Liberty's Light

A Christian forum dedicated to the discussion of how a nation based entirely off of biblical principles ought to be like. We believe that Righteousness Exalteth a Nation, and that God's righteous hand is necessary for the blessing of any nation.
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Prevention

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Tue May 26, 2009 5:32 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:

The principle would be this: the civil magistrate can only punish crime that has been proven to have occurred and it can only punish the criminal. Stated that way, it seems pretty obvious. What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

I would say that civil magistrate can also punish intended crime. For instance, if a person held someone up and threatened them but didn't actually harm or impede their life, liberty, or property, the fact that they threatened to do so would make them guilty under law. However, this digresses from the main point of the post. So:

Prevention, in which everyone is restricted from doing something in the hopes that it prevents crimes, is not just and is outside the government's jurisdiction. The government can only punish criminals who have been proven as to having committed or threatened to commit a crime. See definition on crime for clarification.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Tue May 26, 2009 7:11 am

caleb wrote:
Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:

The principle would be this: the civil magistrate can only punish crime that has been proven to have occurred and it can only punish the criminal. Stated that way, it seems pretty obvious. What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

I would say that civil magistrate can also punish intended crime. For instance, if a person held someone up and threatened them but didn't actually harm or impede their life, liberty, or property, the fact that they threatened to do so would make them guilty under law. However, this digresses from the main point of the post. So:

Prevention, in which everyone is restricted from doing something in the hopes that it prevents crimes, is not just and is outside the government's jurisdiction. The government can only punish criminals who have been proven as to having committed or threatened to commit a crime. See definition on crime for clarification.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

'holding someone up' is kidnapping, however brief, and punishable by death.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Tue May 26, 2009 7:36 am

von wrote:
caleb wrote:
Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:

The principle would be this: the civil magistrate can only punish crime that has been proven to have occurred and it can only punish the criminal. Stated that way, it seems pretty obvious. What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

I would say that civil magistrate can also punish intended crime. For instance, if a person held someone up and threatened them but didn't actually harm or impede their life, liberty, or property, the fact that they threatened to do so would make them guilty under law. However, this digresses from the main point of the post. So:

Prevention, in which everyone is restricted from doing something in the hopes that it prevents crimes, is not just and is outside the government's jurisdiction. The government can only punish criminals who have been proven as to having committed or threatened to commit a crime. See definition on crime for clarification.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

'holding someone up' is kidnapping, however brief, and punishable by death.

Caleb,

I agree with your conclusion.

Von,

I like your point about holding someone up: I never thought of it that way before. So are you saying that if I point a gun at you and tell you to hand over your wallet I am kidnapping you and worthy of death? What if I knock you out and then take your money without a gun? Would those be crimes of kidnapping or theft?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Tue May 26, 2009 10:29 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:

Von,

I like your point about holding someone up: I never thought of it that way before. So are you saying that if I point a gun at you and tell you to hand over your wallet I am kidnapping you and worthy of death? What if I knock you out and then take your money without a gun? Would those be crimes of kidnapping or theft?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

Though this may be an interesting discussion, and one I will join, it is off topic for this post. Could we continue this via pm? Mr. Ohlman, do you agree with the conclusion?:

Quote :
Prevention, in which everyone is restricted from doing something in the hopes that it prevents crimes, is not just and is outside the government's jurisdiction. The government can only punish criminals who have been proven as to having committed or threatened to commit a crime. See definition on crime for clarification.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 23
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Tue May 26, 2009 2:23 pm

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
I think so. There may be situations that we have not yet considered, but I can't think of any situation where it would be okay for the civil magistrate to restrict everyone in order to prevent a crime that most of them are not committing.

Although, on second thought, we have rules that you're not allowed to carry guns into airplanes. I think this makes sense. Do you think this falls into the category you are talking about? Maybe we can allow private airlines to make these rules, and the customers can fly on whatever airline they feel safest on?

Yes, that is the category that I am talking about.

Government should leave this to the private airlines, which is well within their (the airlines) prerogative to do. It is also well outside of the government's, though. In America, it is even unconstitutional.

The principle would be this: the civil magistrate can only punish crime that has been proven to have occurred and it can only punish the criminal. Stated that way, it seems pretty obvious. What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

This is in the interest of the airline, but the government, not only the airline, is directly threatened by the possibility of a hijack. It is likely that if a plane is hijacked it will run into a government building, so this could be treated as a national security/military issue, not just a prevention issues.

And what about the USA PATRIOT Act? That seemed to work, and it could also be put in the national security/military category. If it's treated as a defence operation, I think it might be a good idea in some circumstances.

