Don't Be A Menace to the 'Hood While Wearing Your Hoodie While in Oklahoma!

Via the invaluable Twitter feed of Like a Libertarian comes word of a possible Oklahoma law banning wearing a hoodie over your head in a public place.

The proposed fine for "conceal[ing]" your identity in public is $500.

From KFOR.com:

The cold Oklahoma weather has many sporting hoodies outside to help fight the cold, but wearing a hood in a public place could soon be against the law.

The idea of banning hoods is not new to Oklahoma, right now, there is a law banning hoods during crimes that's been around since the 20's.

It was originally drafted to help combat crimes from the Klu-Klux-Klan, but people we spoke with say a new amendment of banning hoodies in public could open doors to a bigger problem.

They're a common closet find, the hoodie….

"If somebody is out running, especially in this kind of weather, where it's cold, drizzly, you might be inclined to wear your hoodie at Lake Hefner," attorney James Siderias said.

"21 OS 1301 has always made it a crime to wear a hoodie or some sort of disguise during the commission of criminal offense," Siderias says.

Now, a proposal for an amendment to that law, could make it illegal to hide your identity in public. The fine for your fashion crime? $500….

"The intent of Senate Bill 13 is to make businesses and public places safer by ensuring that people cannot conceal their identities for the purpose of crime or harassment….Similar language has been in Oklahoma statutes for decades and numerous other states have similar laws in place. Oklahoma businesses want state leaders to be responsive to their safety concerns, and this is one way we can provide protection," said Sen. Don Barrington of Lawton.

You got that? It's already illegal to wear a hood while committing a crime but lawmakers want to amend the law so you can't just walk around with your face unclear to the owners of places you might want to buy shit…. Next up: a ban on bangs, because you know you have such a pretty face why do you want to hide it from people especially maybe closed circuit TVs…

There would be exemptions for religious wear and Halloween costumes. Because you know, they're not idiots or anything.

Read the whole thing and weep for the Republic.

That time Oklahoma banned tattoos between 1963 and 2006.

That time Oklahoma maintained alcohol prohibition until 1959.

Comments

[Acosmist]

It's fine. The people who did this to stop the Klan never intended these consequences, so they can't possibly exist. You can breathe easier.

[S. Quincy]

Next up: a ban on bangs, because you know you have such a pretty face why do you want to hide it from people especially maybe closed circuit TVs...

Yup.

[Agammamon]

And IR LED lighting.

http://hacknmod.com/hack/blind.....d-led-hat/

Caveat - LEDs are fairly directional and that needs to be taken into consideration.

Also - lot's of cameras have IR filters.

[Hackleraiser]

So today's libertarians are all about helping armed robbers get away with stealing from ordinary citizens.

[Agammamon]

Yeah, you made that exact same comment two minutes prior down below - I *do* read these things and respond.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Well, good morning Tulpa. Happy New Year. Was wondering when your stupid would present itself today.

[wareagle]

has there ever been a more stupid statement than "banning hoods during crimes"? Makes it sound like the crime is less serious without the hoodie.

[Scarecrow Repair]

I like that picture.

[Hackleraiser]

Nick, did you read the actual bill (which is all of two pages)? It doesn't even mention hoods or hoodies. Here is the addition to the old law's prohibited acts:

B. To intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.

The only other edits are conjunctions, tenses, and listing the exceptions for religious headwear etc.

Seriously, this is like Rolling Stone level of journalistic incompetence.

[Andrew S.]

Hi, you must be new here. Do you want me to link you to all the vaguely worded laws that prosecutors have used to punish people in ridiculous ways, or do you want to look them up yourself?

[Hackleraiser]

What's vague about the wording? Maybe the "other disguise" part could be extended to ordinary forms of clothing, but that's a stretch. Especially since they have to prove intent to conceal identity, which is going to be hard if you're talking about something commonly worn.

[Sevo]

I see you have great faith in the prosecutors of the land.
Are you really new here, or just Tulpa with a new handle?

[Hackleraiser]

Prosecutors are one of the scums of the earth in my opinion. They would stretch the wording of the law as far as it can go. But they can't fine you or send you to jail without convincing a GJ, judge, and a trial jury.

[Agammamon]

Or, piling on shit charges such as 'intentionally disguised himself in the course of committing a crime' until you have no choice but to plea rather than risk that one will stick.

[Hackleraiser]

Then what's the point of talking about any criminal law, if the prosecutor can just add charges to the billet on a whim?

Talking to you all is like nailing jello to a wall.

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 12:52PM|#
"Then what's the point of talking about any criminal law, if the prosecutor can just add charges to the billet on a whim?"
Well, it may not be simply by "whim", but it is certainly common enough to be included in discussions of criminal law. Unless you simply chose to ignore facts that don't match your fantasies.

"Talking to you all is like nailing jello to a wall."
Sort of like this, for instance.

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

Talking to you all is like nailing jello to a wall.

Then go do that instead.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Good god you are naive and narrow minded. Incapable of imagination or even seeing and recognizing reality.

I bet you think The Onion is reality, and Fark is your daily aggregator.

[Agammamon]

How cute, for you to think that 'intentionally' requires 'intention (ie. mens rea).

It doesn't in the realm of criminal law.

[Hackleraiser]

Red herring. Mens rea is more than just intention and I don't recall bringing it up.

"Intentionally X" means there has to be intent to X, even in criminal law.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Ahh, you come here to tell us we need your permission to bring up a topic you inferred? What are you, a prosecutor objecting to Perry Mason bringing up something you referred to?

Hamilton CheeseBurger King of the know-it-alls!

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Especially since they have to prove intent to conceal identity

Because...concealing your identity should be a crime.

Fuck off Tulpa!

[Doctor Whom]

Especially since they have to prove intent to conceal identity, which is going to be hard if you're talking about something commonly worn.

Inferring intent is a significant part of what triers of fact do.

[Agammamon]

Its actually a specialty of prosecutors.

If they think they can get away with it, they will 'assume' intent solely from the fact that you did it.

So, did whatever conceal your identity? Yes - then you *must* have intended that.

[Hackleraiser]

Again, if the justice system is really that broken, then it doesn't matter what the law is and this whole discussion is pointless.

[DesigNate]

It is and it was.

Lackluster performance. I give it a C-

[Scarecrow Repair]

In other words, it adds to the conditions for making hoods illegal. Used to be they were illegal only in the commission of a crime. Now they are illegal by themselves, simply for hiding one's face from the cold wind, rain, or snow.

If you are so naive as to think this will never be used preferentially against blacks by nervous cops and attention-seeking prosecutors, stick around, you'll get an education.

But if you are trolling, you are way too naive for a good job of it; stick around, you'll get an education.

[blitz]

If you are so naive as to think this will never be used preferentially against blacks by nervous cops and attention-seeking prosecutors, stick around, you'll get an education.

So this bill is racist? Isn't the bigger problem the racist government institutions, police and legislature? If we could somehow remove the racist actors from these agencies would, being that the motives were now removed of any racist taint, the law be acceptable?

[Dweebston]

The racism red herring is probably the most aggravating aspect of the ongoing backlash against cops and the legal system. Racism is a difficult charge to prove, let alone attempt to remedy. Much better to restrain the tools used by cops and prosecutors, whether they're racists or simply malicious. Racism is a deliberately undefinable crime that victims recognize on sight, perpetrators don't necessarily know they're committing, and which has no decisive cure. It rallies a great deal of consternation and public grief but not much by way of actionable policy. More to the point, it papers over actual irresponsible behavior (police brutality) that might elicit popular sympathy but for the reliance by protestors on collective racial guilt ascribed to white people generally or cops specifically. Rather than pushing for reforms and oversight, they want show trials, public spectacles, and pointless sensitivity training.

[DesigNate]

It's aggrevating, but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the cops aren't going to use the law to harass coeds at OSU at the same level they will black teens.

[Robert]

No, read the damn bill. It specifically says that among other things it doesn't apply to gear worn for protection from the weather.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Seriously, this is like Rolling Stone level of journalistic incompetence.

Yeah, this is totally the same fabricating a story and falsely accusing someone of rape. Exactly the same.

[Hackleraiser]

Rolling Stone didn't fabricate the story or make the false accusation. The alleged rape victim did.

They just failed to check the story out -- as Nick did here.

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 12:41PM|#
..."They just failed to check the story out -- as Nick did here."

Cite missing.

[Pl?ya Manhattan.]

Sabrina Erdely Rubin absolutely fabricated the story, with the help of the alleged victim.

If you're going to troll, try harder.

[JW]

No, I think this one is really that stupid and trusting. Troll Detector barely blipped after an initial spike.

Our betters would never pettily abuse their power. NEVER.

[Sevo]

"Our betters would never pettily abuse their power. NEVER."

Of course not! Why, when there's a tax dispute, the IRS tells you not to worry; they'll be happy to work with you to make sure you don't pay more than absolutely necessary.
Unless you are trying to, oh, get non-profit status for a group that doesn't like taxes...

[JW]

B. To intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public
place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.

Please define "robe," "mask," and "other disguise" that isn't vague and open to wild misinterpretation.

"Suspect was seen wearing sunglasses in public and acting in a suspicious and furtive manner. After resisting arrest, the officer's service weapon discharged, causing the suspect to cease living."

[Hackleraiser]

If "robe", "mask", and "disguise" aren't clear enough for you, then you have a problem with nearly every law on the books. Laws don't have to be defined with mathematical precision, just clearly enough so that potential violators know in advance (and judges and jurors know afterward) what is forbidden.

[JW]

So, you can't define them. Good to know. You have a promising career ahead of you in Law Enforcement.

