Comment: blib-blabb ba blabb-blibber

(See in situ)


blib-blabb ba blabb-blibber

I do beleive that you write in a very stilted and pompous manner, which is thick with terminology that only you understand, but which appears to use words that are commonplace. It is like you have your own "phreedom's law dictionary" where you have your own unique definitions for terms that already have their own plain English meanings, plus their legal term-of-art meanings. Why you do this, other than to confuse people and to try to sound vaguely legal, I don't know.

There is a book I am going to recommend to you: Plain English for Lawyers. It recommends that lawyers not do this. You profess to disdain lawyers but you have copied one of the worst, and most outdated qualities.

Now on to the "substance" if one can call it that. I get the anarchistic idea that you are the sole arbiter of laws in your ideal world. I don't personally agree with that, nor do I think it is any kind of "organic" or "natural" ideal. I think it is a little foolish and best left to people that are well fed by their mommy.

The rest of your analysis includes things that at one point or another have been tried and are just not practically workable. There ARE conditions under which one can be sued for bringing an improper case. Those conditions are limited because if they weren't it would make the justice system completely ineffective. Everyone would simply fire back with accusations, driving up the cost, reducing the effectiveness, and punishing the innocent.

You seem to forget that, in about 90+% of the cases, the defendant actually accused DID IT. The laws exist to protect the relatively rare, but still frequent, exceptions. I personally don't want a system where the defendant gets to make a bunch of frivolous accusations every time he gets caught robbing a liquor store or killing or raping. And I question the logical reasoning faculties of anyone who both thinks this is a good idea, and also thinks they are brilliant/unique/ cutting edge for thinking of it.

So, in other words, I disagree. I am for limited government and a return to constitutional principles, the elimination of the police state feel to this country, the de-militarization of police, the de-criminalization of strict liability crimes, and a whole lot of other things. But I'm not an anarchist. Sorry if that disappoints. Neither was Ron Paul, btw.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein