Are hate crime enhancements fair?

[midlifeaspie]

No, no, it works the way I told in every country.

I'll take my first hand experience over your conspiracy theoretical 

[TheoK]

It's not a conspiracy theory at all. The sick fucks in charge make up laws that no one never gave consent to. Then they break these laws themselves, if they feel for it, which of course isn't allowed for "common people". That's why they say that states have "rights" de facto, i.e. states are criminal organisations that do whatever they get away with but expect their citizens to obey the rules that they never gave their consent to.

[midlifeaspie]

It's not a conspiracy theory at all. The sick fucks in charge make up laws that no one never gave consent to. Then they break these laws themselves, if they feel for it, which of course isn't allowed for "common people". That's why they say that states have "rights" de facto, i.e. states are criminal organisations that do whatever they get away with but expect their citizens to obey the rules that they never gave their consent to.

Sounds again like you are describing a code system of law.  My country operates under the common law, which means the laws have been in place for hundreds of years.  Nobody who "created" them is still available to take advantage of them.  Many new laws are also created by popular vote, such as legalizing MJ and gay marriage this past election.  The law isn't the boogeyman that you make it out to be. 

[TheoK]

Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?

[midlifeaspie]

Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?

I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to.  But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise.  My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent.  You can always leave.

[TheoK]

Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?

I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to.  But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise.  My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent.  You can always leave.

So the legislators own the country? That's the only way in which you could be morally obliged to obey a law that you didn't give consent to.

[midlifeaspie]

Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?

I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to.  But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise.  My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent.  You can always leave.

So the legislators own the country? That's the only way in which you could be morally obliged to obey a law that you didn't give consent to.

The legislators were elected by popular vote to represent the people who own the country.  So, yes.

[TheoK]

Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?

I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to.  But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise.  My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent.  You can always leave.

So the legislators own the country? That's the only way in which you could be morally obliged to obey a law that you didn't give consent to.

The legislators were elected by popular vote to represent the people who own the country.  So, yes.

And when did every single person living in the country accept this system? The US Constitution wasn't a result of direct democracy. And even if it were, how could forcing democracy be morally right?

[midlifeaspie]

Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?

I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to.  But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise.  My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent.  You can always leave.

So the legislators own the country? That's the only way in which you could be morally obliged to obey a law that you didn't give consent to.

The legislators were elected by popular vote to represent the people who own the country.  So, yes.

And when did every single person living in the country accept this system? The US Consitution wasn't a result of direct democracy. And even if it were, how could forcing democracy be morally right?

Every single person will never agree to anything.  The will of the majority rules, and every 2 years the will of the majority chooses a legislature.  They could all vote for representatives that would call for a new constitutional convention and throw the whole thing out, but they don't.  They don't, because they consent to the current arrangement.

[TheoK]

Why should you obey laws that you never gave your consent to? And if anyone had given their consent to a law, shouldn't that law be abolished when the ones who gave their consent and the ones who made the law are dead?

I don't buy into your argument that one must consent to a law to be obligated by it, otherwise catholic priests should be given free reign to fuck all the little kids they can handle - cuz they never consented not to.  But let's pretend for a moment that I did accept your basic premise.  My argument would be that by remaining in the country, you are giving your consent.  You can always leave.

So the legislators own the country? That's the only way in which you could be morally obliged to obey a law that you didn't give consent to.

The legislators were elected by popular vote to represent the people who own the country.  So, yes.

And when did every single person living in the country accept this system? The US Consitution wasn't a result of direct democracy. And even if it were, how could forcing democracy be morally right?

Every single person will never agree to anything.  The will of the majority rules, and every 2 years the will of the majority chooses a legislature.  They could all vote for representatives that would call for a new constitutional convention and throw the whole thing out, but they don't.  They don't, because they consent to the current arrangement.

Most people could not vote when the United States of America were "founded".

Tell me exactly how majority rule is morally right. Is 5 kilos more "right" than 1 kilo, because that's the principle of majority rule.

[midlifeaspie]

Most people could not vote when the United States of America were "founded".

But they can now, and they choose to reset the same system every two years.  That's my point.

Tell me exactly how majority rule is morally right. Is 1 kilo more "right" than 5 kilos, because that's the principle of majority rule.

Sorry, I can't tell what you are asking here.

[TheoK]

But they can now, and they choose to reset the same system every two years.  That's my point.

They didn't accept the system voluntarily to start with, so the system has no moral right to exist. It's nothing more than a "might is right" system, as any state or union of states on this planet.

Sorry, I can't tell what you are asking here.

I wrote wrong. According to "democratic" principles 5 kilos should be "right" vs. 1 kilo. If you put it that way, you see how absurd it is.

[midlifeaspie]

But they can now, and they choose to reset the same system every two years.  That's my point.

They didn't accept the system voluntarily to start with, so the system has no moral right to exist. It's nothing more than a "might is right" system, as any state or union of states on this planet.

Sorry, I can't tell what you are asking here.

I wrote wrong. According to "democratic" principles 5 kilos should be "right" vs. 1 kilo. If you put it that way, you see how absurd it is.

Define a "moral right to exist".  Better yet, give me an example of something you you deem has a moral right to existence.

And what are we measuring?  Is 5 kilos of satisfied people better than 1 kilo of satisfied people?  Yes.  Should 5 kilos of satisfied people's opinion overrule 1 kilo of dissatisfied people's opinion?  It depends ... and this is where democracy gets tricky.

[TheoK]

There are two men and one woman on a deserted island. The men democratically decide that they should rape the woman. This is "right" according to your system, since it's a 2/3 majority. That's actually the principle that you use to get laws through in the Congress.

[midlifeaspie]

There are two men and one woman on a deserted island. The men democratically decide that they should rape the woman. This is "right" according to your system, since it's a 2/3 majority. That's actually the principle that you use to get laws through in the Congress.

Should 5 kilos of satisfied people's opinion overrule 1 kilo of dissatisfied people's opinion?  It depends ... and this is where democracy gets tricky.

You didn't answer my first question.