Gosh, this one is so cute and playful, it's going to be a shame to throw it back.

[Robert]

Oh, bullshit. If you sent someone to the store to buy a robe, mask, or disguise, you'd know damn well if they brought back the wrong goods. But the important part isn't the type of clothing, it's the attempt to disguise.

[Agammamon]

Are big sunglasses a disguise?

What about a filter mask?

[Hackleraiser]

Disguise implies that you are dressed to look like something you are not, so no.

Sufficiently big sunglasses that would cross into mask territory though.

[Agammamon]

See - you're thinking like a prosecutor now.

[Hackleraiser]

You'd have to be wearing some pretty odd sunglasses to cover other parts of your face. I'm not willing to let armed robbers go free to protect people wearing square-meter sunglasses from fears of spurious prosecution.

[Agammamon]

But you *are* willing to subject people who wish to wear square-meter sunglasses to the full force of state prosecution to, what?

I mean, its not like a criminal is going to leave his house with the hoodie up and then go out looking for a victim.

What's to stop him from leaving the hood down, the mask off, until he finds a victim, put it on real quick, and then strike?

You're supporting a rights violation for something that really wouldn't pass the rational basis test, let alone strict scrutiny.

[DesigNate]

Man, you're just a paragon of concern for your fellow citizens.

[VicRattlehead]

No, laws do need to be that defined, if you cant write a law to restrict a behavior with mathematical precision you have no business writing laws in a free country.
Fuck off tulpa

[Agammamon]

I've never understood the legal rationale behind these laws designed to criminalize behavior designed to thwart police investigations.

Can't barricade your home - if you sell drugs outs of it.
Can't wear a mask/hoodie - if you're committing a crime.

These are otherwise legal behaviors - doing them in the furtherance of a crime shouldn't also be illegal.

If these laws are actually permissible stop beating around the bush and make it a crime to not report yourself to the police after committing a crime.

Add in not getting a 'permit to commit a crime' as a crime - require prior notice and city approval in order to commit a crime. Add in a filing fee of course.

[Hackleraiser]

I would have thought libertarians, as defenders of personal rights, would not favor making it easier for armed robbers to get away with their crimes and go on to rob more people. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

The government is not the only violator of rights out there, you know.

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 12:14PM|#
"I would have thought libertarians, as defenders of personal rights, would not favor making it easier for armed robbers to get away with their crimes and go on to rob more people. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned."

Maybe you're just a fool posting non-sequiturs

[Agammamon]

Libertarians, as I pointed out in a thread last night, are in favor of looking at what is 'best' *overall.

What's worse - an occasional mugging where the perp gets away (coincidentally that's almost all of them since cops are only left with the victim's description and, if they're lucky, grainy security footage. Plus there's some lucrative asset forfeiture action happening elsewhere anyway) or your government compiling a huge database tracking people so they can better enforce whatever whim the powermongers manage to legislate?

Its not like license plate readers are helping cops solve *actual* crimes.

http://tinyurl.com/o2y53gj

While we're at it, if the government can do this to 'prevent crime', would you support mandatory ID and legal requirements to show it? How about ID checkpoint? What about RFID or scanner coding - make it illegal to cover up your QRcode tattoo?

The problem with your thinking is that you stop at the first consequence (prevent crime) and don't go on to think about the follow-on 'unintended consequences' that law *always* has.

Another problem is your assumption that the law will actually do what its intended to do - prevent crime. That shit is a rare legislative bird, smart money is to bet that the law will be ineffective, cost more than predicted, and have numerous negative consequences.

[Hackleraiser]

Libertarians, as I pointed out in a thread last night, are in favor of looking at what is 'best' *overall.

Collectivist garbage. Libertarianism is about individual rights. In most situations following libertarianism actually does naturaly lead to what's best for everyone, but that's not the starting point.

What's worse - an occasional mugging where the perp gets away (coincidentally that's almost all of them since cops are only left with the victim's description and, if they're lucky, grainy security footage. Plus there's some lucrative asset forfeiture action happening elsewhere anyway) or your government compiling a huge database tracking people so they can better enforce whatever whim the powermongers manage to legislate?

What does one have to do with the other? I would say your argument is a false dichotomy but it's even stupider than that. If I had to answer I'd say the muggee having their rights to property and non-injury violated is worse than a database, but there's no need to choose between the two.

[Agammamon]

So your non-'collectivist garbage' answer is to limit people's rights to promote a greater good?

Its not just 'criminals' who are affected by this law - its ordinary, law-abiding citizens who wish to remain anonymous.

[Hackleraiser]

You have to weigh rights in the real world. I'm not even sure there is a right to actively conceal your identity in a public place, that's very debatable. Even if there is, it's not as important as property rights or bodily rights.

[Agammamon]

You have to weigh rights in the real world.

THAT's THE FUCKING POINT YOU CALLED 'COLLECTIVIST GARBAGE'.

I'm not even sure there is a right to actively conceal your identity in a public place, that's very debatable.

Show me, in the constitution, where it says I DO NOT have a right to privacy.

Because that's how rights work in this country - if it is not explicitly forbidden then it is permitted.

[JW]

I'm not even sure there is a right to actively conceal your identity in a public place

Um, wut?

[Sevo]

"I'm not even sure there is a right to actively conceal your identity in a public place"

Well, the emperor considered granting that right, but hasn't gotten around to it...
This troll is getting tired, fast.

[Hackleraiser]

So you're against laws requiring license plates on public roads.

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 1:28PM|#
"So you're against laws requiring license plates on public roads."

So you're famous for spouting false equivalencies?

[Hackleraiser]

Right to anonymity is violated by those laws, if it exists.

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 1:55PM|#
"Right to anonymity is violated by those laws, if it exists."

Well, my car really doesn't enjoy rights, you fucking idiot.

[Agammamon]

Right to anonymity is violated by those laws, if it exists.

Yes.

See, you can understand that yet still call for mandatory ID 'in the public interest' yet you tell me that looking at the broader picture on the consequences of the 'anti-mask' law is 'collectivist bullshit'.

[Agammamon]

So you're against laws requiring license plates on public roads.

Yes.

[Agammamon]

Much as I would be against requiring license plates on your clothing when walking down a 'public' sidewalk.

[Hackleraiser]

It's much easier for a car to drive away without getting caught after hitting your car than it is for a pedestrian to run away without getting caught after punching you.

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 2:04PM|#
"It's much easier for a car to drive away without getting caught after hitting your car than it is for a pedestrian to run away without getting caught after punching you."

Yep, and purple, too!

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Perhaps you'd be good with having GPS trackers installed in all citizens. After all, if it makes the cops job easier, who could object?

[Agammamon]

It's much easier for a car to drive away without getting caught after hitting your car than it is for a pedestrian to run away without getting caught after punching you.

1. The hell it is.

2. A car hitting my car is a *tort* - a civil action. If you're cool with requiring ID to handle civil matters, then why are you not cool with it for *criminal* matters, which being punched is.

[Hackleraiser]

It's also harder to tell cars apart than to tell people apart.

A car hitting my car is a *tort* - a civil action.

Actually no. In most US jurisdictions there is a criminal offense for "failing to reduce speed to avoid a collision" or something similar, which serves as a catch-all for all traffic accidents. The penalties are unspecified and essentially just used as justification to detain the person at fault to obtain information.

[Agammamon]

You just make shit up don't you?

If it were a crime, the most jurisdictions would *require* police intervention, certainly your *insurance* company would, and 'no-fault' vehicle insurance wouldn't be a thing instead of the default.

[Hackleraiser]

I'm not making it up. I had to go to court on a summons for that offense once. When nobody showed up from the car I hit, they dismissed it.

[Hackleraiser]

And there was a chick who showed up for the same offense, and the other party DID show up and said her insurance hadn't paid up yet. So the judge yelled at her and forced her to come back a month later.

It's basically an easy way of enforcing payment without forcing the wronged party to go through the headache and expense of suing. Something a lot of libertarians have a stunted understanding of.

[Agammamon]

But she *did* sue.

What is sueing except arbitration in a court? So instead of taking this to a civil court or private arbitration, the state forced its way in and wasted money arbitrating anyway.

Didn't save anyone money.

[Agammamon]

I'm talking about the 'most jurisdictions' stuff.

I have, though four minor collisions (one my fault), in four different states, ever seen these things dealt with as a crime.

Insurance companies send out appraisers, they decide who's at fault, pay out, end of issue.

[Hackleraiser]

Presumably in those cases you stopped and exchanged information with the other parties. Thus there was no necessity for the cops to hold you.

In my case, I had to be taken to the hospital. And was greeted by a cop demanding insurance information under penalty of arrest once they were done with me.

[Agammamon]

1. There simply were no cops involved at all.

2. Just because a cop demanded it doesn't mean there was an actual *legal* basis to that demand. Hell the SC has even recently said that cops don't really need to know the law.

[Hackleraiser]

There simply were no cops involved at all.

That would explain it.

Just because a cop demanded it doesn't mean there was an actual *legal* basis to that demand.

Of course he could have been lying if that were all that happened, but he did also write an apparently valid summons and the judge did take the charges seriously at my court date.

[Hackleraiser]

If you're cool with requiring ID to handle civil matters, then why are you not cool with it for *criminal* matters, which being punched is.

Your face serves as ID.

[Agammamon]

Your face serves as ID.

That's only useful once reliable facial recognition tech comes around.

we could have stopped a lot of crimes if we required everyone to wear a large numbered placard on their front and rear sides.

Then police could stop anyone without the placard and, PRESTO! they stop a crime.