_________________
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6: 12)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Tue May 26, 2009 9:43 pm

caleb wrote:
Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:

Von,

I like your point about holding someone up: I never thought of it that way before. So are you saying that if I point a gun at you and tell you to hand over your wallet I am kidnapping you and worthy of death? What if I knock you out and then take your money without a gun? Would those be crimes of kidnapping or theft?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

Though this may be an interesting discussion, and one I will join, it is off topic for this post. Could we continue this via pm? Mr. Ohlman, do you agree with the conclusion?:

Quote :
Prevention, in which everyone is restricted from doing something in the hopes that it prevents crimes, is not just and is outside the government's jurisdiction. The government can only punish criminals who have been proven as to having committed or threatened to commit a crime. See definition on crime for clarification.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

I would eliminate 'threatened to commit' as a tautology. If we are saying we will punish it, then we are saying it is a crime.

So if I hold a gun to your head, I believe I have committed, not threatened to commit a crime.

Feel free to PM me as you wish.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Wed May 27, 2009 2:22 am

von wrote:

I would eliminate 'threatened to commit' as a tautology. If we are saying we will punish it, then we are saying it is a crime.

So if I hold a gun to your head, I believe I have committed, not threatened to commit a crime.

True, holding a gun to my head would be a crime on your part. But what if a terrorist states that if you do not give him $1,000,000 he will bomb your house, that would be a threat. The question is whether a threat is a crime. Which needs to be defined in the Crime thread when it comes back online. Therefore, I would agree that it would be best to remove 'threatened to commit.' What do the rest of you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Wed May 27, 2009 5:44 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:

True, holding a gun to my head would be a crime on your part. But what if a terrorist states that if you do not give him $1,000,000 he will bomb your house, that would be a threat. The question is whether a threat is a crime. Which needs to be defined in the Crime thread when it comes back online. Therefore, I would agree that it would be best to remove 'threatened to commit.' What do the rest of you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

Good point. If our definition of crime included the threat of a crime as also being punishable by civil magistrate, than this phrase becomes unnecessary. If we don't define crime in this way, then we obviously would have concluded that the threat of a crime is not punishable by civil magistrate and thus isn't needed in the definition of prevention. So:

Prevention, in which everyone is restricted from doing something in the hopes that it prevents crimes, is not just and is outside the government's jurisdiction. The government can only punish criminals who have been proven as to having committed a crime. See definition on crime for clarification.

Everyone agree?

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Wed May 27, 2009 7:33 am

caleb wrote:

Good point. If our definition of crime included the threat of a crime as also being punishable by civil magistrate, than this phrase becomes unnecessary. If we don't define crime in this way, then we obviously would have concluded that the threat of a crime is not punishable by civil magistrate and thus isn't needed in the definition of prevention. So:

Prevention, in which everyone is restricted from doing something in the hopes that it prevents crimes, is not just and is outside the government's jurisdiction. The government can only punish criminals who have been proven as to having committed a crime. See definition on crime for clarification.

Everyone agree?

To God be the glory,
-Caleb

Agreed.

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Hannah Marie
Moderator
Moderator


Female Number of posts : 99
Age : 24
Registration date : 15/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Wed May 27, 2009 3:05 pm

Quote :
Prevention, in which everyone is restricted from doing something in the hopes that it prevents crimes, is not just and is outside the government's jurisdiction. The government can only punish criminals who have been proven as to having committed a crime. See definition on crime for clarification.

I am in agreement with this conclusion!

In Him,
Hannah

_________________
If you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding; and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. Proverbs 2:1-5
Back to top Go down
View user profile
von



Male Number of posts : 166
Age : 55
Location : Texas
Registration date : 16/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Thu May 28, 2009 9:35 am

Hannah Marie wrote:
Quote :
Prevention, in which everyone is restricted from doing something in the hopes that it prevents crimes, is not just and is outside the government's jurisdiction. The government can only punish criminals who have been proven as to having committed a crime. See definition on crime for clarification.

I am in agreement with this conclusion!

In Him,
Hannah

I may or may not be in agreement with the definition of crime on which it depends, but this is fine as it stands.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://vonstakes.blogspot.com
Dr. Hipopótamo
Honor roll member
Honor roll member


Male Number of posts : 131
Age : 23
Location : USA
Registration date : 11/02/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Thu May 28, 2009 9:00 pm

Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:
Dr. Hipopótamo wrote:
I think so. There may be situations that we have not yet considered, but I can't think of any situation where it would be okay for the civil magistrate to restrict everyone in order to prevent a crime that most of them are not committing.

