Tag: Consent

Man Sentenced to Prison for Rape With No Hard Evidence

Othman Mekhloufi | @othmanmekhloufi

On January 10th, 2019, a mostly female jury found Albert N. Wilson, a 23-year-old University of Kansas student, guilty of raping a woman he met at a nightclub near campus.

Douglas County District Judge Sally Pokorny sentenced him to 147 months (over twelve years) in prison.

On the night of September 10th, 2016, Mr. Wilson met his accuser at The Jayhawk Cafe nightclub, known as the Hawk. They were in line to get into the ‘Boom Boom Room’, a dark and crowded dance floor in the basement of the club.

At the time, Mr. Wilson was 20 years of age and used a friend’s ID to enter the nightclub. The accuser, a then 17-year old high school student, was not asked for identification by the club at all.

Continue reading “Man Sentenced to Prison for Rape With No Hard Evidence”

Advertisements

3 Times Anarcho-Capitalist Private Law Has Worked

By Mason Mohon | @mohonofficial

Everything is scarce. Time, space, human bodies, and all resources are limited. For each of them, there is a finite amount. Because of this finite amount, there are bound to be conflicts over who gets to use what. There will be conflict over who gets to use a piece of land or use a resource.

Continue reading “3 Times Anarcho-Capitalist Private Law Has Worked”

The Difference Between Implied and Explicit Consent

By Joshua D. Glawson | United States

Conflicts between ‘implied’ and ‘explicit’ consent are numerous and ongoing in the legal world, ordinary life scenarios, and the academic world. At times, the two ideas are seemingly conjoined in the contracts, words, and philosophy of various people, we even sometimes find both ideas residing within our own thoughts and speech as it pertains the very same subject or topic. It is first important to discern the differences between ‘implied’ and ‘explicit,’ and to find out where we stand on certain issues as explicitly as possible. Some of the reasons for finding our explicit thoughts is so that we can better understand our own views, possibly have our views changed for the better, or to have a firm understanding when discussing the particular topic with others so they do not get confused with our own stance.

What does ‘implied’ mean?

For something to be implied is to be implicit; that is to say, the topic, subject, or circumstance is capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed. It can also be a form of potential, where the ‘implied’ standing is involved in the nature or essence of something though not specifically revealed, expressed, or developed. This suggests that not every specification is listed, but there are some cues to indicate the establishment of the consent between two parties.

Some people will naturally confuse the subtle differences between ‘implied’ and ‘tacit.’ The difference is that to be ‘tacit’ it is expressed or carried on without words or speech, or implied or indicated as by an act or by silence but not actually expressed. A ‘tacit’ contract, for example, would be a contract established from non-verbal cues and exchanges, where ‘implied’ could have had some words of exchange.

What are some examples of ‘implied’ consent?

Examples of ‘implied’ in the legal world run amok, but a specific example is found within the US Constitution, (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18), where there are not enough examples to provide for unknown situations where Congress, according to the Constitution, may require extra powers beyond that which are specifically, i.e. explicitly, spelled out within the legal document. These are known as the “implied powers,” found under the “necessary and proper” clause of the US Constitution. This, by no means, of course, indicates that I support such a clause, rather I am merely pointing out its place within current legal context; and, of course, there are difficulties in comparing this “contract” with private contracts between two tangible, voluntary, free, parties, as opposed to a “contract” set long before our birth without our ability to explicitly consent or negotiate, etc. By merely being a citizen of the US, or arguably even within the US, people are said to be implicitly empowering Congress to act accordingly to fulfill both their explicitly stated powers and their implied, “necessary and proper,” powers.

In the ordinary world of daily life, implied consent can be seen in our ordinary interactions with our friends and loved ones. Such an example may be our exclusivity to joke about certain things, kiss or touch, or being a friend that is able to talk about anything under the sun with, depending on your various relationships with these people. Of course, it would also depend on whether explicit statements have been made to determine certain circumstances or behaviors. Nevertheless, our ordinary and ongoing interactions continue to perpetuate the implied understanding of that relationship between you and the other person.