[VicRattlehead]

YES!!!!!
and licensing requirements
and government in general

[DK]

Didn't you know, we need to start fining those scofflaws who wear loose clothing, wear makeup, wear wigs, dye their hair, grow beards, or get those temporary breast implants.

[Hackleraiser]

Because that's how rights work in this country - if it is not explicitly forbidden then it is permitted.

No, it's not. First off, individual rights from a libertarian perspective are the same everywhere and everywhen. They don't vary by country.

"In this country" there are areas of citizen rights and areas of government powers. And areas in between. We have a rule of thumb that the areas in between should not be legislated upon, but that doesn't suddenly create rights in those areas.

In other places the relationship is reversed (e.g. the UK). That doesn't affect libertarian philosophy.

[JW]

We have a rule of thumb that the areas in between should not be legislated upon, but that doesn't suddenly create rights in those areas.

Oh, how precious.

Do you annoy your 101 professors nearly as much?

[Sevo]

"We have a rule of thumb that the areas in between should not be legislated upon, but that doesn't suddenly create rights in those areas."

Uh, fail.
Rights are not 'created'; they *are*.

[Hackleraiser]

Which would imply that the wording of the Constitution and judicial customs don't affect rights. Which means you disagree with Agamemnon.

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 1:54PM|#
"Which would imply that the wording of the Constitution and judicial customs don't affect rights."
Cite missing.

"Which means you disagree with Agamemnon."
Cite missing.

[Agammamon]

Which means you disagree with Agamemnon.

WTF? Its not Agememnon, its Agammamon.

Its not like you can't see that at the top of the posts.

Ones a dead Greek, son of Atreus, commanded the Greek forces in the Trojan war and the other's a made up name spelled differently.

[Agammamon]

"In this country" there are areas of citizen rights and areas of government powers.

That's what I just said - if its not explicitly forbidden then its permitted.

[VicRattlehead]

("In this country" there are areas of citizen rights and areas of government powers. And areas in between. We have a rule of thumb that the areas in between should not be legislated upon, but that doesn't suddenly create rights in those areas.)

not like the 10th amendment was ever ratified or anything

[Scarecrow Repair]

Governments of all stripes, but especially the collectivist variety, have committed far more crime against humanity than mere military wars and civilian murders; from 100 to 200 million deaths in the 20th century. Personal violations by individual people pale in comparison, or are you also incapable of basic arithmetic?

Call wearing a hoodie in the commission of a crime evidence of intent. Call barricading your door while distributing harmless substances evidence of intent. Make them part of the proof. But making them additional crimes is just plain silly.

[Hackleraiser]

If we were living under Mao or Hitler or Stalin you would have a good point. In America you're far more likely to have your property rights and rights to life and non-injury violated by a private citizen than by the state or its agents.

Not saying the state is harmless, just that it's not the only thing to concern oneself about.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Really? US governments cause less damage than individual muggers?

How many man-years and woman-years have been wasted behind bars for victimless crimes? How much treasure has the government sucked up? How can governments suck $7T out of a $17T economy without causing far more harm than all the burglars and bank robbers combined?

Your naivete and innumeracy are astounding, exceeded only by your incapacity to open your eyes and learn.

[Hackleraiser]

I wasn't talking about damage, I was talking about rights violations.

Punishment for violating laws that do not themselves violate rights is not a rights violation.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Damage isn't a rights violation?

I can steal money from you without violating your rights?

I can burn down your house (unoccupied, of course) without violating your rights?

Maybe if I throw a flash bang into your bed I won't be violating your rights either.

[Hackleraiser]

Some damage results from and/or coincides with rights violations. Some does not (e.g. self-inflicted damage, damage from weather, damage from other people defending themselves against you, damage from lawful punishment, etc).

I have the strong feeling I'm arguing with a 10 year old.

[Sevo]

"I have the strong feeling I'm arguing with a 10 year old."

Feeling outsmarted?

[Agammamon]

Punishment for violating laws that do not themselves violate rights is not a rights violation.

So I take it you're cool with the war on drugs and vice law in general?

[Hackleraiser]

So I take it you're cool with the war on drugs and vice law in general?

No, I think they are stupid wastes of time and money and make more likely acts that violate rights. But they are not violations of rights in themselves.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

But they are not violations of rights in themselves.

So you don't believe you have the right to do what you wish with your own body?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Punishment for violating laws that do not themselves violate rights is not a rights violation.

The fuck it isn't!

[JW]

The Derp is strong in this one. It even brought its own shovel to keep digging deeper.

Its assignment is to provide a 20 page research paper on the concept of rights, from the historical origins up through the ideological warping of the idea in the modern age.

Due 2 weeks from today. Points off for idiotic assumptions without attribution.

[Sevo]

Oh, boy! New troll sets levels of stoooooopid not seen in a while:

"In America you're far more likely to have your property rights and rights to life and non-injury violated by a private citizen than by the state or its agents."

I see you are not familiar with the IRS, for instance.

[Agammamon]

If we were living under Mao or Hitler or Stalin you would have a good point.

We don't live under those types of people because we, early and loud, start freaking out about anything that looks like a potential move in that direction.

You, on the other hand, seem to take this legislation at face value - assuming that it will do what its said to do.

[Hackleraiser]

We don't live under those types of people because we, early and loud, start freaking out about anything that looks like a potential move in that direction.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I was thinking this conversation was a waste of time, but at least I got a nice hearty laugh out of it.

We don't live under those types of people because of accidental political developments in England in the Middle Ages which ultimately became entrenched over here. And because we're enormously wealthy by global standards and have no interest in upsetting the apple cart. And even with those advantages, we are certainly moving toward a statist regime because people can't be bothered to care about the real issues the country is facing.

[Agammamon]

Which, according to you, is the large increase in muggers concealing their identities in Oklahoma?

[Sevo]

"I was thinking this conversation was a waste of time, but at least I got a nice hearty laugh out of it."

Somehow, it seems "thinking" isn't one of the skills you've yet learned.
You certainly have a lock on stooooooooooopid.

[Aloysious]

And even with those advantages, we are certainly moving toward a statist regime because people can't be bothered to care about the real issues the country is facing.

I wholeheartedly agree with that sentence.

[Hackleraiser]

And precipitously incorporating into our electorate tens of millions of third world denizens who have been conditioned to live under a statist regime is not going to help matters either. Inertia and cultural tradition are all that's holding back the forces of statism and many here want to piss them away.

[Agammamon]

Ah - not Tulpa then.

Its American.

Pro 'law and order'
Anti - non-white people.

[Hackleraiser]

Most Mexicans are racially white, dumbass. South Americans are even more overwhelmingly white.

Which continent does the word "Hispanic" come from, retards?

[Agammamon]

Uh dude, I live 10 miles from the border. I am one of less than 6 white guys in this town.

Most Mexican are *not* 'racially white'.

Not to say that there's not a lot of euro mixing there - I've even known a couple of red-headed Mexicans.

And uhm, you might want to consider that the Spanish/Portuguese did not *completely* exterminate and replace the native populations of What is now Mexico and the rest of *Latin-America*.

So you have 'Native-Americans' who may be Latino/Hispanic and you have 'Whites' who may be Latino/Hispanic.

[Hackleraiser]

Except for a few regions of southern Mexico and Central America, and some isolated holdouts in South America, the inhabitants of Latin America are either mostly white or of African extraction (in Brazil and the West Indies). There are few areas where people are mostly indiginous American.

So claiming I'm "racist" because I don't want to import Mexico's political attitudes is ridiculous, because Mexicans are mostly white (and for dozens of other reasons as well). I wouldn't want to import 30 million people from Russia and give them voting cards either.

[Agammamon]

Ok, so I asked my friends, including my roomate and the guys running a combo mini-mart/pizza place (who, turns out are Persians) if they're white.

They don't think so.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Ah - not Tulpa then.

HOWEVER...

Tulpa might not be Tulpa.

And/or Tulpa might simply be arguing with himself.

Nothing is out of the realm of possibility here at Troll & Run.

[JW]

And/or Tulpa might simply be arguing with himself.

That same thought occurred to me as well.

[Tulpa (LAOL-VA)]

This is the real Tulpa. The fake Tulpa is using a capital-i as its third letter, not a lowercase-L, and Reason is too sloppy to have a font that distinguishes the two.

[Ayn Random Variation]

" In America you're far more likely to have your property rights and rights to life and non-injury violated by a private citizen than by the state or its agents."

Dumbest statement I've ever read on here.
Just brushing the surface, you are completely screwed if a cop of any type, the IRS, or any gov't imposed monopoly decides to fuck with you.
I'll take my chances with a mugger any day over what the state can do to me.

[Hackleraiser]

Just brushing the surface, you are completely screwed if a cop of any type, the IRS, or any gov't imposed monopoly decides to fuck with you.

And yet it happens to far fewer people than are preyed upon by criminals.

[Sevo]

"And yet it happens to far fewer people than are preyed upon by criminals."

Cite missing.

[VicRattlehead]

ive never been successfully mugged once in my life (one attempt in Peru but i was too drunk and unruly to go down without a fight, which i won then reported to the police who couldn't have cared less), but i have been harassed by police, DMV, IRS, and many of the other agencies in this world. shit my house was raided by the Jacksonville FL SWAT team because someone accused me of selling drugs and building bombs (they broke 3 windows and my front door, which they never paid for after finding absolutely nothing of any interest)
ive been assaulted, beaten, and harassed by cops but never once has one EVER helped me with anything

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I would have thought libertarians, as defenders of personal rights, would not favor making it easier for armed robbers to get away with their crimes and go on to rob more people. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Or maybe you're just a fucking idiot. You don't take away rights to protect other rights, retard. Let's ban knives because someone might commit a crime with one.

