What is the bicycle security risk?

You're looking at this the wrong way.

We created this situation, by running off and filing frivolous lawsuits each and every time some civil servant showed a modicum of initiative and made a decision which offended somebody. We forced the various agencies of our local, state and federal governments to adopt standards which force their employees to behave like robots, mindlessly performing their tasks according to a prescribed set of orders without any capacity for interpretation, in which they are rewarded for zombielike obedience in the form of small, incremental pay raises, and punished for any deviation from the norm, no matter how well-intentioned or reasonable.

Well, you set up that kind of environment, and then post a sign saying "no vehicles in this space." What, precisely, do you expect to happen in that situation?

Florida Cops Made Millions Dealing Cocaine: The Latest Asset Forfeiture Outrage - Forbes

How The NYPD's Use Of Civil Forfeiture Robs Innocent New Yorkers: Gothamist

Yeah, he's innocent. Because every working stiff keeps nearly 5 grand in cash around the house.

what does that have to do with anything other than you being an asshole?

they had no warrant, found no drugs, and took his money. he was unable to collect it when his silly charge was finally dropped.

he's also a bartender that gets paid mostly in tips, in, guess it, gasp, cash. and most poor people don't have, guess it, gasp, bank accounts.

what NYC did with his money is actually illegal. Nothing Bryan did, in relation to this raid and his money, was. But they are innocent since they are police right?

High five, Braineack.

Large amounts of cash used to be a tip for investigators to look for crime.

Money laundering laws have turned holding large amounts of cash into a crime in itself: "Malum Prohibitum" - wrong because prohibited - or violations of statute law, laws which are handed down by legislators like they are on Mt. Olympus.

This is in contrast to "Malum In Se", meaning wrong in itself, such as murder, rape, and theft, which are violations of common law, crimes wherein there is a definite plaintiff.

Now in the above story who violates common law and who violates statute law?

In a common-law system the courts sat and waited until there was a complaint. During the trial the law was "discovered". Humans have a long history of common law. At the time the English colonists rebelled they had a long tradition of common law, going back to English common law.

In the preceding and succeeding decades statute law took over (according to one historian, due to pressure from businesses, and politicians like Alexander Hamilton). Today when the average person thinks of "law" they can only think of statute law, wherein our wise overlords pass innumerable decrees e.g. it's illegal to have a "secret compartment" in your car, you go to jail for a few grams of plant matter in your pocket, you can't sell raw milk, etc.

These statute laws which create victimless crimes are *the* main system by which the average schmoe is tyrannized.

I do. Does that make me a criminal or just mean you aren't good with generalizations.

You live in FL, that means you are a drug runner.

Or that I don't trust that the bank will be open and dispensing cash when the power is out for several days after a natural disaster. Not having access to your money or your emergency supplies when you really need them is the functional equivalent to not having any.

My eggs reside in many baskets.

:rofl: I laugh, while deeply sad inside.

Our great beast of a government at work. It runs like a machine with no off switch, and allows for no use of common sense.

This might be one of the dumbest things I've read on this forum, and that says a lot.

Cash is king. If you don't have it on you, you don't have it.

Well isn't all currency sort of abstract in a way? Cash is nothing more than a paper representation of something of value, be it gold, silver, or some other precious metal. And then, what is that metal really worth? It is only worth it's rarity and difficulty to extract from the ground. But then, why is that worth anything? What is really king?


















Answer key from the back of the book: Pussy. If you don't have it on you, you don't have it.

And these same colonists deliberately set up a legal system in the new country that they founded which drew from what they considered to be the best parts of both common-law and civil-law systems. Specifically, they decided that the civil courts (which typically hear disputes between two private parties, with the goal of providing redress) would function under the common law, while the criminal courts would function under a statutory system.

This was necessary in order to correct what they felt to be a common injustice, namely that a person should not be held criminally liable for any act which, until that time, could not unambiguously be known to be a criminal offense! Were it any other way, you or I might well be prosecuted and jailed for any number of acts, such as wearing unfashionable shoes or crossing state lines while carrying legally-purchased whiskey for the purpose of employing the services of a veterinary abortionist on a Sunday.



EDIT: It should also be noted that your characterization of the English legal system during the American colonial era as free of statutory law is incorrect. The English had also begun to codify their criminal laws into statues at that time, and some of these statues were adopted almost verbatim into the early US Codes. Examples here would be the Fraudulent Conveyances Act (1571) and the Statue of Frauds (1677).




In the hands of a corrupt authority, any legal framework can be used to tyrannize the masses.

At least in a statutory-law framework, the consensus of an elected legislative body independent from the judiciary is required in order to criminalize an act.

I didn't mean to say that there was zero statute law in England <1776...

While true, I reckon that centralized authority (statue law et al), produces centralized tyranny that is harder to escape from than localized tyranny. De-centralized authority with no legal barriers to moving (such as immigration laws), produces a modicum of competition between states. e.g. if you decide the CA gov't sucks you pack up and leave for NV. However the greater the number of laws and taxes from the central gov't (D.C.) there are, the less difference there will be between NV and CA.

The same type of "consensus" that says you should go to jail if you have certain bits of plant matter in your pocket. I'd prefer to be subjected to the consensus of a jury of my peers.

Quite to the contrary. Statutory law, by its very nature, is subject to review by many levels of Appeals Courts- State, District, and Federal Supreme. Laws which are truly unjust and unconstitutional are routinely struck down by this mechanism, and convictions made under them reversed.

Without such a body of codified law, a far greater share of "unjust" convictions would go unresolved, for there would be no underlying basis for their resolution.


Or, put another way, what you are suggesting was very specifically rebelled against by men who had experienced it first-hand under what they considered to be a tyrannical government.





This is a very naive suggestion, and one decoupled from the general realities of modern life. While it may have been true during the frontier era, today I could not have simply packed up and left CA (except to go to the place I went to, NY) because collectively, those two places are where the jobs in my industry are.

It is worthy of note, incidentally, that California and New York collectively contain over 18% of the US population, despite representing only 4% of the number of states and 5.7% of the total land area of the country. Given that these two states are also the two most commonly cited by proponents of anarchy as examples of bad government, then by your logic, Americans disproportionately express a preference for being persecuted by tyrants.



Nor were NV and CA intended by The Founders to be completely autonomous and different from one another. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution) states that "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

In modern times, this power is exercised to force one state to recognize the validity of common-law marriages in another state (where common-law marriage is not generally recognized) for the purposes of divorce proceedings, for the enforcement of protective orders (eg: restraining orders) issued by one state by the police and courts of another, and most recently, by homosexual couples legally married in one state seeking recognition of same (eg: for tax purposes, health insurance, etc) in another.





That is correct. And in those states in which the popular opinion now largely feels that the possession of this plant matter shall not be a jailable offense, this very same consensus is, even as we speak, eliminating these penalties.

Or, put another way, the system works. It's slow and inefficient, but it beats the alternative.

Minnesota Now Requires A Criminal Conviction Before People Can Lose Their Property To Forfeiture - Forbes

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1399642080

things just got a little more fair.

U.S. attorney general bans asset seizure by local police