In the academic world, such as that of political science or philosophy, there are certain implied thoughts and viewpoints that every author and speaker will provide throughout their particular or general work. An example of implied “consent” may be more difficult to find as a general statement, but ‘implied’ thoughts are normal. Some writers in politics or philosophy will align their views with other well-known figures, and the author will continuously hone in on the particular characteristics of that other writer or philosopher and their respective ideas.

 

What does ‘explicit’ mean?

To be ‘explicit’ means to be fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity, leaving no question as to meaning or intent. ‘Explicit’ is to also be fully developed or formulated, which is why we should continuously push our ideas in order to have them fully developed while ridding ourselves of contradictions, doubts, or inconsistencies.

What are some examples of ‘explicit’ consent?

It is much easier to find examples of ‘explicit’ consent in the world, as they are clearly stated and specified. For example, when people get married, they specify their conditions and with whom. In law, ‘explicit’ consent is found in contract law (K) when terms are specified in the mutual agreement. In politics, much like that of contract law, there are specified conditions. Although, the political world can also be much murkier and fogged by other circumstances making it easier to change later for the good, but mostly for the worse, as history has shown over and over.

How can there be conflicts between ‘implied’ and ‘explicit’ consent, or other variants of the two terms?

One of the most common ways that ‘implied’ and ‘explicit’ get convoluted is when they are in direct conflict with one another. For example, a philosopher may explicitly state that they do not believe in one thing, but their entire work reflects that they, indeed, do ‘implicitly’ support what they are explicitly saying they are against. For example, a philosopher, such as Kant, has stated that his ideas are not subjective, and yet much of what he stated throughout his work was, in fact, subjective to the person living their life (Metaphysics of Morals). Another example is that of French Socialist economist, Thomas Piketty, who specified that he was not a Marxist and in no way supporting Communist rhetoric, yet throughout his work, even in his title, he is espousing Marxist ideology and economic philosophy (Capital in the Twenty-First Century).

Throughout history, this has also occurred, especially under the guise of government. For example, when a politician will ‘explicitly’ say they are not attempting to remove Civil Liberties, but every policy they sign ‘implicitly’ removes Civil Liberties. This has been an ongoing issue throughout politics and history around the world, and specifically throughout US history from its very inception.

What can we do?

The best solution is to first start with our own core beliefs while assessing what is valuable to our standing in the world. If you are truly against theft, murder, rape, molestation, coercion, etc. as I am, analyze all aspects of your beliefs and understanding of the world to purge any contradictory beliefs to those core values. This is all subjective to the person, yes. However, I solemnly believe most people believe these things to be wrong and the antithesis to Liberty and to a purely prosperous life filled with genuine love for fellow humans. Perhaps I am still putting more faith in humanity than I should, but I am confident that putting total control into the hands of a few so-called “elite” is much more dangerous.

Do more to read and think critically about the world around you, the philosophy you read, the statistics presented to you, and be critical of the continued destructive path of more laws. Find ways to solve social and political issues through free and voluntary means, as opposed to force and coercion. Once we have sought our own non-contradictory understanding of how the world is and how it ought to be, we can move forward in our own lives and hope to provide a positive influence on those around us as we continue to help one another.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Morality Should Not Determine Legality

By Ian Brzeski | United States

For many people, morality is relatively subjective. To some, sex before marriage is a sin, and to others, it is perfectly reasonable. Some people love taking drugs, and others are appalled by them. People of all kinds differ in their values on these issues and on many others such as access to guns, homosexuality, and prostitution. Whether or not committing a particular act falls under someone’s values, everyone should realize that committing victimless “crimes” should not be punished by the state.

What are Victimless Crimes?

