tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11569206.post4256700632930852224..comments2023-10-11T10:57:26.122-04:00Comments on Gil The Jenius: A Dollar Per DayGCSchmidthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07735900094879466498noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11569206.post-63053343289729000662010-01-06T18:27:52.704-04:002010-01-06T18:27:52.704-04:00MC, Happy New Year. As to your example, I agree wi...MC, Happy New Year. As to your example, I agree with it in large part, with the caveat that your example is about a "civilian" misapplication of the law (the woman should have gotten jailtime) whereas Mine is about adjusting the penalties upward to properly (in My view) punish the miscreants. Example: In Guatemala, drunk driving was once punishable by death; drunk driving stopped. Maybe We should try that, but the problem with across-the-board harshness is that it quickly leads to societal erosion, i.e., infringement on rights. So let Me suggest that twice-convicted drunk drivers should go to jail for at least a year, your third speeding ticket in a year should equal 90 days in jail and corrupt government officials should be put away for decades. That's a start, but only that: a start.GCSchmidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07735900094879466498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11569206.post-69726964728652612412010-01-05T07:53:19.679-04:002010-01-05T07:53:19.679-04:00Your argument seemed valid, nay almost rational, u...Your argument seemed valid, nay almost rational, until you got to one point. The point in which you assumed that we live in place with "a government under the rule of law."<br /><br />It further assumes that we live in a society which give a rat's behind about the "proper rule of law."<br /><br />If you eliminate those two assumptions, then what you have is merely the fools stupid enough to get caught, stupid enough to have not figured out how to pin the culpability onto someone else, and too stupid to understand that breaking a law, is breaking the law. <br /><br />Take for example this unfortunate young lady who had over 10 speeding violations before killing three innocent children. In that scenario she was plainly a habitual criminal, the system which allowed her to continue driving was criminal, and the society (that being her sphere of family members, friends, and relatives) all acted criminally by aiding and abetting a criminal. Harsh words, you're damn straight, but the only way a society based on the rule of law of could perceive this situation. <br /><br />Therefore, since all of those crimes happened in order for someone to drive 120 mph and kill three innocent children, then clearly we do not live in a society which recognizes the rule of law.<br /><br />Sorry, for the diatribe, but this is so fundamental as to rule out any discussion (except theoretical) of law, law enforcement, and punishment.KWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13594490369469976434noreply@blogger.com