.. no that is not what I want… so I must correct you that if I get my way that will not happen. Now read what I *really* said.

Besides his stern attitude to justice, do not forget God’s kindness and grace, something that is patently lacking from your collection of laws. We serve the living God of the Book, we do not serve a mere book.

“The law brings death, but the Spirit gives life”

My last blog-post ..RE: iMonk’s story about his Dad

Very perceptive Jason. And if people like Troll have their way, Aotearoa will soon be a police state with an infantilised citizenry who are too afraid to do what is right, because sociopaths can work the system to their advantage.

Michael Onfray is a refreshing change from atheists who want Christian morality without Christian beliefs. He is a committed hedonist who roundly condemns efforts to construct a morality where none exists.

Wars have historically lead to bigger government, less rights and liberties and rarely does this reverse after the supposed treat has disappeared. Because of WW2 Milton Freidman said the idea of centralization and the government being involved in industry jumped and never subsided. He says this was the greatest move towards over-government in western civilization.

Finally I would like to congratulate you for recognizing that theft in the name of a public benefit is still theft…even if the victim is supposed to benefit from it. Socialism is founded upon such false Ideas that are supposed to justify the use of force and the violation of individual rights. They think the end justifies the means….Corrupt!!!!

You have done a great thing here Madeleine. I will file this for future reference and go and check out your other common law property rights article (Part 2) which I have not had time to read.
Cheers!
P.S I might try and get to Auckland tomorrow nite for Matts discussion.

- Yes. Exactly. But you misinterpret what I mean by this. It is not binary. We will always sit somewhere upon this scale. I merely say that I err more towards the false positive’s side of the scale. For instance someone who is suspected of murder – even if it is not CERTAIN that they did it (ie. one extreme end of the scale) should still be questioned by the police. I was not proposing therefore “a reversal of the assumption that has undergirded free societies for centuries,” but was merely explaining where on the scale I place myself…. it would only be a reversal if I placed myself at an extreme end – which I don’t. And even if it WAS a reversal… the fact that society happened to have supported a certain view for hundreds or even thousands of years is not an argument. You know that.

“I note also you complain about being insulted and falsely accused in here> I myself agree that you should not be falsely accused and insulted, but I guess some people in here simply have a different assumption, they accuse innocent people because they know that if they do so they are more likely to accuse those who deserve it. I wonder where they got that idea from?”

- you flatter me. I don’t think that I have had such an influence on society that they got this idea from me if that is your (rather odd) implication. Besides which – shouldn’t you judge them by their own purported standards rather than by mine? Perhaps I can insult people willy-nilly and not be a hypocrite (at least according to your straw man version of me) – but others are hypocritical to do so. Think about it.

That of course is a reversal of the assumption that has undergirded free societies for centuries which is that the burden is on the protection of the innocent.

I note also you complain about being insulted and falsely accused in here> I myself agree that you should not be falsely accused and insulted, but I guess some people in here simply have a different assumption, they accuse innocent people because they know that if they do so they are more likely to accuse those who deserve it. I wonder where they got that idea from?
My last blog-post ..Has Science Disproved God? Thursday Night

I can assure you that is not the case – but thanks for making it personal (again) rather than talking about the issue.

“Oh, and troll we must remind you that you’ve still failed to show why the police should have taken this case to court.”

Basically we have a choice with the police. Either we minimize false positives (this case is a false positive) or we minimize false negatives. What this means is that the police are always going to arrest some people they should not, and at other times NOT arrest people they should. Personally I err towards minimizing false negatives, which means false positives are slightly higher, which unfortunately means some people will be inconvenienced and arrested for silly reasons. The pay off? People who actually *should* be arrested are a lot more likely to be arrested. Now – for those who *are* inconvenienced by being arrested for silly reasons we have the courts where I believe the equation should be reversed and we should now minimize false positives. In other words you may be arrested for silly reasons but you are unlikely to be convicted (as happened in this case by the way). You may disagree with my preferences (which is all they really are) but there is a logic behind my beliefs.

Now if you want to respond PLEASE reply to what I have actually said unlike several people who find insulting me to be a good substitute for reason. Hint: it isn’t.

May be Troll is a school bully him/herself.

Bullies are cowards anyway. Some real men would really punch you in the rib if you do the same thing as an adult.