In essence, a victimless crime is a “crime” under the law where there is no identifiable victim. It is performed when no other person or party is involved in the action taking place beside the perpetrator or consenting adults. Consuming drugs is a prime example of a victimless crime. The only party that person would potentially be harming in that act alone would be himself. He or she willingly chose to engage in this act; thus, there is no victim. The same goes for that person when they engage in obtaining the drugs through consensual means. These means include joining into a contract with his “dealer.” The two adults here both agree on terms in this exchange. The dealer provides the drugs, and the consumer provides a means of exchange for his desired goods, presumably money.

Freedom of Choice

Locking people up like caged animals for committing victimless, nonviolent crime is complete nonsense. It does not matter what a person’s morality says about drugs. One could think that they are awful and downright immoral, but that does not change the fact people can do as they please as long as no other person is harmed or brought into unwanted affairs. Those people, out of their own free will, chose to engage in that exchange and then go on with their lives as they please. Nobody was hurt, and everything was purely consensual. Fundamentally, it is not that much different than going out and buying groceries.

If you do not like drugs, don’t do them. Nobody forces you to take them, and if somebody does force you, then that is a crime in itself as it takes away your freedom to make those decisions for yourself. Just as people want the freedom to decide to say no to drugs, others should also have the freedom to take drugs without fear of being imprisoned by the state. It is inconceivable to think that drug abusers belong in a prison cell. Drug abusers need help, not prison time.

While incredible amounts of funding have gone towards decreasing drug use, the drug addiction rate is the same as it was about 40-50 years ago. Instead of spending over a trillion dollars in incarcerating these people, spending should be focused on helping these addicts. Portugal decided to do this about 17 years ago, decriminalizing all drug use and focused their spending on rehabilitation for drug users. At one point, about 1% of Portugal’s population were drug abusers, and now that number has been halved.

The same decriminalization practices should be used for prostitution, pornography, owning guns, and any other victimless crime. If you do not like any of these things, then don’t partake in them- it’s as simple as that. Not to mention that decriminalizing and accepting all of these would make them safer. No more back alley pimps who abuse and drug their prostitutes to make a quick buck. No more sketchy and untrusting drug dealers who may lace their products. No more massive cartels as the majority of their products would be legally imported in the country; thus, losing the majority of their funding. Everything listed here would run as a legitimate business which would then promote competition, naturally making these businesses safer. Interdiction on all of these things is no different from the prohibition of alcohol, and we all know how well that went.

Legalization in Amsterdam

I recently went to Amsterdam where marijuana, certain psychedelic drugs, and prostitution are all legal. The prostitution is all kept in one sector of the city, known as the Red Light District. The Red Light District was bustling with people and seemed as if it were just another business center. These businesses are basically “forced” to care for the health of their laborers as they would have an incentive to because it would be horrible for business if one of their workers had some disease such as an STD. One could find drugs anywhere, but nobody is forcing others to take them. If you want to smoke a blunt, then you can, and if you do not want to, then you do not have to.

The overall cleanliness of the city was surprising. One would think that by allowing drug use and prostitution, the city would be pretty dirty, but that is not true in the slightest. Homeless people and garbage on the streets were not to be found, at least from my experience. Amsterdam has experimented with decriminalizing some of these victimless crimes, and it seems to be going pretty well for them.

Victimless crimes are not real crimes. People should not be punished for doing things that do not harm others or their property, and we must put an end to decades of government control over people’s choice of how they treat their bodies.


Get awesome merchandise and help end the media duopoly by donating to 71 Republic on Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

It’s Time to Ensure Equal Standards for Government and the People

By Ryan Lau | @agorisms

In today’s political landscape, government and the people do not have an equal amount of power. Such a notion really is indisputable, considering the fact that our military just aided Saudi forces by supplying weapons and mid-air support to their air strikes, which bombed and killed a bus full of schoolchildren in Yemen Thursday. However, not one of them will face a prison sentence, or any real punishment at all. In fact, most of this, like the planes, flew under the radar of the people entirely.