Fuck off Tulpa!

[Hackleraiser]

In this subthread we were talking about laws that only apply when someone is proven to have committed a crime like robbery or burglary.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The article, is NOT.

And why not pass a law forbidding the wearing of clothes while committing a crime? Punishable by 10 years. Perhaps breathing air should be illegal while committing a crime? Punishable by 15 years.

That way, the man can put you away for 25 years for jaywalking.

You, Tulpa, are a retard.

[Hackleraiser]

The first one would fail the rational basis test, while the second would itself be a rights violation.

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 1:14PM|#
"In this subthread we were talking about laws that only apply when someone is proven to have committed a crime like robbery or burglary."

Uh, no. We are discussing your claims.

[VicRattlehead]

if they already comitted a crime then why are you worried about charging them with more crimes, you make no sense

[Francisco d'Anconia]

If these laws are actually permissible stop beating around the bush and make it a crime to not report yourself to the police after committing a crime.

THIS!

[VicRattlehead]

5th amendment if anyone cared

[Rich]

Next up: a ban on bangs

Nah. *Makeup*.

[Rebel Scum]

It was originally drafted to help combat crimes from the Klu-Klux-Klan-

Wait, is the kkk even still a 'thing'?

The intent of Senate Bill 13 is to make businesses and public places safer by ensuring that people cannot conceal their identities for the purpose of crime or harassment

And banning guns will make people unable to acquire them for the purpose of committing assaults and murders...

Also, what if I just want to be left the fuck alone?

[Rebel Scum]

There would be exemptions for religious wear and Halloween costumes. Because you know, they're not idiots or anything.

Oh, they truly are, and the exemptions prove it.

[Hackleraiser]

Question for you: why don't burglars always carry guns and wear body armor during burglaries? It would make sense, on the off chance that they run into an armed defender in the building being burglarized.

[Rich]

Easy. Guns can be dropped and armor can catch on entryways.

[Hackleraiser]

I assume you're joking.

It's because if you get caught burglarizing with those things the punishment is far more severe than for simple burglary. Hence the purpose of enhancing penalties for certain activities during a crime.

You may as well forget about bothering with small arms for home and self-defense if body-armored burglars are the norm.

[Agammamon]

Or, OR . . . maybe most burglars aren't trying for the death penalty and aren't planning on confronting an armed homeowner and intend to retreat in that case.

In which case carrying this stuff is wasted money.

[Hackleraiser]

And armed homeowners woken in the middle of the night by a burglar are famous for abiding by strict rules of engagement.

[Rebel Scum]

And armed homeowners woken in the middle of the night by a burglar are famous for abiding by strict rules of engagement.

Break into my home in the middle of the night and I exercise my rules of engagement with my own discretion. If it ends badly for the burglar, so be it.

[Hackleraiser]

Break into my home in the middle of the night and I exercise my rules of engagement with my own discretion. If it ends badly for the burglar, so be it.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but this highlights why burglars would want body armor and guns of their own, were it not for the penalty enhancements.

[Agammamon]

Given how few people are actually shot during burglaries I would say that its entirely rational to forgo weapons and armor even in jurisdictions that do not have a weapon/armor penalty enhancement.

Which, regarding armor anyway, very few have.

[Hackleraiser]

Given how few people are actually shot during burglaries I would say that its entirely rational to forgo weapons and armor

So I assume you don't think people should have guns in their homes for home defense.

[Agammamon]

Where do you get that?

I said that very few burglars are shot and so its 'rational' to not carry weapons and armor even in the absence of penalty enhancement.

If lot's of burglars *were* getting shot it would be rational to use armor and weapons even *with* penalty enhancement.

None of that has any effect on whether or not I think people should have guns for self-defense.

Earlier you accused me of making a 'false-equivalence' fallacy and yet here you are, doing the exact same thing.

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 12:59PM|#
..."It's because if you get caught burglarizing with those things the punishment is far more severe than for simple burglary. Hence the purpose of enhancing penalties for certain activities during a crime."

Do the justification for outlawing certain clothing is the hopes that no one wears that clothing while committing a crime?
I'll sleep much better now!

[Sevo]

Sorry:
So the justification...

[Brian D]

It's because if you get caught burglarizing with those things the punishment is far more severe than for simple burglary. Hence the purpose of enhancing penalties for certain activities during a crime.

Right, if there's one thing someone with criminal intent fears, it's breaking the law.

[Hackleraiser]

No. They do fear being punished more severely if caught, though.

[Brian D]

Citation needed.

[VicRattlehead]

Not really, if i make it a point to commit a crime i usually don't have any regard for the laws concerning it, because i am morally OK with it. if i am dragged down in the clutches of the state for my actions im sure they will find ample reasons to charge me with all manners of bullshit "crimes" that they tack on after the fact.
it comes with the territory of running afoul the state

[Rebel Scum]

It's because if you get caught burglarizing with those things the punishment is far more severe

Do you think that someone who is inclined to rob someone is not also going to conceal their identity to avoid being id'd and caught, regardless of the law?

[Hackleraiser]

If they attempt to conceal their identity before committing the crime, to prevent people who saw them before the crime from ID'ing them, they can be stopped or have the police called on them, which will probably prevent the crime.

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 1:17PM|#
"If they attempt to conceal their identity before committing the crime, to prevent people who saw them before the crime from ID'ing them, they can be stopped or have the police called on them, which will probably prevent the crime."

OK, this has got to be troll; stupid doesn't run this deep.

[Agammamon]

While, at the same time, give the police more reason to harrass otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Which is not a good thing.

The vast majority of bad police incidents start from cops giving out petty tickets and stop-and-frisk-esque policies.

Again, you assume that the law will do what it says and that police will act appropriately - in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

As for 'preventing' a crime, what's to stop a cop from following someone acting suspicious? Any security guard can tell you that most crimes are prevented simply by having someone there, watching, with no other intervention needed.

[Hackleraiser]

The vast majority of bad police incidents start from cops giving out petty tickets and stop-and-frisk-esque policies.

Of course they do, because if it started out with a violent or property crime you wouldn't call it a "bad police incident". You're engaging in sampling bias.

[Agammamon]

Yet here you're talking about OKing the creation of a whole new crime - one that doesn't even fall into the 'yeah, people shouldn't do that' category like littering does.

This law simply criminalizes concealing your identity. That's it. No other crime need be committed (which the other law required).

[Hackleraiser]

Why would you want to conceal your identity in a public place?

I don't see the benefit to any individual (other than criminals). And the benefits of stopping people from doing it are obvious.

[Agammamon]

Why would you want to conceal your identity in a public place?

Why would you want a gun?
Why would you want to smoke?
Why would you want a large house?

That's not the right question.

[Hackleraiser]

When the activity in question is potentially dangerous to other people's rights, it is the right question.

"Why would you want a gun?" has several answers. The other two aren't dangerous to others.

[Zeb]

It's still no one else's business why you would want to do a thing unless you are actually harming someone by doing it. Wearing a disguise doesn't harm anyone.

[Hackleraiser]

It can be used to get away with harming someone.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

It can be used to get away with harming someone.

A knife, a bat, a rope could be used to harm someone... Do you propose making all these things illegal?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

When the activity in question is potentially dangerous to other people's rights, it is the right question.

Concealing yourself isn't dangerous to anyone else's rights.

You punish crime instead of trying to prevent it, simply because attempting to prevent it infringes upon rights.

[Hackleraiser]

Punishment is a lot less desirable than prevention. Both because it's highly likely that you won't be able to find the guilty party and prove that they're guilty, and because the wrong that was done can in most cases never be righted.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Punishment is a lot less desirable than prevention.

Only to a statist, such as yourself. Attempting to preemptively prevent crime violates the rights of the innocent. The price of prevention is liberty. I'd rather see a certain percentage of criminals not get caught than to see innocent people's rights violated in the name of justice.

[Hackleraiser]

I'd rather see a certain percentage of criminals not get caught than to see innocent people's rights violated in the name of justice.

What about the innocent people whose rights were violated by those criminals who got away? Far more severely than the supposed rights violation resulting from crime prevention laws.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Far more severely than the supposed rights violation resulting from crime prevention laws.

Horseshit.

Their rights get violated either way. Making concealment a crime doesn't stop anyone from committing rights violations. If a guy is going to knock over a liquor store, or murder someone do you honestly think he's going to give two shits about a law preventing concealment?

Ima go out and commit armed robbery, well, maybe I won't cuz they'll get me for wearing a ski mask.

Three people in a hundred have their rights violated through crime. 100 people in a 100 lose their rights through laws against victimless crimes.

[Hackleraiser]

100 people in a 100 lose their rights through laws against victimless crimes.

Nope. I don't lose a damn thing due to the drug laws because I have no interest in doing or selling drugs. Ditto for prostitution or lawn dart bans.

[Agammamon]

So, everything's about *you* then.

[Hackleraiser]

When I'm a counterexample to a claim of universality it is.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I don't lose a damn thing due to the drug laws because I have no interest in doing or selling drugs. Ditto for prostitution or lawn dart bans.

Of course you do. You lose your right to choose whether to participate in such activities.

[Agammamon]

Well, actually several hundred years of western legal theory has come to the conclusion that the opposite 'ten guilty go free than one innocent punished' (paraphrasing Blackstone's famous dictum - though it would have been faster just to type the whole thing out than paraphrase and then add this in) leads to a *greater net* amount of freedom than your preference.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Why would you want to conceal your identity in a public place?

None of your business.

[Brian D]

Why would you want to conceal your identity in a public place?

Because you're a celebrity who would like to go to the grocery store without the place turning into a madhouse.

