Dear /sci, I come to you as the second most clever board aft

>>7981504
I mostly browse /lit, but I can confirm that /lit is 75% DFW and Pynchon memes, 24% retarded questions like "is this book good? what did you think of x? should I like x? how do I start with the Greeks?" and 1% good content.

We don't know how to socialize with other boards. Please go.

>>7981514
but you are the most logical board? the most knowledgeable about the real world?

Please, I need answers

>>7981504
>4th, why are banks called the same things as the sides of rivers?
Look up bank as a verb.

I like the gif.

>>7981659
>bank as a verb
bench?

wierd

thanks

File: 1447942051622.png (814KB, 604x717px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 604x717px

>>7981504
>/sci/
>clever

>>7981725
It's a ranking. Who's gonna out-IQ us? /gif/?

>>7981733
Nah. Probably /fit/

>>7981504
Hope you are trolling, cause those 'sovereigns' are real loonies.
1. They aren't even making coherent arguments, they use made-up terms and spout bullshit. Capital letters signify a dead strawman? I've heard more coherent ramblings from my grandfather with alwheimer...
2. It doesn't. Like any other fields, law does have its jargon, a lot of jargon, and it might be a bit worse than other fields because the law should be defined without ambiguity.
3. Sovereignity: the authority of a state to govern itself or another state. (Not theeir warped definition)
The power is most often established a constitution and can ideally be influenced by voters.
4. No reason, they are making connecting some random words and search for non-existing links.
Regis=king (they are even ignoring the declension, bad latin) and by that logic registration is inherently bad? Like I said, their arguments are incoherent at best and I've seen similar styles of arguing in mental patients.
5. See 4
6. Yes, don't like some laws? Go into politics or vote for candidates who agrees with you and hope it changes.
7. YES!

>>7981779
>6. Yes, don't like some laws? Go into politics or vote for candidates who agrees with you and hope it changes.
how can someone be joined to a society without consent? does that make them a slave?

I do appreciate you showing us how scientific discourse should be carried out

>>7981805
I know reality isn't always awesome. Some laws suck, injustice happens and the avarage joes sometimes have the feeling that they have no grip on the system whatsoever, but are you really trying to argue that one should be able to live outside the law? Like killing without being reprimanded and stuff?
Humans have lived in societies for centuries, that doesn't make anyone slaves. Rules, law enforcement and a government, while maybe not always to your liking, are necessary (according to most modern political philosophies, with mabe the exception of anarchists) to keep everything running.
Anyway everyone uses public roads, state libraries, schools, recreational centers,.. (ie things the government build with money from your fellow citizens) Or has some other use for being part of the system. They really aren't (all) crooked an out to get you.

7. Yes

>>7981837
>They really aren't (all) crooked an out to get you.
oh no, some of them just carry out the orders and administrate the system which is designed, for the most part, to fleece us for revenue.

> but are you really trying to argue that one should be able to live outside the law?

is it true that we used to live according to a system known as Common Law? At least in Britain and its colonies? and that the basics of this system of law was "cause no harm, loss, injury or fraud, do not breech the peace"? because that seems like a sensible system of law. If statutes contradict that law, then they are not valid, and if they confirm it, they are unnecessary.

Yet these days we have so many thousands of pages of "laws" that even teh lawyers don't know them all, they specialize in certain fields. How can you be expected to obey the statutes, if there are so many that one person can't even read them all in an entire lifetime? and "ignorance of the law is no defence"?

>>7981865
>which is designed, for the most part, to fleece us for revenue.
I'm less pessimistic about the system, don't know how to convince you, but like you said they are just doing their jobs.

>cause no harm, loss, injury or fraud, do not breech the peace
That is (should be) still the spirit in which the law is written. Modern law is probably longer, but being at least somewhat familiar with older law texts I doubt they are easier for the layman to understand. (I'm not from the USA and I don't know enough about ancient American law to state anything pertaining to "Commmon law" with certainty)

To be fair it's naïve to believe that a oneliner can replace the law. Yes the law is oddly specific, but how do you define harm? What can you ask as compensation. What can the government demand of you? Is it fraud if you don't agree with it in the first place?
I'm a bit familiar with law in Ancient Rome and it was more akin to what you seem to want. (There still were large text describing them even in that time, but easier to understand and way smaller than the law nowadays) Instead of designing their laws hoping to describe every situation and as such never have ambiguous cases they wrote more general laws and let a jury decide on a case by case basis after all involved parties had their say.