Clearly, if an individual did this, he or she would be looking at a nasty punishment, likely involving the electric chair. But ironically, the death penalty is also an example of government carrying more rights than the people. As the average time spent on death row exceeds 15 years, it is safe to say that this is no act of self defense. Thus, it is yet another legal ability government has, but the people do not. It’s darkly and bitterly funny how the state sees killing. They kill people who kill people, because killing people is wrong, right? Got it. How else would you deal with someone who does something so morally reprehensible as killing someone?

Now, the list of government privileges that the people do not have goes far beyond these two. For example, the government may confiscate your land through eminent domain, then take and sell back your right to fish on that land. Imagining the consequences of an individual trying to do the same to his neighbor leads down a wicked path to the end of a shotgun barrel, not to mention a potential for some more government-approved killing as well.

Despite this clear power imbalance, the most crucial part of the Declaration of Independence directly warns against such an atrocity.

To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. 

The Consent of the Governed clause is a tremendously important segment of the document. Though not legally binding, it establishes an important precedent for the types of government that may exist.

Essentially, this clause states that the people may choose what powers they give to the state. Power begins with the people, and then, they may delegate them to the state at will. But how can the people delegate powers that they don’t have in the first place?

The question stumped Vermont’s very own Senator Bernie Sanders, in a 2008 interview. The independent, on a YouTube show with Jan Helfeld, agreed that all just powers of the government are derived from the people. But then, after some back and forth questioning, Sanders admits that people do not have the right to initiate force against others (sans self defense).

As Helfeld excellently questions after this, how can the people delegate this right, if they do not have it? If the people give their rights to the government, and that is the only form of just government, how does a just government obtain rights that the people did not have, and thus, were entirely unable to give away? This sends Sanders, and likely many others, into a tailspin.

The senator admits that the people give the state the power to make war and roads. Then, he goes so far as to say yes, people can give government rights they do not have. However, this is entirely contradictory to his previous statement.

In no way is Bernie Sanders alone in his clearly contradictory beliefs in this manner. He just happened to be unlucky enough to get caught under the net of Helfeld’s tough questioning. When it comes down to it, all 100 senators have the same ideals as Sanders, in this way. All claim a desire for a just and representative government, as outlined by the founding documents of our country. Yet, all support a government with rights that the people do not have.

Last March, the Senate voted, 55-44, against a treaty that would have made it more difficult for the president to place troops in Yemen without congressional oversight. In fact, Sanders, along with Senators Mike Lee and Chris Murphy, were on the right side of this one. Had the bill passed, Congress would have needed to approve any further military action. But in this case, even the right side ignores the real issues.

Regardless of whether or not the president or Congress is stationing troops in Yemen, there is a body forcing troops to go to Yemen. Yes, it is true that the draft is not currently active, and those in Yemen are volunteers. But the Senate made sure in 2016 that they had the power to round up the troops if necessary. When the civilians do that one, it’s called kidnapping.

Ultimately, it matters little whether the men (and women now) in Yemen are volunteer or recruit. Likewise, it matters little in the 39% of the world’s countries the United States is fighting terror in. Spoiler alert, terror is winning. With each civilian casualty, terror spreads. And as it all happens, the government approves it, clearly without a justification.

Thomas Jefferson was an imperfect man, owning slaves and having an affair with at least one of them. His public policy was also, in many cases, hypocritical, as his distaste for noble blood matched his equal belief that white blood was superior. But, when it comes to the Declaration of Independence, the third president is spot on.

A government, if it is to exist at all, must derive its rights from the consent of the governed (not from 51% of them, either). Today’s state entirely ignores this principle. In many cases such as with Senator Sanders, our elected officials do not even realize their own hypocrisy. It is time to take the government back, end the wars, bring the rights back to the people, and eliminate those rights which do not exist at all. It is time to ensure equal standards exist between government and the people. The future of our country and the lives of those abroad depend on it.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source