Is desiring to go get groceries without being mobbed a crime?

[Hackleraiser]

If you're a celebrity you could afford delivery, or to have your manservant get groceries for you.

[Brian D]

If you're a celebrity you could afford delivery, or to have your manservant get groceries for you.

Which has nothing to do with the question you asked. You're trying to imply that the only reason to disguise oneself in public is for nefarious purposes. I just gave you a reason that isn't nefarious.

[Agammamon]

Of course they do, because if it started out with a violent or property crime you wouldn't call it a "bad police incident".

And yeah I would - I still think the Brown shooting was a bad one. That's even after accepting that Brown was a shit who probably deserved it - I just don't think the cop had justification to pull the trigger when he did.

[VicRattlehead]

maybe we should just toss everyone into happy camps

[Rich]

I assume you're joking.

Yep.

[Scarecrow Repair]

Waitasec, who gave you permission to bring up body armor and guns? I don't recall anyone discussing that beforehand.

Out of order! Objection sustained!

[Agammamon]

'Cause you're not doing burglaries if you can afford to spend several hundred dollars on useful body armor.

[Hackleraiser]

It would pay for itself pretty quick if it meant not having to case your targets as carefully. Time is money, even for criminals.

[Agammamon]

Wow, you have a really high opinion of the rationality of criminals.

[Hackleraiser]

If people do something for a living, they get to be good at it.

[Agammamon]

So you're talking about the small percentage of 'professional' burglars, contrasted with the legions of crackheads and bored teenagers doing most of the break-ins.

[Beautiful Bean Footage]

Wait, is the kkk even still a 'thing'?

Well, if course it is! It even managed to get one of its members elected to Congress, in the form of STEVE SKALEESE OMG!!1!1 *begins foaming at the mouth

[Agammamon]

Wait, is the kkk even still a 'thing'?

Since when has the relevance of a law had anything to do with how vigorously its enforced?

The only thing that's important (to the prosecutor and the legislature) is 'does the law give me more power?', maybe coupled with 'is it enough power to be worth dealing with people complaining?'

[Rich]

FTFB: shall not apply to ... those going to, or from, or participating in masquerade parties, ... to those wearing coverings ... incidental to protection from the weather

Loopholes you could drive a truckload of hoodies through.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Ok-lahoma where the stupid comes sweeping down the plain...

Everybody sing!

[Sevo]

Hey, I hear it's OK!

[S. Quincy]

Everybody sing!

Or don't, if you don't want to.

[Hackleraiser]

Just curious, are you guys also against the law that requires cars to have license plates when on public roads?

[Francisco d'Anconia]

YES!

[Robert]

Not me. Nor by anyone who's ever been hit by a car with a phony registr'n (as I once was in my car).

[VicRattlehead]

YES!

[Notorious G.K.C.]

OK, look, the bill if passed would make it a crime for a persion to "intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise."

Stipulate that this is a horrible and oppressive law.

But how can we claim that the law "ban[s] wearing a hoodie over your head in a public place"?

All right, the next step is to show that the law actually bans hoodies, rather than just assuming the law has this effect.

Just give some evidence or arguments that the law has this effect.

[Agammamon]

1. Hoodies can conceal identity.
2. Hoodies have been in the news over the last couple of years as 'facilitating criminality' by this very mechanism.
3. The law is vague enough about the *how* of concealing identity that a hoodie pulled too far over your face can be construed as 'intentionally concealing' your identity.

And that's how you get hoodies to give your police another opportunity to bother people.

[Notorious G.K.C.]

Well, I wouldn't put that sort of thing past the cops, certainly.

It would have been nice if the author had put the case as clearly as you did, without unexamined assumptions.

[Agammamon]

I think the author assumed we were all on the same page.

An assumption that has proved not only erroneous but has spawned a 167+ post thread mostly centered around one guy coming at the situation with a divergent world-view.

[alfyfischbach]

my friend's sister-in-law makes $77 /hr on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her pay was $19730 just working on the laptop for a few hours. go to this website............
????? http://www.netjob70.com

[Rich]

AND she gets to wear a hoodie while so doing!

[JW]

And to think of the money I just wasted buying new public dress robes.

The Haberdasher's Association will hear of my most piqued displeasure!

[blitz]

I posted this on the revenge porn post. I don't think there is anyone over there to answer my questions. I would like to get some feedback so I can narrow the search terms on the subject. Specifically, what principles would dictate the course of action.

Where do libertarians stand on extortion? If the ex-boyfriend demanded cash or sex to not post the nude pictures would this violate a law in Libertopia? The pictures were taken with consent and/or sent to the boyfriend with no prior agreement not to disseminate.

In a similar vein, what about extortion regarding employment? Let's say an employee is under contract with a fire at will clause. The owner finds out that his employee's child is in the hospital and has racked up a significant debt. The owner uses this leverage, his employee desperately needing to maintain employment, to demand that she have sex with him or he will fire her. She will not only lose her job but also her health insurance.

I assume that although these actions are morally reprehensible they would be legally acceptable. I will also assume that blackmail would also be legal.

[Agammamon]

Libertarians are against extortion, but not blackmail.

[Hackleraiser]

I would hope they're against blackmail. They are not in favor of laws against it of course.

[Agammamon]

Why should there be universal comdemnation of blackmail among libertarians.

Blackmail (assuming you're not violating a confidence - which posting pictures of your ex on the internet would be) is simply 'you did something embarrasing, pay me to keep quiet'.

Seems to me that, barring hiding evidence of a crime, blackmail is a market solution to keeping your dirty laundry hidden.

[Hackleraiser]

OK, I suppose one can be an amoral asshole and still be a libertarian. I wouldn't want to associate with such people even if I agree with them on legal-political issues.

Blackmail is a disgusting and unproductive practice which serves as a drag on prosperity. Please don't sully the free market by baptizing blackmail into it. The sorts that would practice it are exactly the people who would create the horrible situations that the statists are always accusing libertarianism of leading to.

[Agammamon]

No offense taken - the great thing about libertarianism is that you *wouldn't* have to associate with those people, including doing business with them.

Libertarianism has room for lot's of moralities. I say 'moralities because there's not really any such thing as 'amoral' (outside of actual fucking nihilists, man), merely moral codes that are different from your own.

Keep in mind that the free-market is itself 'amoral' and harnesses the baser instincts of man to serve the greater good.

[Hackleraiser]

the great thing about libertarianism is that you *wouldn't* have to associate with those people, including doing business with them.

If they're blackmailing me I don't really have a choice, do I?

Which is kind of my point. Blackmail is not about mutually beneficial exchange, it's about getting money for nothing. In that respect it is functionally equivalent to coercion. The only functional difference is that if you ignore it it will probably go away, but you have to have some serious balls to do so.

[Agammamon]

Dude, what are you? A leftist?

You ALWAYS have a choice. The choice may be unpalatable but its there.

And you *do* get some value as the blackmailee - you get to not have your, whatever, hung out for the world to see.

I mean, those are your choices right? Don't pay up and get your shit blasted to the world, go to the police and get your shit blasted to the world and *maybe* getting your blackmailer jailed (but probably not) - this does have the advantage that even if it doesn't work out for you, it might discourage *other* blackmailers. But then again the others will probably price this in and adjust demands according to this new risk information, or pay up (and pay up and pay up).

[Hackleraiser]

When the mugger offers to remove the knife from next to my throat if I give him my wallet, I have a choice.

When a cop comes to my door and says he will refrain from putting me in jail if I give him $100, I have a choice.

The presence of a choice doesn't turn these into exchanges of value.

[Agammamon]

You're right about that.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't an exchange of value.

Just means that in the blackmail case the blackmailer has something (his silence) that he didn't take from the blackmailee first to offer.

The extortioner is taking something of value from the extortionee and ransoming it back.

[Hackleraiser]

Again, what has the extortioner already taken?

[Agammamon]

Freedom, lack of fear of injury, whatever you'd think you'd lost if someone held a knife at your throat and demanded money.

[Hackleraiser]

In Libertopia both would be legal. The first case is pretty much unavoidable without some really bad laws.

The second case highlights that even technically noncoercive relationships can have vast disparities in leverage between the two parties. But it's not that simple of course. Is the boss married? What happens if the woman tells his wife what he did? Or his boss?

Of course it would be hard to prove he's lying if he denies it, but that's going to be the same problem you'd have in court with laws against sexual harrassment.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

My brand of libertarianism is simple. Two tenets:

1. People may do as they wish, PROVIDED they do not infringe upon the rights of others in doing so.

2. The ONLY legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

Negative rights are limitless. Positive rights are limited to those provided in the Constitution.

Extortion is forcing someone to do that which they do not choose voluntarily. It is an initiation of force. It violates tenet 1.

[Hackleraiser]

Nobody's using force in either of those scenarios.

[JW]

1. People may do as they wish, PROVIDED they do not infringe upon the rights of others in doing so.

That's why I noted that we need to agree on what extortion is.

"Do this thing I demand or I'll kill your family" is extortion.

"Compensate me to not release embarrassing information about you" is not extortion.

[JW]

Where do libertarians stand on extortion?

We first need to agree on what extortion is.

If the ex-boyfriend demanded cash or sex to not post the nude pictures would this violate a law in Libertopia? The pictures were taken with consent and/or sent to the boyfriend with no prior agreement not to disseminate.

If I give you a gift, I lose all control on how that gift is used.

Her paying him to not disseminate is perfectly reasonable, assuming all of the above. It's a Coasian solution.

The owner uses this leverage, his employee desperately needing to maintain employment, to demand that she have sex with him or he will fire her. She will not only lose her job but also her health insurance.

