Invisible Man
Member

Consider this scenario. A group of people contractually agree to pool their resources for some endeavor, and as part of that agreement they delegate to some board of trustees whom the elect to manage the use of those resources under the name of the organization that they create by way of that contract. This organization can buy and sell property, put its money in a bank account, hire employees, and enter into other contracts as decided by that board, in accordance with the contract these people chose to enter with one another. Included within the kinds of contracts this organization enters with other parties there are stipulations that limit this organization's liability. These people who choose to pool their resources in this way do so without any charter by a state recognizing or creating their organization. They create it themselves. Is this a corporation or a partnership? I would argue that such things did exist before the advent of the modern corporation as we know it, albeit perhaps without as much formality (e.g. in ancient voluntary societies such as churches, synagogues, and other such organizations that owned property separate from that of their members). But to acknowledge this would require that the word "corporation" not be defined in such a way that only government-created entities could count by definition. But even if no good examples can be found in antiquity, they surely would exist today even without any state's help or regulations.

Another point that hasn't been brought up here (understandably, since it's not what the OP is directly about), is what should happen *if* the search performed was improper. The status quo is that the evidence obtained that way would not be admissible in court, via the exclusionary rule. This exclusionary rule is another innovative reading into the Constitution of something that isn't there by judges who view it as a living document. But the exclusionary rule is now so ingrained in our legal system that I highly doubt that SCOTUS would even question its applicability even if they do rule that the search in this case was unconstitutional. Evidence for actual crimes (i.e. the kind of crimes that have victims and violate natural law and not just statutes made up by politicians) should always be usable in prosecuting the guilty party, no matter how the evidence was found. But if it was found in some unjust way, then the police officer, or whoever performed the unjust acts that resulted in finding that evidence, should be help accountable for the crimes they committed in finding that evidence as a matter that's kept separate from the prosecution of the criminal the evidence implicates.

Ron Paul may not be right about everything. But calling him a gullible ignorant sucker is going a bit far, don't you think?

I disagree. It's to decide if it's reasonable, at least if done within the framework of the Constitution taken literally. Otherwise, warrants would always be required, not just for misdemeanors, but also for felonies. Just as with deciding reasonableness before the fact, so also after the fact, the judges, in this case the Supreme Court, may decide if this particular search was reasonable or unreasonable. And that can and should be decided without regard for whether or not the officer had a warrant. In the case at hand, the argument against requiring a warrant would be that by the time he got a warrant, the blood alcohol level that he would be able to test the suspect for would no longer be indicative of what it was when the suspect was driving on public roads, and thus if the search was reasonable at all then it would need to be performed without waiting for a warrant. But that is what the question really should boil down to for SCOTUS--whether or not it was reasonable at all. If a search is reasonable, then neither the 4th Amendment nor anything else in the Constitution requires that a warrant be gotten prior to performing it. There may be statutes that require that. And there may be court rulings that were made by judges who view the Constitution as a living document that require that through reading into the Constitution things that aren't there. But the Constitution does not. And the title of this thread says that SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of it.

That is a good question. But notice that the stipulation "without a warrant" is superfluous there. If it's improper without a warrant, then it's improper with one as well. Similarly, the distinction between felony and misdemeanor is also beside the point.

OK, then constitutionally, those criteria of what he would need to do in order to get a warrant are what this comes down to, and not whether or not he actually had a warrant. He would certainly have probable cause, having actually seen me use the illegal gas can, and he would certainly be able to describe the person and place to be searched, that being the same house where he saw me use the illegal gas can. It would again come down to what constitutes an unreasonable search. Lacking a warrant wouldn't be what made it unreasonable. The inability to get a warrant would result from the same unreasonableness as the unreasonableness that a judge after the fact would be able to identify. But if the judge after the fact rules it unreasonable, then (if that judge interprets the Constitution literally) it should be on the basis of the same facts that a judge who would have refused to issue the warrant would and not by counting the lack of warrant as the one fact that makes it unreasonable.

That's definitely unreasonable. But if he had a warrant, that wouldn't make it any more reasonable. I meant to focus the point I was making on the issue of whether or not warrants should make a difference. But yes, we all break laws virtually every day without even knowing it. There are so many laws we can't reasonably be expected to keep track of them all. And their existence gives the state the power to do things like what you described. Any time they want to violate someone's rights, all they need to do is find a law they break and use that as their pretext. This is grossly unjust, whether constitutional or not.

There have been a bunch of articles posted at mises.org that address those types of claims over the years. Here's one: http://libertarianstandard.com/2011/10/18/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/ (Edit: I just realized that link wasn't the Mises one. That's where I got to that article from though.)

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again."