>>7981901
>I'm less pessimistic about the system, don't know how to convince you, but like you said they are just doing their jobs.
>just doing their jobs
yeah, like teh nazi guards

>That is (should be) still the spirit in which the law is written. Modern law is probably longer, but being at least somewhat familiar with older law texts I doubt they are easier for the layman to understand. (I'm not from the USA and I don't know enough about ancient American law to state anything pertaining to "Commmon law" with certainty)
should be, yet much of what the police and courts do these days involves fines, and trials without jury(the jury decides whether wrong has been done, not the judge), assumption of guilt

what do you think of the American tactic of proceeding against property and money, without having first tried the owner for any crime

>I'm a bit familiar with law in Ancient Rome and it was more akin to what you seem to want.
not at all.

> Instead of designing their laws hoping to describe every situation and as such never have ambiguous cases they wrote more general laws and let a jury decide on a case by case basis after all involved parties had their say.
that's common law, the jury decides, not the judge. now we have various parts of the system where you can be found guilty by e.g. a magistrate, and have no right to trial by jury.

The prosecutor and judge are paid for by the same entity, and the defence lawyer is often provided by the state too. Is there a danger of bias? Especially when Judges are chosen from lawyers

In England, if your car goes through a speed camera, you are sent a fine, convicted without a trial. You can appeal, but you are already guilty unless you can prove innocence. and they rake in millions every year with these things

>>7981936
>yeah, like teh nazi guards
Nazi guards were actively torturing and killing people. This is waaay less black and white than the Nazi regime.

>should be, yet...
I think the fines and trials without jury are more a necessity instead of a way to spite you. Like I said, I'm less pessimistic about the system. Maybe I'm naïve, but...
I mean at least were I'm from a lot of smaller cases are being shelved because the court houses can't handle the workload. Do we really need a full jury present everytime someone wants to appeal a speeding ticket? Were would you even find these people, most people loath jury duty...

>what do you think of the American tactic of proceeding against...
Don't know much about this as I'm not from the US, sorry...

>not at all.
It wasn't a bad system tough ;) But society was easier then...

>and have no right to trial by jury.
Same in Belgium, only certain types of crimes (ie murder) have a jury, but like I said, while it would be nice, I'm not sure if it's such a big deal.
>danger of bias
In Belgium we have something called the separation of the law making and executing powers and we take it very seriously. Theoretically a powerfull politician could always try to skew things in his favour, but like I said I'm an optimist. There are btw a bunch of cases were an individual fought the state and won. (Also a bunch were even I believe some individual got royally screwed) But it shows that at least they aren't invincible.

>you are sent a fine, convicted without a trial.
Speeding cams are abundant accross Europe, desu speeding is a pretty black and white issue. But I see were you have a problem with this

America isn't perfect either though, I recently learned you guys have elected judges. From a European perspective that's weird. How can you expect someone to stay neutral if he has to pander to his voters?

>>7982055
>This is waaay less black and white than the Nazi regime
people are responsible for their own actions, enforcing unjust law is unethical and immoral

>more a necessity
what? our rights should be infringed because it's necessary for the courts to generate revenue?

>Don't know much about this as I'm not from the US, sorry...
google asset forfeiture

police routinely take large sums of cash during tarffic stops in case it's drug money, teh courts then procede against THE MONEY!! sounds insane? google it

>It wasn't a bad system tough
apart from the slavery?

>I'm not sure if it's such a big deal
it's not a big deal that you are no longer to be judged by a jury of your peers? instead some guy in a robe with a vested interest(paid by the state) decides if you are guilty? can you sue him if he is wrong? not in the UK or US, probably not in Belgium

>I'm an optimist
i'm a pragmatist, what is is

well I call myself a pragmatist because I think it sounds clever, but I suppose I'm on the pessimistic side

>Speeding cams are abundant accross Europe, desu speeding is a pretty black and white issue. But I see were you have a problem with this
who is harmed by speeding? by what right do they infringe on your right to due process?

if yo uare not driving the car and refuse to say who was, you are still charged with the offence. Do they do this with murder cases? Isn't there a natural right to not incriminate yoursefl/remain silent? Do you have that in Belgium?

>From a European perspective that's weird. How can you expect someone to stay neutral if he has to pander to his voters?
that's the idea behind juries, and why they re so important