This leaves aside that in Libertopia, only the wealthy will have health insurance. Everyone else dies painfully in the street. Yes, I'm kidding.

Does her employment contract stipulate sexual relations with her superior on demand? No? See you in arbitration, scumbag.

[Hackleraiser]

Her paying him to not disseminate is perfectly reasonable, assuming all of the above.

Not necessarily. How do you enforce that agreement, to prevent him from publishing them anyway or coming back a month later and demanding more money.

In most cases of blackmail the best response is to ignore the blackmail.

[JW]

This arrangement presumes many things.

You could have a contract written up that if the materials are disseminated, there is a penalty clause. Damage payment in the form of triple the original agreement.

[Hackleraiser]

Same question. How do you enforce the contract when doing so would require divulging in court exactly what you were trying to keep hidden?

That's why blackmail is so pernicious and destructive of society.

[Agammamon]

You don't.

That's why the blackmailer has to price his demand at the point *below* where its more cost-effective for the blackmailee to seek adjudication.

[Hackleraiser]

And what happens when you pay the blackmailer, and the blackmailer comes back a month later and demands more money to keep quiet about both (a) the original embarrassing thing and (b) the fact that you attempted to pay him off to keep it quiet.

You either have to seek adjudication or pay him what he wants again.

[Agammamon]

Yes.

[Hackleraiser]

So paying the person off is probably a bad idea. Which was my point. Why are we talking again?

[Agammamon]

Because you think blackmail should be illegal and I don't see a libertarian principle justifying that stance.

Secretly - I agree that blackmail is 'bad', I just can't find anything in my bag o'principles to justify using force to prevent *others* from doing it.

At least nothing that doesn't look to lead to worse outcomes.

[blitz]

We first need to agree on what extortion is.

What I have in mind (from Wikipedia):

Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc.

Does her employment contract stipulate sexual relations with her superior on demand? No? See you in arbitration, scumbag.

I would assume, in this case, that the only action necessitating state intervention would be contract violation, which your statement implies. In my hypothetical there is no violation. The gist of the contract regarding termination was that the company will utilize her services until they are deemed to no longer be necessary.

The situation is one of a buyer (employer) taking advantage of a seller (employee) in a desperate situation. Desperation in market transactions is nothing new. The optimal time to buy and an optimal time to sell can change from one minute to the next. The seller can suddenly become desperate to sell and the buyer can seize this "opportunity".

[Hackleraiser]

Except in these two cases one party is offering nothing of value to the other. Just as is the case with coercion.

[Agammamon]

The blackmaileer *is* offering something of value - silence.

And if its not of value - then there's no problem. The blackmailee will simply not accept the transaction.

[Hackleraiser]

By that logic the mugger holding a knife to your throat is also offering something of value -- removal of the knife. Offering *not* to do something is really not offering anything of value.

If someone comes up to me on the street and says he'll put a hole in my ear lobe for $20, that's a perfectly fine business proposal.

If someone comes up to me on the street and says he'll refrain from putting a hole in my ear lob for $20, that's extortion.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Threat of violence.

[Hackleraiser]

So? That has nothing to do with whether it's an exchange of value.

[Agammamon]

But the threat of violence for non-compliance is the difference between blackmail and extortion.

As for exchange of value - a blackmailer does not take anything from you to start. *He* has his silence and is willing to sell it to you.

The extortionist (for example the mugger holding the knife) has *taken* something from you and is offering it back if you meet his price.

[Hackleraiser]

The extortionist (for example the mugger holding the knife) has *taken* something from you and is offering it back if you meet his price.

What has he taken?

What has the cop in the other example taken?

[Agammamon]

Sigh, since you like asking the same question in more than one post - see your post asking this above.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

What has he taken?

Oh nothing, just your liberty.

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Nor does the exchange of value make it extortion, it is the threat of harm for not capitulating that makes it extortion.

[JW]

If someone comes up to me on the street and says he'll refrain from putting a hole in my ear lob for $20, that's extortion.

Which is why I would make an immediate counter offer.

If you walk away, right now, and never bother me again, I won't shoot moderately sized holes in you.

[blitz]

From what I know about libertarianism and from the answers given here the only objection to extortion would be in the case were physical violence was threatened.

Also, am I correct in assuming laws like this would not exist in Libertopia (excepting the mentions of physical violence)?

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex. Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person's sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

[blitz]

These matters would be resolved in-house, either at the employer's discretion or in a manner stipulated by a contract mutually agreed upon prior to the harassment.

[Agammamon]

To a point - harassment laws would still exist but they'd be far narrower in scope. And most of it would be dealt with through tort rather than criminal law. And they probably wouldn't specialize into things like 'sexual harassment' and instead stay as general 'anti-harassment laws'

For example - 'nice tits' wouldn't automatically he sexual harassment. But repeatedly doing it, even after being told it was unwanted would fall under 'harassment', same as pointing your finger at someone and continually going 'I'm not touching you'.

Grabbing arse though would pretty much immediately fall right into assault.

The difficulty of analysing these things under a 'libertarian' government is first you have to define what that means.

For me all this would, ideally, be spelt out in subscription legal regimes, handled through arbitration and the criminal/tort distinction would be non-existent. Ie you might be able to get away with murder if you can afford to pay off the friends and relatives and survive the auto-vengeance contract the victim had with with his strategic-security company (yeah, I'm talking subscription military services up to and including MAD).

[Hackleraiser]

Grabbing arse though would pretty much immediately fall right into assault.

It's odd, above you're kavetching about prosecutors broadly interpreting criminal laws, but here you're confident that touching a buttock could be considered assault without impugning all sorts of other physical contact (like patting a back or tapping a shoulder).

For example - 'nice tits' wouldn't automatically he sexual harassment. But repeatedly doing it, even after being told it was unwanted would fall under 'harassment', same as pointing your finger at someone and continually going 'I'm not touching you'.

Ditto here... there's a lot of vagueness to play around with.

I don't think you can mesh libertarianism with sexual harrassment prevention (outside of using contracts, which we know is cumbersome in a lot of employment situations). You either have to suspend the libertarian dogma to prevent SH, or you have to live with it and hope that freedom of association discourages it.

[Agammamon]

. . . but here you're confident that touching a buttock could be considered assault without impugning all sorts of other physical contact

Yes? Its not like this is a good format for writing a multi-page dissertation on the question, some assumptions have been made and shortcuts taken.

. . . which we know is cumbersome in a lot of employment situations).

Thing is - those contracts already exist. They're called sexual harassment law. The difference is that the parties involved didn't get a say in how those contracts were drafted - they got a pre-written contract.

Which is what would likely happen in libertopia, with the added advantage that the involved parties would have the right to amend that contract.

[Hackleraiser]

Yes? Its not like this is a good format for writing a multi-page dissertation on the question, some assumptions have been made and shortcuts taken.

Above you were wringing your hands about sunglasses being treated as masks under the law and how we hadn't defined "concealing identity" with mathematical precision. Now you're yada-yada'ing something that's far vaguer. Sorry, I can't stand idly by and let you have it both ways.

those contracts already exist. They're called sexual harassment law.

Seriously? Sexual harrassment law is not a contract.

Which is what would likely happen in libertopia, with the added advantage that the involved parties would have the right to amend that contract.

So if the Libertopian govt rebranded current US labor laws as "default employment contract", then suddenly they'd be OK? And if I want to hire someone to babysit, I have to either (a) comply with all US labor laws, or (b) pull up a contract identifying which parts of labor laws I don't want to follow (which may well be a gigantic document). That's nothing close to freedom of contract.

[Agammamon]

Seriously? Sexual harrassment law is not a contract.

Uhm seriously, yes it is.

What do you think a contract is?

In this case its a contract backed up by coercion (as all law is), but its still a contract.

[Hackleraiser]

What do you think a contract is?

For starters, a contract is not something decided by a third-party and forced upon employer and employee whether they like it or not.

[Agammamon]

Never heard of the 'social contract' then?

[Agammamon]

. . . , or (b) pull up a contract identifying which parts of labor laws I don't want to follow (which may well be a gigantic document). That's nothing close to freedom of contract.

How can you get MORE freedom of contracty?

[Hackleraiser]

Well, you could let the parties to the contract write up the terms of the contract (or freely delegate that task to a person or organization they choose).

I know that's a radical and possibly unlibertarian idea, letting the parties decide their own contracts, but please keep an open mind.

[Agammamon]

Yeah, that's what I said.

And exactly what you were saying was unacceptable, literally, 27 minutes prior.

And if I want to hire someone to babysit, I have to either (a) comply with all US labor laws, or (b) pull up a contract identifying which parts of labor laws I don't want to follow (which may well be a gigantic document). That's nothing close to freedom of contract.

Ah, I see - I was too vague and assumed that the third option - (c) modify these laws as you see fit - was *implicit* in the freedom to do (b) and didn't need multi-page exposition with sources to clarify it.

[Hackleraiser]

Except in your paradigm you're forcing me to start with a contract that's as long and unwieldy as the govt wants it to be, and parse through what I don't want (and what the other party doesn't want) and negotiate over things that I never even wanted to deal with. Rather than just saying I'll pay you $50 to watch my kid for the night.

I don't know where in your definition of "freedom" it includes encumbering someone with an activity that they don't want to partake in.

[Agammamon]

Uh, no. In *my* paradigm the pre-existing 'government law' is there as a template that you may choose to use all, part, or entirely discard it and replace it (without even *reading* it if you choose) with, whatever - as the parties involved desire.

The 'I'll pay you $50 to watch my kid for the night' is only possible because you accept the pre-existing government regulations as is. Otherwise you'd have to negotiate the conditions. All the conditions.

