Comment: The fine print

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Yes, Sea (see in situ)

The fine print

"I have the wild belief that serial killers and child molesters should be tracked down, arrested, tried and punished, even though it violates NAP."

Dictators dictate the meaning of words and they are often inspired to change the meaning of words from the original meaning to the exact opposite meaning form time to time, at their pleasure.

When criminals are successfully identified as criminals the POWER to defend the innocent victims is then significantly increased relative to the innocent victims having absolutely no idea who, exactly, are these serial killers, child molesters, on and on.

Examples Serial Killers:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/weaver/spencel...

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/weaver/horiuch...

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/horiuchi.htm

Examples Child Molesters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asvl6kO1Vo8

The problem with focusing on ONLY the "best" serial killer and the "best" child molesters is the fine print of who actually finances those who are "best" at those high paying jobs in Organized Crime when the Criminals take over Government.

Then there are those who make a living at covering up for those who are "best" at those things, as this army of liars, paid or not, spew forth their tangled web of deception.

"I have the wild belief that serial killers and child molesters should be tracked down, arrested, tried and punished, even though it violates NAP.

In other words a "wild belief" is anything but actually working to effectively defend the victims of serial killers and child molesters as the record clearly shows.

"Suspicion is sufficient grounds for arrest; trial is legitimate, a jury consensus on the principles of classic anglo jurisprudence is sufficient to decide guilt and sentence."

The often ignored risk of false accusation is a hard to fit shoe when the lairs try to fit on that shoe.

When government is founded on non-aggression principles the false accuser is proven to be the criminal and the rule of law defends that criminal with a process that affords that criminal a means by which that criminal can redeem him, or her, self, by settling the matter with his, or her, victim, or victims, of his, or her, false accusations.

"The perpetrator of such crimes is going to be punished anyway, likely by relatives spending all their resources wastefully in revenge, which you seem to think is just peachy."

When the Criminals take over, the Criminals make their crimes legal for them to do, such as spreading damaging lies over the internet, while those same Criminals claim that anyone else doing what they are doing is against their (criminal = aggressive principle) laws.

Easy to understand as:

When we (the criminals) do whatever we want: it is legal for us to do so, and we hand you (the victims) the bills for our actions.

When you (the targets) try to do anything we don't like, then you pay more than the bills you are already given, because now your actions make us work for our pay.

"Providing such a basic function of justice impartially, without a direct interest or bias, is much more fair and efficient on a public justice model than on your hands off approach + feuds."

In Crime Speak that can be explained as:

"Providing (supplying) such a basic function as justice (JUST US) impartially (so long as the criminals define the meaning of "impartially" or "is"), without a direct interest (from the victims point of view) or bias (in favor of any of the targeted, innocent, victims), is much more fair (favoring the criminals) and efficient (moving more and more power to the criminals faster from the victims so long as the supply of victims remains abundant) on a public (meaning targets) justice (again Just US Criminals: not the "public" = targets) model (meaning crime in progress) than on your (meaning the Straw Man I created and placed targeted victims names on it) hands off (meaning anything other than common moral sense or Non-Aggression Principle) approach (meaning proven effective free market defense of the innocent victims from the guilty criminals or due process of law) + feuds (meaning what Criminals do when another Criminal Monopoly is working to gain market share and there is no way, yet, to incorporate that competitor into the non-competitive monopoly criminal fraud and extortion monopoly).

That helps I sure.

Joe