Is English a second language, or are you just being disingenuous? Me thinks the latter. No...publicly owned roads are NOT toll roads because they are paid for with taxes. Taxes and tolls are different things, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently. I live on a private road..so I'm certain they must exist.
It is absolutely NOT illegal to create a private toll road on private property with private funds. That's just asinine. It is nearly impossible to build one without using public services, such as the public roads and ports needed to deliver materials, but certainly not illegal.

It's leaching off me if you don't pay your fair share, and you have made it clear you don't think you should have to pay any, so I must assume you do all you can to minimize what you put into the pot...so yes, I would make an educated guess that you are leaching off me. I don't even itemize deductions, because I feel grateful to live in what I feel is a great country, and feel it's unpatriotic to try to shirk my duty to pay for my portion of government, even if I disagree with how they spend most of it. That's the cost of living in a 'representative democracy'.

As to mail, yes, you may not use mail boxes set up for/by the USPS for a private mail service...so you can't do 'first class mail'. You can, however, deliver letters for a fee to your OWN style of 'letter box', so your claim they have a 'monopoly' is ridiculous, they would be so happy to have it taken over, it's a big money loser and a huge pain in the ass to keep going. I'm personally grateful mail hasn't yet been privatized, as I know full well the service would suffer badly to make it profitable, for me especially since I live in the boonies and would never be profitable as a customer. To deliver my letters by FedEx would cost 10 times what USPS charges. (by the way, FedEx and UPS are proof that you already CAN deliver 'mail' privately, just not into a USPS 'mail box')
EDIT: What you said was akin to me saying 'Instead of just complaining about the quality of available burgers, you could open your own hamburger stand' and you answering 'I can't...it's illegal for me to sell "Big Mac's" because...government'.

AND, I would add, you have still never addressed my original point, that if business could/would 'self regulate', they would be doing so now. Self regulation is total fantasy, it simply doesn't happen. How exactly, I wonder, are 'the people' supposed to gain the knowledge about a companie's violations of public trust and health if there's no regulatory agency inspecting and reporting on what the company is actually doing, and they can do all their evil in secret?

Exactly... this guy is a waste of good air, trolling a cop because he wants to look smart by being able to quote legal precedent. Get a life, or a job, or go do something useful with your smarts instead of this shit.

Open carry is like being naked at a wedding... often not illegal, but it sure as hell makes everyone uncomfortable, you know there's going to be confrontation, and you're just being a dick. If I'm out in public and want to carry a gun, I don't want anyone to know I have one... concealed carry is the way to go.

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

A consensual fight is not illegal and does not constitute an Assault charge.

You can easily provoke people without breaking the law. Happens all the time. It's not illegal to insult someone's mother but that doesn't make it any less stupid. Similarly, it's unwise to be confrontational to someone holding a gun (like a cop). That's common sense. Cops are not robots or omniscient deities. They are humans and have the same failings as everyone else. It's nice to hold them to a higher standard but you can't ignore the reality of what they actually are. Their job is dangerous and most people are inherently antagonistic towards them, due to the fact that they don't like being punished for doing what they want. Even a routine traffic stop can turn deadly. There are plenty of videos online where cops were either injured or killed with little to no warning from the perpetrators. As such, it's unsurprising that they might be overly cautious or mistrustful of abrasive strangers.

Valiantly fighting for your rights is all well and good but is it really worth it if compromise leads to better results? If the guys had shown their IDs, the cops would have likely just gone on their merry way. No arguments, no physical contact, no searches, nothing. A significant amount of time and effort would have been saved by both parties. If the cops had demanded a strip search, that would have been one thing. But they just asked to see some ID, an act which takes less than 10 seconds to perform at no risk to the person doing it. Life is about choice and consequence. You should make choices that have the most ideal consequences. Arguing with cops (or anyone with a gun) will never end well so why bother if it can easily be avoided?

While I agree she is a bitch, the statement is true, he does techically work for the taxpayers (assuming she is one) AND it's not illegal to say that....just trollish/bitchy So should someone get arrested for "trolling"?

You're taking context way out of proportion, Again, given the circumstances, the searches were valid and needed to find the suspect.

RE: Exigent Circumstances:
"In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. /snip"

The key part of this statement is "imminent escape", thus the searches fall under exigent circumstances. ACLU among a few others have already dove into this entire video and it's meaning, they also talked to several attorneys and legal experts and they all say that the searches aren't illegal. Maybe heavy handed, but not illegal.

And lastly (sorry for the long posts), many have already pointed out that this particular video (the only one actually) shows the defensive positioning of the law enforcement, the fact that there's a heli above. This could be a house of interest, possibly someone spotted someone running through the yard, or something seemed suspect. We may never know, but a few officers I've talked to (both in Swat as well as a few of my ex-military contacts) have stated that this isn't standard procedure positioning. That they only arrange themselves like this if they feel there's a threat in the building or car.

there's a key word in my explanation (which the definition is posted in another comment); Under exigent circumstances, meaning using the excuse of "oh.. we're just looking for someone" isn't considered under that label. Also, probable cause can be used in a search without a warrant (i.e. shots reported in a building etc..).

Secondly, the entire city of Boston was on lockdown under a Public Safety measure (no martial law was called at the time), but national guard was patrolling the search area and aiding local enforcement. Anyone found on the streets walking around was instantly stopped and carded for info.

Again, the searches were not unwarranted and they were not illegal. They only searched the houses in the search area, they proceeded with by the book maneuvers. No one was mishandled in the searches from what I see in that video or any other account.

They're not illegal searches, a warrant isn't needed if it's under exigent circumstances (i.e. Martial Law, manhunt, etc).
If this were under different circumstances, then yes, I'd be upset, but they're looking for someone who's already killed, and injured people, and who's already shown behavior that they will attack on a whim.

You seem to be hung up on this like it's the main thing. I'm sorry but although there is a better side of the lane for a motorcyclist there isn't a wrong one. It is not illegal for him to be there, the entire lane is his and he can clearly be seen by a car right behind him.

You obviously have some sort of anger issue, since you seem to want to scream at everyone for this. Take a breath, it's not the end of the world.

It's not illegal to just lie. I'm not sure if there's a way to fix that...imagine a law that said something like you need two sources to verify something before you report it even on 24 hour news channels. It wouldn't really fix anything it would just make everything more complicated.

You can't stop them...you can fight them by staying informed and informing others objectively and not stridently.

Wow, and not illegal over there?

>> ^spoco2:


What fucking reason does he have for walking around with a fucking gun? Really, this is shit, and people who go 'YEAH MAN, STICK IT TO THE MAN' are so full of shit too.
"Is that the only reason you stopped me? Because I'm carrying a gun?" YES! Why the fuck is that not a correct course of action? Why does this dick think that it's a GOOD thing for people to just be able to walk around with loaded guns?

1: On general principle, I support the idea that people should be allowed to carry guns, in the same way that I support the right to be drunk. Yes, it's not big or clever, and yes, it can lead to dangerous and/or criminal behaviour. But there are laws against driving drunk and laws against threatening/shooting people with a firearm. I don't really like the idea of legislating for potential outcomes.

2: On the other hand, stopping a person for carrying a gun seems like a completely reasonable position to take for a police officer. If you want to carry a gun, then you must be prepared to accept that consequence, in the same way as drivers must accept the requirement to produce a valid driving licence.

3: Finally, I'm fully in agreement that walking around carrying a gun is pretty much being a dick. Being a dick, however, is not illegal (see 1). Circumstances may arise one day, I might want to be a dick and it's important to know that my legal right to be a dick is protected.

This guy is just an asshole though.

Kindly go fuck yourself overcast. I never called for vigilante justice so don't try to put words in my mouth.

I called Zimmerman was he is, a murder and a scumbag. I never called for his lynching.

Zimmerman is very clearly guilty of murder.

But of course, legal moralists like you and edgeman are gonna defend this whole "The United States is a nation of Laws" bullshit. "We have to let the system runs its course."

That shit is same reason why Goldman Sachs, etc. stole all our tax dollars and will never be brought to trial for it.

"Well if it's not illegal or there's no evidence to prosecute them then.. what are we supposed to do about?"

Stop pretending like "innocent until proven guilty" means anything.

It's just empty rhetoric you've been indoctrinated with so you'll comply with this fucked up judicial system.

Think about it Overcast and @Edgeman2112. What kind of society puts INNOCENT people on trial?

It's all a game and scumbags like Zimmerman's retired judge father know how to play to win. i.e. get away with murder



>> ^xxovercastxx:


innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is not "defending" anyone; it's the foundation of our legal system.
If it was up to people like you he'd have been strung up in a tree in the public square 3 weeks ago.

Debut in Berlin? How is this movie not illegal under German law?

@Hybrid: No apostrophe necessary.