Which is why, even in anarchist libertopia, you'll find pre-written contracts/legal agreements that you can use - either as-is or amended.

I don't get how you inferred that I meant *only* government law or specific exemptions from it.

Which is what would likely happen in libertopia, with the added advantage that the involved parties would have the right to amend that contract.

Amend - means to make changes to.

[Hackleraiser]

or entirely discard it and replace it (without even *reading* it if you choose)

So it's completely meaningless then. An asshole boss who wants to sexually harrass his employees can get away with it so long as he slips in a line during the interview saying the default employment contract is not applicable.

On the other hand, a guy in a hurry hiring a babysitter with a mere offer of $50 for the night, can get screwed over for not having the proper fire escapes and first aid kit that are stipulated in Article 6 Section T Paragraph 22 Subparagraph (k) of the Default Employment Contract.

[Agammamon]

Uhm, how is that different than what we have *now*?

My way at least allows you the opportunity to say that Article 6 doesn't apply - you don't get that luxury with 'law'.

[Hackleraiser]

Where did I support the current laws? I said there shouldn't be SH laws, any special treatment of SH should be stipulated in the employment contract. And there shouldn't be a "default contract" either.

Ganymede, you really need to follow the comments a little more carefully.

[Agammamon]

. . . so long as he slips in a line during the interview . . .

Well, verbal promises are almost never enforceable in contract law *now*. I don't even . . .

It comes down to what the parties *sign* as an agreement - and if you don't read a contract, I'm simply not going to have any sympathy for you if something pops up that you didn't know you agreed to.

20 years in the navy listening to young fuckers going 'I didn't sign up for this.' did you read the contract before you signed it? 'No.' Then shut the fuck up.

And that was a 'standard employment contract' all the way.

[Hackleraiser]

Well, verbal promises are almost never enforceable in contract law *now*. I don't even . . .

Jesus you're a nitpicker. Fine, he has a WRITTEN statement that the default contract doesn't apply and has them SIGN it. Wow. Does that change the premise at all? Seriously.

And that was a 'standard employment contract' all the way.

Which was presented to them when they signed it. Under your system the parties are bound by terms neither of them chose and possibly neither have seen or has access to at the moment they agree to the "contract".

[Agammamon]

I don't know where in your definition of "freedom" it includes encumbering someone with an activity that they don't want to partake in.

Oh, so you *are* a liberal.

Because no definition of 'freedom' outside the leftist realm has anything to do with 'freedom from unpleasant tasks'.

The alternative - letting someone else do all the hard lifting with no oversight (because if you do oversight then at some point you're still going to have to read the source document to decide what to amend and then read the final product to ensure its to your spec) is the road to serfdom.

[Hackleraiser]

The alternative I gave as the libertarian perspective was that we shouldn't have any inherent protection against SH. If you don't want to be touched or propositioned and want to be able to go to court to enforce that desire, get it into the contract. If the employer balks at it, that's a red flag, and maybe you need to find another job (mind you this happens before you're employed so you're not necessarily as dependent on this job).

Under that regime there would probably be sexual harrassment of employees who are desperate for a job. I admit the unfortunate side-effects of my position -- are you willing to do so for yours?

[Agammamon]

Except - my position is the same.

Contract.

I just pointed out that there are already pre-existing templates (in the form of sexual harassment law) and how 'libertarian law' would most likely differ.

I mean, seriously - we've wasted this time because you didn't take the time to read what I wrote and made a lot of unsupported inferences?

[Agammamon]

The difficulty of analysing these things under a 'libertarian' government is first you have to define what that means.

[Hackleraiser]

You seem to be of two minds here; I'm not sure at any given moment which mind I'm discussing with.

On one side you're trying to avoid having the unpleasant side-effects that blitz is worried about. Such as rampant employer SH.

On the other you're trying to maintain libertarian purity by calling what you're doing preserves freedom of contract.

But the system you propose satisfies neither. Any employer who plans to SH a desperate employee can simply insert a voiding of the default contract into their employment contract, and there's nothing you can do. The people who do get caught by the default contract are likely to be those who don't want to or are incapable of going through the process of making a detailed contract (and totally forget about verbal contracts, which are incredibly common in our society, possibly even moreso than written ones).

It would be like proposing to uphold freedom of the press by requiring anybody publishing something to start with a government-written document and make edits to it.

[Agammamon]

Above you were wringing your hands about sunglasses being treated as masks under the law and how we hadn't defined "concealing identity" with mathematical precision. Now you're yada-yada'ing something that's far vaguer. Sorry, I can't stand idly by and let you have it both ways.

OK, I'll tell you what - when you get our legislators to write comprehensive and not-at-all-vague laws then I'll start posting multi-page legal exposition, including footnotes and references, in a publishing forum completely unsuited for it.

Look arse, the two situations are completely different - legislatures are not writing laws in a posting format with a character limit.

[blitz]

For me all this would, ideally, be spelt out in subscription legal regimes, handled through arbitration and the criminal/tort distinction would be non-existent. Ie you might be able to get away with murder if you can afford to pay off the friends and relatives and survive the auto-vengeance contract the victim had with with his strategic-security company (yeah, I'm talking subscription military services up to and including MAD).

In the case of murder where friends and relatives were bought off, thus triggering the activation of the auto-vengeance contract, the role of the subscribed legal regime would be holding the military service liable for any violation of the contract (e.g., not attempting to kill the murderer). Am I correct in this?

[Agammamon]

Not attempting to kill the murdered *could* be taken care of through reputation effects (in a completely anarchic society) or through arbitration with the estate's caretaker (or whatever the guy charged with ensuring the will's requirements are filled out).

But in a *minimalist* legal system, then yes.

[Agammamon]

And the friends/relative being bought-off (compensated - its not that uncommon a practice in other societies, even -especially - tribalistic ones) is separate from the auto-vengeance bit.

The compensation is to stop them from attempting their own retribution (or tying you up in arbitration for longer than necessary) and the auto-vengeance triggers no matter the outcome of that.

Auto-vengeance is an 'incentive' to not kill you.

[blitz]

Auto-vengeance is an 'incentive' to not kill you.

I understand. It just seemed like this would be a matter of last recourse. I guess it could also be first on the list.

I don't know how you even go about trying to sell this to people as an acceptable method of resolution. In a society where duels are seen as barbaric, this evinces a vile and heinous human nature and therefore a totally unacceptable response.

[Agammamon]

'People are only as good as the world allows them to be'

Instead of getting our hands dirty dueling we let the police handle the dirt work out of view. The violence (or at least the threat of it), its just out of view or sanitised.

And, again from libertarian 'liberty maximizing' principles, why should dueling be illegal?

A minarchist might say that a departure from strict libertarianism is sometimes necessary for a better overall outcome - dueling could certainly fall under that category - but it would require minarchists to openly admit that departure. Which most are reluctant to do because that give rhetorical ammo to our ideological opponents (no, not the anarchists - SPLITTERS! - the 'liberals') to try to shoehorn in ever greater amounts of state control.

[Hackleraiser]

And, again from libertarian 'liberty maximizing' principles, why should dueling be illegal?

Libertarianism is about protecting individual rights, not maximizing liberty.

I suppose voluntary dueling could be consistent with libertarianism (though you'd have to have unquestionable evidence of consent for something like that) just as voluntary participation in violent sports like boxing and wrestling matches are consistent with it. But having it replace the criminal justice system is not an option because it gives carte blanche to the guy with Blaster or Gregor Clegane on his side to violate rights as he pleases, because no one would dare duel him.

[Agammamon]

Its not a replacement of arbitration - its an adjunct to it.

Not to mention a market opportunity for free-lance duelists.

[Hackleraiser]

So if I have Gregor Clegane in my employ, there's no way I'm ever accepting arbitration with someone because I know I'll win the duel but I may not win arbitration.

[Agammamon]

Not accepting arbitration leaves you open for retributory police/miltary response.

Not abiding by the terms of the abitator leaves you open for the same from the arbitration company's subscription police/military force.

Attempt to duel without consent from all parties leaves you open to retributory police/military actions (if you survive) and/or the above mentioned auto-vengeance contract (if you kill the other).

And there going to be no 'legal' requirement that anyone accept your 'champion' or that whoever Gregor McClane is is some unique, one of a kind guy.

And keep in mind - a big guy is at a disadvantage when dueling with firearms (what you thought this was going to be settled with *swords* or something - this is the 21st century).

[Agammamon]

uh, Clegan, not McClain.

[Hackleraiser]

uh, Clegan, not McClain.

You did that on purpose, Gammy.

[Hackleraiser]

Not accepting arbitration leaves you open for retributory police/miltary response.

Who? I thought this was anarchy.

Not abiding by the terms of the abitator leaves you open for the same from the arbitration company's subscription police/military force.

Which I don't care about if I have a stronger force than they do.

Whoever is stronger wins. That's how things work in the world now that you've gotten rid of government. You don't seem to accept the consequences.

And keep in mind - a big guy is at a disadvantage when dueling with firearms (what you thought this was going to be settled with *swords* or something - this is the 21st century).

Man, there's a lot of rules in your anarchy.

[Agammamon]

Did you think anarchy was 'ruleless'?

Anarchy is 'without government', not without law.

[Hackleraiser]

"something you would like but have no means to enforce" != law

[blitz]

Not attempting to kill the murdered *could* be taken care of through reputation effects (in a completely anarchic society) or through arbitration with the estate's caretaker (or whatever the guy charged with ensuring the will's requirements are filled out).

But in a *minimalist* legal system, then yes.

