic and pathetically short-sighted system of laws, friend. You're the one that needs to actually recognize that Randian Objectivism is not a complete system, and that it hardly well-suited to a society that has just been rescued from a tyrant's generation-long rule and contains many elements ready to replace him or try to resurrect his party's rule. Finally, if you want some insight into my general classroom pratices, find a few education threads. I'm not shy on those, either.

1. You're assuming that all crimes involve an initiation of force against another for the police to use the "self-defense" excuse. How about possession of controlled substances (no action or intent required), public indecency (in their own yard), zoning regulation violations (building a restaurant in a residential area), negligence (the absence of required action), etc? How will the police be able to act without being the initiators?

Violation of community ordnances and zoning laws is the initiation of force. The key is are law enforcement officers, politicians and bureaucrats from the town councilman to the mayor to the President operating with honesty and integrity or are the negligent in shirking their responsibility to protect the people. No amount of laws will make people honest. For example, no matter how clearly written the Second Amendment could have been written their would still be politicians, bureaucrats, media reporters, journalists, acedemics and special interest groups denying the clear meaning of the Seconds Amendment. They've done that with other parts of the constitution and Bill of Rights. It also is a problem at the state and local levels of government.

2. I am not an advocate of malum prohibitum ("a crime because we say so") criminal statutes, nor am I totally opposed to them as a default position, but thanks for making baseless (and serioussly wrong) assumptions. It's a good indicator of your debating skills.

Possession of certain drugs which are controlled substance without a prescription is malum prohibitum -- a crime to posses because politicians say so. It's political agenda law. Are you going to argue that the movie Refer Madness was an accurate depiction and thus warranted marijuana prohibition. Granted, marijuana it's not a controlled substance but THC is. So much for your inability to discern between what constitutes objective law from political agenda law. My assertion was spot on. Your understanding of honest justice and objective law is quite poor.

And I'm trying to show you that you've created a system that, if implemented, is more full of holes than Swiss cheese. Sadly, you stil can't see that, and you deflect into arguments about US state-initiated force in enforcing laws that you personally dislike.

Your style of debate is to belittle your opponent. You saying, "sadly you don't see" is but one example. Another is where you said "thanks for making baseless (and serioussly wrong) assumptions." In fact my assertion was spot on. I don't like laws that initiate force or threat of force against people that are minding their own business and have harmed no one. Whereas you like the laws government uses government to initiate force, harm and suffering against people that are minding their own business and harmed no one.

(And, oddly enough, you assume that a Muslim-dominated Iraq is LESS likely than the US to feature malum prohibitum laws. LOL!)

You have assumed wrong. I was well aware of what I was saying when I wrote "There's nothing in the below that conflicts with Iraqi traditions and values." Iraqi values and traditions do not include Iraqi's initiating force, threat of force or fraud against people. I was and am well aware that dishonest people seeking to wield the power of government gravitate toward abusing their own citizens and one way they do that is by creating political agenda laws. The Preamble and three Articles I posted prohibit political agenda laws. That is al. It says nothing about the Muslim-dominated Iraqi people You seem to be basing your arguments without principles. With your "LOL!" comment you have yet again made a weak attempt to belittle your opponent. Not to mention that your assumption was wrong in the first place.

YOU'RE the one with the idealistic and pathetically short-sighted system of laws, friend. You're the one that needs to actually recognize that Randian Objectivism is not a complete system, and that it hardly well-suited to a society that has just been rescued from a tyrant's generation-long rule and contains many elements ready to replace him or try to resurrect his party's rule.

Nice Rant -- NOT! I've never read any of Ayn Rand's books. My foundation is in fully integrated honesty.

Finally, if you want some insight into my general classroom pratices, find a few education threads. I'm not shy on those, either.

Been there, done that. It was on one of your education thread. In my first post I approached you as a student approaching the teacher. I was honest, sincere and straight forward with my comments and you wanted no part of it. You said I was being too serious. That's not an assumption on my part, you said it. It was about nine months to a year ago, maybe longer.

I stand by what I wrote: "Unfortunately, the teacher at the head of the class has been conscripted into the indoctrination (education) system. They're [plural] responsible for polluting young minds with "it sounds pretty" dogma of which some will grow up to become parasitical elites. Isn't that special -- NOT!"

I hope you don't teach the way you debate. Trying to belittle people is more a reflection of you than your intended target.

Good line about a nation formed from 13 colonies. Also, I'm not sure about this, but looking at the 13 points, does it look like the concept of federalism is going to be strong there in whatever constitution they draw up?

... but it's still a dinosaur.

I'm curious about your repeated use of the term "dinosaur." Are you under the impression that, for example, the DEA property siezure laws (since you bring them up) are old? I may be a dinosaur myself, but I remember when they were passed.
IMO, as a general rule, the old (dinosaur) laws were better the the innovative laws we are under now.

I'm curious about your repeated use of the term "dinosaur."

Yes, I used the word twice.

Are you under the impression that, for example, the DEA property siezure laws (since you bring them up) are old? I may be a dinosaur myself, but I remember when they were passed.

I'm under no impression. Dinosaur, which you have repeatedly used :) refers not to age but being on the way out, towards extinction. It's a somewhat common term used to describe a standard that is outdated. For example, the mimeograph is a dinosaur and the slide rule is a dinosaur. 286 computers are dinosaurs, though some are still used as workhorses.

IMO, as a general rule, the old (dinosaur) laws were better the the innovative laws we are under now.

The laws aren't the problem. It's irrational and dishonest methods politicians and bureaucrats that use deceptive tactics to create and use bad laws. Those methods and tactics are dinosaurs. Unredeemable politicians and bureaucrats are also dinosaur.