Although, on second thought, we have rules that you're not allowed to carry guns into airplanes. I think this makes sense. Do you think this falls into the category you are talking about? Maybe we can allow private airlines to make these rules, and the customers can fly on whatever airline they feel safest on?

Yes, that is the category that I am talking about.

Government should leave this to the private airlines, which is well within their (the airlines) prerogative to do. It is also well outside of the government's, though. In America, it is even unconstitutional.

The principle would be this: the civil magistrate can only punish crime that has been proven to have occurred and it can only punish the criminal. Stated that way, it seems pretty obvious. What do you think?

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

This is in the interest of the airline, but the government, not only the airline, is directly threatened by the possibility of a hijack. It is likely that if a plane is hijacked it will run into a government building, so this could be treated as a national security/military issue, not just a prevention issues.

And what about the USA PATRIOT Act? That seemed to work, and it could also be put in the national security/military category. If it's treated as a defence operation, I think it might be a good idea in some circumstances.

I think there should be something in our conclusion about these issues, because the way the conclusion is written right now, we would be saying that the government has no right to control airport security or watch potential terrorist threats, or do other things like that. I don't necessarily agree with that position. The threat of punishment isn't enough to prevent terrorism, as most terrorists are dead before they're caught. The airplane safety issue directly affects national security, so it's not just between the airline and the passengers. Maybe it could be considered one of those case applications for new technology and unexpected circumstances, sort of like traffic safety regulations. I also think it makes sense to keep an eye on potential crime threats, even if they haven't done anything yet, and especially if they are potential terrorists.

_________________
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6: 12)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri May 29, 2009 2:47 am

The year was 1984. The cloaked Arab slid through the dense Jerusalem crowds. His heart would have been pounding, but his religion and experience in this sort of thing overruled his more natural nervousness and fear. He glanced across at his partner on the other side of the square, he was ready. Where was the third? Panic gripped his heart, but then he saw the other member of his team. Why were his palms sweaty? He had mowed down crowds of innocents before with no qualm, why would now be different? He gritted his teeth against his urge to hesitate, and threw back his cloak. The bark of his machine gun exploded across the dusty street, sending death biting into the Israeli populace. His two team members opened fire on his signal and joined him in what they thought would be carnage. Suddenly flashes and sharp cracks echoed around him, and a burning pain ripped through his chest. Six shop owners had returned fire with their sidearms. His two comrades fled as he lay in a pool of his own blood and died. Only one Israeli had fallen with him. After that, terrorists preferred long range attacks on Israel: machine-gunning armed civilians was too risky.

That is my rendition of a true, historical, factual event that really did occur. 'The Seven Myths of Gun Control' by Richard Poe demonstrates clearly, with many more statistics, logic, and history that gun control increases crime. If a terrorist knows that he can not hope to hijack a plane because there is almost assuredly an armed passenger on that plane, and he does not know which one that armed passenger is, he will try another method of terrorism. Period. The shadow of a doubt that he will not succeed will be enough to dissuade him: that is hard documented evidence.

Any effort by the government to 'prevent' crime by limiting liberty not only fails, but creates problems predicted and unforeseen.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Jonathan S.
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 58
Age : 24
Location : Indiana
Registration date : 08/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri May 29, 2009 10:01 pm

Good post Jay. Wouldn't there have to be some regulation though? An armed citizen can't stop a time bomb from going off. Can't that be a threat to national security? What if a terrorist were to threaten to set off a bomb if the pilots didn't drive the plane into a government building? I'm not sure if that could be prevented or not. In general, and maybe unequivocally, I agree with your statements about gun control. I just have to think some more about how that would all work out in real life.

One more point, what about tanks and fighter planes? If those were commercially available, only the very wealthy could afford them, and a lot of big time criminals are very wealthy. How does that fit into our liberty? Does it threaten others' liberty too much?

_________________
~Jonathan S.
For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power and love and discipline. --2 Tim 1:7
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Sat May 30, 2009 2:29 am

Jonathan,

I will address your last point first, if you don't mind. If there was a law preventing common citizens from owning large scale munitions, only the law-abiding citizens would hold by it: thus rendering the criminals with a clear advantage. This is a solid principle, and is backed up historically and economically. If you outlaw something, only the outlaws will do it. America would not exist if it was not allowed to carry weapons equal in technology to the British Military. One of the reasons they separated was because England was starting to try to take away that right.