I'm sure you understand that getting you to agree to such a statement would be viewed by many as a refutation (reductio ad absurdum) for enacting libertarian principles.

Is the motivation for such a system based, primarily or even entirely, on lack of coercion?

[Agammamon]

Its about as minimally coercive as I can think of.

Not all coercion is bad - sometimes you need a threat of violence just to get people to leave you alone.

In *our* legal system this threat of violence still exists - we're just conditioned to not consider it acceptable for the one who will suffer the consequences (the potential murderee) to take charge of his own defense. We expect the state to do that.

Talk to people about private roads, private schooling - even with real-world examples of these things working and providing better outcomes than government provided roads/schools people still default to 'the government must provide' thinking.

That's what those who would consider this to be a 'reductio ad absurdum' will conveniently leave out of their reasoning.

OTOH - all this is hypothetical. I do think (I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist) that there are significant advantages (including increased freedom overall) to at least *some* state monopoly on violence.

Private armies usually don't bode well for the neighbors. Though in this case the armies are 'owned' by multiple people but not 'controlled' by them - so the army itself can have incentives to avoid wars (or get into them).

[blitz]

talk to people about private roads, private schooling - even with real-world examples of these things working and providing better outcomes than government provided roads/schools people still default to 'the government must provide' thinking.

That's what those who would consider this to be a 'reductio ad absurdum' will conveniently leave out of their reasoning.

They have the moral high ground (in their heads). They have the combined strength of all the citizens comprising society backing up their position (again in their heads). They are practically impenetrable, especially when arguing at the extremes.

Why not yield? Why not compromise and work piecemeal towards your end state. What is the point of complete honesty when it completely discredits you to your audience?

This is not specifically for you and I understand this is a libertarian website and why wouldn't you be open about libertarian principles here. This is more of a general question concerning persuasion and compromise. For example, if you are trying to convince an audience of the improvements with a school-voucher system and get drawn into a discussion concerning principles with a long drawn out hypothetical that leads to demands to avow or disavow subscription legal regimes and auto-vengeance contracts what would you do?

[Hackleraiser]

I should stipulate that there is a difference between minarchist libertarians and anarchist libertarians when it comes to crimes like murder and other acts of violence or fraud. Agamemnon is repping the anarcist point of view here.

[Agammamon]

Are you doing it on purpose now?

[Hackleraiser]

Ie you might be able to get away with murder if you can afford to pay off the friends and relatives and survive the auto-vengeance contract the victim had with with his strategic-security company (yeah, I'm talking subscription military services up to and including MAD).

...or if you have your own contract with a strategic security company that's stronger than your victims'.

That would present a strong market incentive for strategic security companies to become strong enough to dominate the others. You really don't want to be stuck with the second-best security company as your protector. Which is inevitably going to lead to consolidation and the de facto re-establishment of the G-word.

And that's assuming the initially stronger security companies don't start picking fights with the initially weaker ones to gobble up their market share faster. Then the G-word is going to arise by an even more bloody process and a lot faster.

[Agammamon]

Except . . .

Competition.

The 'strongest' security company can only remain that way if it satisfies its customers. Doing less than that opens up the conditions for competing firms to move in and take market share.

Keep in mind that, in my scenario, you may find yourself attacked *and* defended by the same company - which has to act with scrupulous neutrality to avoid getting a reputation for favorites - damaging its brand.

Life in an anarchy can get pretty crazy.

[Hackleraiser]

Life in an anarchy can get pretty crazy.

And pretty short, too. If you're lucky, it's only short because the anarchy transforms into a dictatorship before you get killed. Though admittedly, that's not very lucky.

The 'strongest' security company can only remain that way if it satisfies its customers.

Which it will, so long as it's the strongest.

I really don't think you see how everything gets messed up when you start introducing coercion as a market good. If you choose Mom and Pop Security with a force of 6 officers, as your protector, and get into a dispute with a customer of Wal-Security, which has 100,000 security officers, you're fucked. It's not like going to a local pizza place instead of Papa John's anymore.

Keep in mind that, in my scenario, you may find yourself attacked *and* defended by the same company - which has to act with scrupulous neutrality to avoid getting a reputation for favorites - damaging its brand.

You're describing what happens with government now. It's not that crazy.

[Agammamon]

Why would the number of officer matter? Are you expecting Walmart to invade?

If you have a problem with Walmart - you take it to arbitration. With a guy who has the connections to summon up 100,00+ guys if it looks like someone is going ignore his ruling.

Or, Mom and Pop Security, Inc have reciprocal aid treaties (contracts) with other security companies.

Oh, hey - just like happens in the real world.

I really don't get where you think the coercion *doesn't* exist RIGHT NOW. And its bought and sold - just the buying and selling go on under cove.

[Hackleraiser]

With a guy who has the connections to summon up 100,00+ guys if it looks like someone is going ignore his ruling.

So is there a government here or not? You keep bouncing around on this question.

If there isn't, how the heck did he get 100,000 guys? Charity? How is it obvious he'll be stronger than anyone he's arbitrating?

[Hackleraiser]

Or, Mom and Pop Security, Inc have reciprocal aid treaties (contracts) with other security companies.

Oh, hey - just like happens in the real world.

In the real world those "security companies" have monopolies over their territories and the ability to forcibly stop their "customers" from switching companies. And very often kill their customers, somewhat less often killing other companies customers and fighting other companies. (Our company does the former less frequently than the latter, which is kind of unusual, one may even say "exceptional").

If you're re-branding the current government system as something more libertarian-palatable, I don't see what the point is.

[GILMORE]

"Where do libertarians stand on extortion?"

I told your mom = you don't look nothing like me

[Zeb]

I don't think this law is good or necessary, it is definitely over-broad and potentially makes perfectly harmless activity a crime, but do hoodies conceal identity? I don't generally have any trouble identifying people I know when they are wearing hooded jackets or sweatshirts.

[Agammamon]

That's a major flaw with the law that Hackleraiser ignores - what consititutes 'concealing' identity is vaguely defined and open to prosecutorial (and police) discretion.

IMO *this*, even if the law otherwise 'reduces' crime is enough to junk it.

Prosecutors as a class have shown they can not be trusted with this sort of discretion.

[Hackleraiser]

Has to be done with a robe, mask, or disguise or the law doesn't apply.

[Agammamon]

To
wear a mask, hood or covering, which conceals the
identity of the wearer during the commission of a crime or for the
purpose of coercion, intimidation or harassment . . .

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2015-16 INT/SB/SB13 INT.PDF

That 'or', that's important.

[Hackleraiser]

That part is already in the law. This whole article is about the proposed amendment to it, which has the language I mention above.

[Agammamon]

You are correct - I copied the wrong section.

B. To intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.

[Hackleraiser]

Read the actual text of the law that I linked to above. It doesn't mention hoodies. It prohibits concealing identity with masks, robes, or other disguises. A hoodie would only apply if the hood was closed tight to cover a significant part of the face. Nick either (a) didn't look at the source, (b) can't read, or (c) intentionally misrepresented the law to push his narrative. Since we're talking about Nick Gillespie, the fact that it's a Red State would certainly make (c) even more tempting to him.

[Agammamon]

I don't care about hoodies. That post is specifically talking about the looseness with which 'concealing identity' (regardless of *how* its accomplished) is defined and the power that gives police and prosecutors.

[Hackleraiser]

Dude, seriously? I wasn't responding to your comment. Everything's not about you.

[Agammamon]

Yes it is.

[VicRattlehead]

no its about me, fuck you

[Sevo]

Hackleraiser|1.3.15 @ 4:04PM|#
..."It doesn't mention hoodies. It prohibits concealing identity with masks, robes, or other disguises."

Which doesn't matter in the least if the prosecutor says it doesn't regardless of your claims otherwise.

[Hackleraiser]

Yawn. If that's the case, it doesn't matter what laws we pass because the eeeeeeevil prosecutor is going to charge you with whatever he wants anyway.

[VicRattlehead]

thats the reason we should scrap the whole fucking system

[Zeb]

As I said, I don't think that hoods could generally be considered concealing identity. But the law is still too broad and vague and criminalizes perfectly innocent behavior.

[GILMORE]

Just checking in - how's the troll-weather today?

Actual new-people, or same old ones with new names?

[Hackleraiser]

This Agrigremlin guy is giving us fits.

[GILMORE]

Well, at least the trolls respond to the troll-whistle.

So, are you a new one, or one of the old ones with new garb?

(don't worry which you pick - one isn't better than the other)

[Redmanfms]

It's Tulpa.

The handle is even self-referential.

[F. Stupidity, Jr.]

In a 300+ comment thread, 180 or so are by Tulpa or one of his socks.

[userve32]

Hit it up man hit it up.

http://www.Way-Anon.tk

[Hackleraiser]

Whereas cheap epithets and accusations are always the mark of a winner.

You're getting away with it because you're surrounded by people who agree with you. On neutral ground I'd rhetorically skewer you like a sophomoric boar.

[JW]

people who agree with you

One of these is not like the other.

And it's *boor*. A boar is a swine. Though, that may still be accurate.

[Sevo]

"On neutral ground I'd rhetorically skewer you like a sophomoric boar."

Oh, OH!
Intertubze tuff gai!
Fuck off, shitbag.

[Redmanfms]

Uh-huh Tulpa. It's not like you don't have a well established history of creating socks to auto-fellate or with which to argue.

This guy is obviously you, he even plays the "on neutral ground I'd win" and echo chamber whiny bullshit that you spent years perfecting.

[VicRattlehead]

isnt tulpa a cop? wouldnt that make him swine?

[VicRattlehead]

you know its bad when the cop-apologist starts looking at you funny