I disagree with all of this as well. Corporations as we know them are registered with and regulated by governments. And those government requirements placed on them are anti-libertarian. But corporations in and of themselves are inevitable in a free market, including with corporate personhood and limited liability, and not just government creations. Libertarian policy would permit their existence through contracts that do not include the state as a party. Compare what you're saying to the institution of marriage (which really, is a very specialized type of corporation where two become one flesh). As far as the government as we know it today is concerned, a marriage only exists when the government recognizes it as such, subject to the government's regulations. But absent any of those state interferences in marriage, and in fact even if no state existed at all, there would still be marriages.

I don't imagine there are very many people who are unaware of that. But if there are, then that's on them. It's not like banks are tricking people into thinking that's the case. And at any rate, if there is a problem of banks doing that, then it doesn't call for outright banning of fractional reserve banking. That fraudulent practice could be dealt with as the fraud that it would be, while parties who choose to engage in nonfraudulent fractional reserve banking arrangements with one another could still be left free to do that. But again, in the current world, where we have a central bank, this is more of an academic question about what banking could be like in the absence of that central bank as opposed to how it is now.

This proposal is another one that I've noticed seems to be popular here. But this is at least as bad and antithetical to Ron Paul's positions as antitrust laws. The government shouldn't prop up fractional reserve banking with a lender of last resort and legal tender laws. But it shouldn't ban it either. If two parties voluntarily choose to enter an agreement where one of them deposits their money with the other, who by mutual agreement is only required to keep a fraction of it on hand and is free to loan out the remainder, that's their right, and no third party has any right to intervene and ban that agreed upon arrangement. There are problems with it that the market can handle without the government's help. The same applies to anti-trust laws.

What's your basis for thinking that? Granted, the population of this place, and the views that are held by the majority here, has changed a lot since 2016, partly by way of Trumpers invading, and partly by way of old RP supporters changing their views. And of course even in 2008-2012, Ron Paul drew support from people with diverse views who didn't agree with him on everything. But there are still a significant minority here with strong libertarian leanings. My guess would be that a third here would be opposed to anti-trust laws.

It may be wrong. But it's not unconstitutional. I see nothing in the Constitution that says that warrants are constitutionally required for anything whatsoever. The only mention of warrants in the Constitution is in the 4th Amendment, which stipulates requirements that must be met for warrants to issue, but says nothing about when warrants are required. The question then comes down to whether or not following a misdemeanor suspect into their home is "unreasonable." But the question of whether or not its unreasonable is determined by other factors apart from whether or not they have a warrant. They could have a warrant and it still be unreasonable, or they could not have a warrant and it would still be reasonable. It can't be unreasonable without a warrant and then somehow if they have a warrant under the otherwise exact same circumstances that would make it reasonable.

Again, as far as I can tell, at least for some states (e.g. Alaska) it's not disputed by anyone at all. Do you dispute it? What more proof do you need than what's already been provided? That doesn't sound very difficult to me. I agree with you that no one person can make a big difference. Whatever affect this has is cumulative of all the separate individuals who do it. And by the nature of this, it's easy to do and not get caught, so we can't know how many that is.

Done. And? What are you getting at here? Do you dispute that Alaska has more registered voters than eligible voters?

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Firestarter again."

It's not just possible. That's exactly what the quote you just gave says--"different government agencies" = the swamp.

+rep

From the link in the OP: What kind of nonsense is this? I also watched the video and the guy making it couldn't tell that what he called snow burning and not melting was just soot from a candle collecting on a snowball that was clearly melting.

I guess this means Rand has no plans to run for president in 2024. But that's no surprise.

Here you go: https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/ Click the link that says "Age and Sex 2010 to 2020" and download the Excel file. Enable editing on the file. Highlight all the cells from age 18 on down to the bottom on the column for total in July 2020. The total population of those age 18 and older in Alaska in July 2020, according to the state's own Department of Labor's estimate was 546,420. That total includes some people who are not eligible voters. So, this is an overestimate of the number of eligible voters, and is still considerably lower than their number of registered voters. I wonder if you actually tried to find that. Or, if not, then I wonder if you assumed that Alaska's own website didn't provide figures for population by age at all, in which case your demand that that website be used as a source for that figure would have had to be disingenuous.

Are you talking about the M1 money supply?

I'm a conservative. I think this seems like fiddling while Rome burned. But he still has several years before reelection. We will all forget like good Americans.

There's some irony in making this particular statement in a post in which you revive a 6 year old thread.

There are times when people are forced to realize the shortcomings of mankind, and that no one (especially gov't) can solve, control, fix, or protect you from everything. I can remember several events even in my lifetime when these realizations brought Americans to their knees before a sovereign God. Those days are sadly almost gone, as our leaders blaspheme and vow to rebuild the tower of Babel even higher.

She was saying that the Clinton tapes stood to hurt Clinton more than the Trump tapes would hurt Trump. To me that concession makes the story more believable, not less.

You have to wonder what kind of delusions someone is under if they don't at the very least see the verisimilitude of this story.