As to bombs. They are different. There is no reason to bring a bomb on board a plane except terrorism. Period. So bringing a bomb on board is tantamount to announcing intent to kill, and is therefore a crime: punishable by death (on the spot if necessary). This is a criminal matter, and not a prevention matter.

With joy and peace in Christ,
Jay Lauser

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Jonathan S.
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 58
Age : 24
Location : Indiana
Registration date : 08/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Sun May 31, 2009 1:51 pm

Jay,
If it is illegal to have large munitions, than it is almost impossible for the criminals to hide them. I'm not saying that they should be outlawed or not, but it is much easier to hide an illegal gun than an illegal airplane or tank. However, if it were legal to have such weapons, then a would-be criminal could keep a clean record until he gets his weapons, and then let it all loose. Maybe I'm missing something. I definitely agree that small munitions like rifles and pistols etc. have to be legal, but I'm not sure about the really big things. What do you think?

In Christ,

_________________
~Jonathan S.
For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power and love and discipline. --2 Tim 1:7
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:33 am

Jonathan S. wrote:
Jay,
If it is illegal to have large munitions, than it is almost impossible for the criminals to hide them. I'm not saying that they should be outlawed or not, but it is much easier to hide an illegal gun than an illegal airplane or tank. However, if it were legal to have such weapons, then a would-be criminal could keep a clean record until he gets his weapons, and then let it all loose. Maybe I'm missing something. I definitely agree that small munitions like rifles and pistols etc. have to be legal, but I'm not sure about the really big things. What do you think?

In Christ,

I might be misunderstanding you, but it seems like you are saying that because it is possible to enforce the law, and because it is possible for crime to be committed with large munitions, then we need to have them banned for normal civilians. (I know you probably are not advocating that, but that seems to be your logic.) Could you clarify?

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Jonathan S.
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 58
Age : 24
Location : Indiana
Registration date : 08/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:39 am

Sorry, that is what It sounded like I said. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to say, now that I think about it again. Oops. Maybe I was tired yesterday, or maybe I'm too tired today to remember what I was thinking. I don't know. Embarassed Smile

_________________
~Jonathan S.
For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power and love and discipline. --2 Tim 1:7
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:34 am

Jonathan S. wrote:
Sorry, that is what It sounded like I said. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what I was trying to say, now that I think about it again. Oops. Maybe I was tired yesterday, or maybe I'm too tired today to remember what I was thinking. I don't know. Embarassed Smile

I know how that is. I am myself very tired and groggy.

I think the bottom line is this: no law can prevent any crime from occurring. A law can only make it so that a crime can be punished. Therefore laws can only deal with crimes proven to have already occurred, not non-criminal actions, no matter how stupid. Smile Make sense?

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:29 am

Sir Emeth Mimetes wrote:

I know how that is. I am myself very tired and groggy.

I think the bottom line is this: no law can prevent any crime from occurring. A law can only make it so that a crime can be punished. Therefore laws can only deal with crimes proven to have already occurred, not non-criminal actions, no matter how stupid. Smile Make sense?

Good discussion guys. I do have to agree with this last conclusion though. By the way Jonathan, in case you don't remember our conclusion, here it is. After this discussion about large armaments, do you agree?

Quote :
Prevention, in which everyone is restricted from doing something in the hopes that it prevents crimes, is not just and is outside the government's jurisdiction. The government can only punish criminals who have been proven as to having committed a crime. See definition on crime for clarification.

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:06 am

I've been having a short discussion with Jay about debt, insurance, and interest in regards to prevention and wanted to get some other thoughts on it. In one way these three things can be criminal based on our definition of crime. First of all, there are numerous passages of Scripture which speak against debt, insurance, and interest. Secondly, these concepts do threaten property and to some extent liberty. Bankruptcies and foreclosures cause people and businesses to loose money and property that they shouldn't have to loose and wouldn't loose if these three things were not in existence. Look at the mess America is in now because of exorbitant debt, insurance policies, and banking. People are loosing property (which includes money) and their liberty because of this.

At one level, I guess this would be a good prevention. Make debt, insurance, and interest illegal for everyone. This helps protect people's property and liberty. Criminals who don't follow prevention laws can't ignore this law to the harm of anyone else because these three actions include equal effort from both parties. If a criminal wants to break this prevention law, there must be another party involved who is willing to break it just as much. No one else is harmed. This is unlike preventing arms. Criminals would still get guns, which then puts everyone else at risk. Jay did bring up a good point that

Quote :
Debt is sinful and stupid, but is, in and of itself, not inherently injurious, and so is not a crime.... Any punishment of anything non-crime inevitably has a bad effect.

Any comments from a biblical standpoint?
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sir Emeth Mimetes
Admin
Admin


Male Number of posts : 446
Age : 26
Location : Cork, co. Cork, Ireland
Registration date : 07/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:41 pm

caleb wrote:
I've been having a short discussion with Jay about debt, insurance, and interest in regards to prevention and wanted to get some other thoughts on it. In one way these three things can be criminal based on our definition of crime. First of all, there are numerous passages of Scripture which speak against debt, insurance, and interest. Secondly, these concepts do threaten property and to some extent liberty. Bankruptcies and foreclosures cause people and businesses to loose money and property that they shouldn't have to loose and wouldn't loose if these three things were not in existence. Look at the mess America is in now because of exorbitant debt, insurance policies, and banking. People are loosing property (which includes money) and their liberty because of this.

At one level, I guess this would be a good prevention. Make debt, insurance, and interest illegal for everyone. This helps protect people's property and liberty. Criminals who don't follow prevention laws can't ignore this law to the harm of anyone else because these three actions include equal effort from both parties. If a criminal wants to break this prevention law, there must be another party involved who is willing to break it just as much. No one else is harmed. This is unlike preventing arms. Criminals would still get guns, which then puts everyone else at risk. Jay did bring up a good point that

Quote :
Debt is sinful and stupid, but is, in and of itself, not inherently injurious, and so is not a crime.... Any punishment of anything non-crime inevitably has a bad effect.

Any comments from a biblical standpoint?
-Caleb

So in your proposal, you are outlawing a certain type of contract, is that right? Now, I agree that certain contracts ought to be outlawed, such as contracts to do a crime. But a contract that is inherently stupid or even damaging to the parties involved need not be outlawed. Only contracts that harm people not included in the contract need be outlawed. Does that make sense?

_________________
I am Sir Emeth Mimetes (knighted to the warfare of truth by the calling of Christ, the Master of my order), and thus, though poorly is it ever met by my feeble abilities, is my mission: to combat those ideas that are rooted in mindsets that are contrary to my Master.
May I never forsake abiding in Him, and may His ways never cease to thrive within my heart, for He only is my strength and hope.
note: emeth is Hebrew for truth, right, faithful;
mimetes is Greek for an imitator or follower.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://siremethmimetes.wordpress.com
Jonathan S.
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 58
Age : 24
Location : Indiana
Registration date : 08/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:43 pm

I have to agree with Jay on this, because not only is debt not injurious to any one other than the two willing parties involved (and their families), but it can also be a very good thing. Very few people could afford to own a house if they couldn't take out a mortgage on it. To prevent losing it, you just have to buy one that you can easily afford to pay the interest on. Businesses also often need "smart debt" to get started or to expand.
So to prevent debt, we would have to take away a right to liberty and to property, right?

In Christ,

_________________
~Jonathan S.
For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power and love and discipline. --2 Tim 1:7
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Jonathan S.
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 58
Age : 24
Location : Indiana
Registration date : 08/01/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:45 pm

By the way, in my last post I pointed out that debt can harm the families of those involved too. I'm not sure what the biblical position is as far as the right to make poor decisions that affect immediate family members. Was there a discussion on that that I didn't see, or should I start one?

_________________
~Jonathan S.
For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power and love and discipline. --2 Tim 1:7
Back to top Go down
View user profile
caleb
Moderator
Moderator


Male Number of posts : 231
Age : 23
Location : Central Indiana
Registration date : 14/03/2009

PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:05 pm

Jonathan S. wrote:
I have to agree with Jay on this, because not only is debt not injurious to any one other than the two willing parties involved (and their families), but it can also be a very good thing. Very few people could afford to own a house if they couldn't take out a mortgage on it. To prevent losing it, you just have to buy one that you can easily afford to pay the interest on. Businesses also often need "smart debt" to get started or to expand.
So to prevent debt, we would have to take away a right to liberty and to property, right?

In Christ,

One rebuttal to a point made here that may be off topic. The Duggar family is a family with 18 kids. They have lived debt free for probably 20 years now. In that time they have bought houses, property, and large commercial equipment outright without going into debt. So it is very possible, even with 18 kids and an average income. They have also started up a couple of businesses without going into debt.

Besides that, I do see both of you and Jay's point. It is strong. I'm still having a hard time conceding on this issue though. Could we at least require that the government not go into debt or charge interest for fees? Or is that not good either?

To God be the glory,
-Caleb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Prevention   Today at 3:45 am

Back to top Go down
 
Prevention
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Liberty's Light :: Archives :: Discussion archives-
Jump to: